Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Crop Improvement Adoption And Impact Of Improved Varieties In Food Crops In Subsaharan Africa Tomas S Walker
Crop Improvement Adoption And Impact Of Improved Varieties In Food Crops In Subsaharan Africa Tomas S Walker
- 1. Crop Improvement AdoptionAnd Impact Of Improved Varieties In Food Crops In Subsaharan Africa Tomas S Walker download https://ebookbell.com/product/crop-improvement-adoption-and- impact-of-improved-varieties-in-food-crops-in-subsaharan-africa- tomas-s-walker-5265066 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are somerecommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Crop Improvement New Approaches And Modern Techniques 1st Edition Ibrahim Ilker Ozyigit https://ebookbell.com/product/crop-improvement-new-approaches-and- modern-techniques-1st-edition-ibrahim-ilker-ozyigit-4289852 Crop Improvement Under Adverse Conditions 1st Edition Gregory Graff https://ebookbell.com/product/crop-improvement-under-adverse- conditions-1st-edition-gregory-graff-4290218 Crop Improvement Sustainability Through Leadingedge Technology 1st Edition Siti Nor Akmar Abdullah https://ebookbell.com/product/crop-improvement-sustainability-through- leadingedge-technology-1st-edition-siti-nor-akmar-abdullah-6790064 Maize Cropimprovement Production Protection And Post Harvest Technology 1st Edition A Solaimalai Author P Anantharaju Author S Irulandi Author M Theradimani Author https://ebookbell.com/product/maize-cropimprovement-production- protection-and-post-harvest-technology-1st-edition-a-solaimalai- author-p-anantharaju-author-s-irulandi-author-m-theradimani- author-11908868
- 3. Advanced Crop ImprovementVolume 1 1st Edition Aamir Raina Mohammad Rafiq Wani https://ebookbell.com/product/advanced-crop-improvement-volume-1-1st- edition-aamir-raina-mohammad-rafiq-wani-60023934 Genotyping By Sequencing For Crop Improvement Humira Sonah Vinod Goyal https://ebookbell.com/product/genotyping-by-sequencing-for-crop- improvement-humira-sonah-vinod-goyal-47187912 Omics Approaches For Sugarcane Crop Improvement Rajarshi Kumar Gaur https://ebookbell.com/product/omics-approaches-for-sugarcane-crop- improvement-rajarshi-kumar-gaur-47214918 Qtl Mapping In Crop Improvement Present Progress And Future Perspectives Shabir Hussain Wani https://ebookbell.com/product/qtl-mapping-in-crop-improvement-present- progress-and-future-perspectives-shabir-hussain-wani-48774188 Biotechnology And Crop Improvement Tissue Culture And Transgenic Approaches Nitish Kumar https://ebookbell.com/product/biotechnology-and-crop-improvement- tissue-culture-and-transgenic-approaches-nitish-kumar-50501720
- 6. Crop Improvement, Adoption,and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa
- 8. Crop Improvement, Adoption,and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa Edited by Thomas S. Walker Independent Researcher, Fletcher, North Carolina, USA and Jeffrey Alwang Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,Virginia, USA Published by CGIAR and CAB International
- 9. CABI is atrading name of CAB International CABI CABI Nosworthy Way 38 Chauncy Street Wallingford Suite 1002 Oxfordshire OX10 8DE Boston, MA 02111 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 800 552 3083 (toll free) Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org © CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers 2015. All rights reserved. CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate CGIAR copyright materials and all other queries on rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Office of the General Counsel CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers Avenue Agropolis, 34394 Montpellier Cedex 5, FRANCE. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Crop improvement, adoption and impact of improved varieties in food crops in Sub-Saharan Africa / edited by Thomas S. Walker, Jeffrey Alwang. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-78064-401-1 (hbk : alk. paper) 1. Food crops--Breeding-- Africa, Sub-Saharan. 2. Crop improvement--Africa, Sub-Saharan. 3. Agricultural productivity--Africa, Sub-Saharan. 4. Agriculture--Research--Africa, Sub-Saharan. I. Walker, T. S., editor. II. Alwang, Jeffrey R., editor. SB175.C75 2015 338.10967--dc23 2015025379 Published by CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers and CAB International ISBN-13: 978 1 78064 401 1 (CABI) The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by the CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centersin preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers. Commissioning editor: Joris Roulleau Editorial assistant: Emma McCann Production editor: James Bishop Typeset by SPi, Pondicherry, India Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
- 10. Contents Contributors ix Acronyms andAbbreviations xi Foreword xv Preface xvii Acknowledgements xxv Part 1 Background 1 The Importance of Generating and Documenting Varietal Change in Sub-Saharan Africa 1 T.S. Walker and J. Alwang 2 Investments in and Impacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 7 J. Alwang 3 Relevant Concepts and Hypotheses in Assessing the Performance of Food Crop Improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa 24 T.S. Walker 4 Coverage, Data and Methods in Assessing the Performance of Food Crop Improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa 35 T.S. Walker 5 Genetic Improvement of the Crops in the 1998 Initiative: Historical Context and Exploratory Analysis 44 T.S. Walker Part 2 Analysing Varietal Generation, Adoption and Turnover in Food Crops in SUB-Saharan Africa 6 The Effectiveness of Crop Improvement Programmes from the Perspectives of Varietal Output and Adoption: Cassava, Cowpea, Soybean and Yam in Sub-Saharan Arica and Maize in West and Central Africa 74 A.D. Alene, T. Abdoulaye, J. Rusike, V. Manyong and T.S. Walker v
- 11. vi Contents 7 Assessing theEffectiveness of Agricultural RD for Groundnut, Pearl Millet, Pigeonpea and Sorghum in West and Central Africa and East and Southern Africa 123 J. Ndjeunga, K. Mausch and F. Simtowe 8 The Performance of Bean Improvement Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output and Adoption 148 R.A. Muthoni and R. Andrade 9 The Effectiveness of Potato and Sweetpotato Improvement Programmes from the Perspectives of Varietal Output and Adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa 164 R. Labarta 10 Evaluating the Key Aspects of the Performance of Genetic Improvement in Priority Food Crops and Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Rice 183 A. Diagne, F.M. Kinkingninhoun-Medagbe, E. Amovin-Assagba, T. Nakelse, K. Sanni and A. Toure 11 Assessing the Effectiveness of Maize and Wheat Improvement from the Perspectives of Varietal Output and Adoption in East and Southern Africa 206 H. De Groote, Z. Gitonga, S. Mugo and T.S. Walker 12 Varietal Output and Adoption in Barley, Chickpea, Faba Bean, Field Pea and Lentil in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan 228 Y.A. Yigezu, C. Yirga and A. Aw-Hassan 13 Scientific Strength in Rice Improvement Programmes, Varietal Outputs and Adoption of Improved Varieties in South Asia 239 S. Pandey, Ma. L. Velasco and T.S. Yamano 14 Analysing Scientific Strength and Varietal Generation, Adoption and Turnover in Peninsular India: The Case of Sorghum, Pearl Millet, Chickpea, Pigeonpea and Groundnut 265 D. Kumara Charyulu, M.C.S. Bantilan, A. Raja Laxmi and D. Shyam Moses Part 3 Assessing Impact 15 Maize Technologies and Rural Poverty Reduction in Ethiopia 294 D. Zeng, J. Alwang, G.W. Norton, B. Shiferaw, M. Jaleta and C. Yirga 16 Impacts of Improved Bean Varieties on Poverty and Food Security in Uganda and Rwanda 314 C. Larochelle, J. Alwang, G.W. Norton, E. Katungi and R.A. Labarta 17 The Diffusion and Impact of Improved Food Crop Varieties in Sub-Saharan Africa 338 K. Fuglie and J. Marder Part 4 Syntheses and Lessons Learned about How to Carry Out Future Research 18 Varietal Generation and Output 370 T.S. Walker, A. Alene, J. Ndjuenga, R. Labarta, Y. Yigezu, A. Diagne, R. Andrade, R. Muthoni Andriatsitohaina, H. De Groote, K. Mausch, C. Yirga, F. Simtowe, E. Katungi, W. Jogo, M. Jaleta, S. Pandey and D. Kumara Charyulu
- 12. Contents vii 19 VarietalAdoption, Outcomes and Impact 388 T.S. Walker, J. Alwang, A. Alene, J. Ndjuenga, R. Labarta, Y. Yigezu, A. Diagne, R. Andrade, R. Muthoni Andriatsitohaina, H. De Groote, K. Mausch, C. Yirga, F. Simtowe, E. Katungi, W. Jogo, M. Jaleta, S. Pandey and D. Kumara Charyulu 20 Validating Adoption Estimates Generated by Expert Opinion and Assessing the Reliability of Adoption Estimates with Different Methods 406 T.S. Walker 21 Implications for Monitoring Progress and Assessing Impacts 420 J. Alwang Index 437
- 14. Tahirou Abdoulaye, IITA,PMB 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. E-mail: [email protected] Arega D. Alene, IITA-Malawi, P.O. Box 30258, Lilongwe 3, Malawi. E-mail: [email protected] Jeffrey Alwang, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, 251-I Hutcheson Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Eyram Amovin-Assagba, Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), 01 B.P. 2031, Cotonou, Benin. E-mail: [email protected] Robert Andrade, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota (Formerly of CIAT), 248D Ruttan Hall 1994 Buford Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Aden Aw-Hassan, ICARDA, Social, Economic and Policy Research Program (SEPRP), International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 950764, Amman 11195, Jordan. E-mail: [email protected] M.C.S. Bantilan, Research Program on Markets, Institutions, and Policy, ICRISAT Center, Patancheru 502 324, Telangana, India. E-mail: [email protected] Aliou Diagne,UniversiteGastonBerger(formerlyof AfricaRice),StLouis,Senegal.E-mail:aliouwork@ gmail.com Keith Fuglie, Resource and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 355 E. Street, Southwest, Room 6-178, Washington, DC 20024-3221, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Zachary Gitonga, CIMMYT, PO Box 1041-00621, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] Hugo De Groote, Socioeconomics Program CIMMYT, PO Box 1041-00621, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] Moti Jaleta, CIMMYT, P. O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethopia. E-mail: [email protected] Wellington Jogo, Bioversity International, PO Box 24384, Kampala, Uganda. E-mail: [email protected] Enid Katungi, Pan Africa Bean Research Alliance, CIAT, PO Box 6247, Kampala, Uganda. E-mail: [email protected] Florent M. Kinkingninhoun-Medagbe, Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), 01 B.P. 2031, Cotonou, Benin. E-mail: [email protected] Deevi Kumara Charyulu, Research Program on Markets, Institutions, and Policy, ICRISAT Center, Patancheru 502 324, Telangana, India. E-mail: [email protected] Ricardo A. Labarta, Decision Policy Analysis Research Area, CIAT (formerly of CIP), Km 17, Recta Cali-Palmira, Cali, Colombia. E-mail: [email protected] Catherine Larochelle, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, 315 Hutcheson Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Contributors ix
- 15. x Contributors A. RajaLaxmi, Research Program on Markets, Institutions, and Policy, ICRISAT Center, Patancheru 502 324, Telangana, India. E-mail: [email protected] Victor Manyong, IITA, PO Box 34441, Dar es Saalam, Tanzania. E-mail: [email protected] Jacob Marder, Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Kai Mausch, ICRISAT-Nairobi, c/o The World Agroforestry Center, ICRAF House, United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, PO Box 39063, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] Stephen Mugo, Global Maize Program, CIMMYT-Kenya, P.O. Box 1041-00621, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] Rachel Muthoni Andriatsitohaina, Pan Africa Bean Research Alliance, CIAT, PO Box 6247, Kampala, Uganda. E-mail: [email protected] Tebila Nakelse, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, 343 Waters Hall, Manhattan, Kansas, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Jupiter Ndjeunga, ICRISAT West and Central Africa, PO Box 12404, Niamey, Niger, West Africa. E-mail: [email protected] George W. Norton, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, 205-B Hutcheson Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Sushil Pandey, Independent Researcher (Formerly of IRRI), 10 Roseville St, White Plains, Quezon City, Metro Manila 1110, Philippines. E-mail: [email protected] Joseph Rusike, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Formerly of IITA), PO Box 66773, West- lands 00800, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] Kayode Sanni, African Agricultural Technology Foundation, PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] Bekele Shiferaw, Partnership for Economic Policy (formerly CIMMYT-Nairobi), PO Box 2692, Nairobi 00621, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] D. Shyam Moses, Research Program on Markets, Institutions, and Policy, ICRISAT Center, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. E-mail: [email protected] Franklin Simtowe, CIMMYT, PO Box 104-00621, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected] Ali Toure, Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), 01 B.P. 2031, Cotonou, Benin. E-mail: [email protected] Maria Lourdes Velasco, IRRI, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila 1301, Philippines. E-mail: l.velasco @irri.org Thomas S. Walker, 506 Windsor Forest Court, Fletcher, North Carolina, USA. E-mail: walkerts@ msu.edu Takashi Yamano, IRRI, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila 1301, Philippines. E-mail: t.yamano@irri. org Yigezu A.Yigezu, Social, Economic and Policy Research Program (SEPRP), International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 950764, Amman 11195, Jordan. E-mail: [email protected] Chilot Yirga, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, PO Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. E-mail: [email protected] Di Zeng, Global Food Studies, The University of Adelaide (formerly of Virginia Tech), Adelaide, SA, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
- 16. Acronyms and Abbreviations AGRAAlliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (BMGF) AgSSIP Agricultural Services Subsector Investment Project, World Bank AICRP All-India Coordinated Research Projects AMU Texas AM University, College Station, TX, USA ARC Agriculture Research Corporation (Sudanese national program) ARIMA Autoregressive integrated moving average ASARECA Association of Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa ASTI Agricultural Sciences and Technology Indicators ATE Average treatment effect ATT Average treatment effect on the treated ATU Average effect on the untreated BMGF Bill Melinda Gates Foundation BSc Bachelor of Science degree CATIE Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (Costa Rica) CAR Central African Republic CBB Cassava bacterial blight CBO Community-based organization CBSD Cassava brown streak disease CCC Country-by-crop combinations CGI Crop genetic improvement CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CG Center Institute within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGM Cassava green mite CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (International Center for Tropical Agriculture) CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) CIP Centro Internacional de La Papa (International Potato Center) CIRAD Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Agricultural Research for Development) (France) CMD Cassava mosaic virus disease CRP Collaborative research project CRS Catholic Relief Services xi
- 17. xii Acronyms andAbbreviations CRSP Collaborative Research Support Program of USAID (renamed Innovation Laboratory) CSA Ethiopian Central Statistics Authority CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Ghana) CVRC Central Varietal Release Committee (India) DFID Department for International Development (UK) DGRST Delegation of Scientific and Technical Research (DR Congo) DIIVA Diffusion and Impact of Improved Varieties in Africa DUS Distinctness, uniformity and stability (testing) EAP Escuela Agricola Panamericana Zamorano (Zamorano Pan-American Agricultural School) EARRNET Eastern Africa Root Research Network ECABREN Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EE Expert elicitation EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazil) ESA East and Southern Africa FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database FARO Federal Agricultural Research Oryzae (Nigeria) FE Fixed effects FHIA Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (Honduras Foundation for Agricultural Research) FOFIFA National Center for Rural Development (Madagascar) FTE Full-time equivalent GDP Gross domestic product GIS Geographic information systems GLCI Great Lakes Cassava Initiative GMM Generalized method of moments GMO Genetically modified organisms GOI Government of India G´E Genotype by environmental (interaction) ha Hectare HDDS Household dietary diversity score HH Household survey HPRC Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (ICRISAT) HYV High-yielding varieties IARC International Agricultural Research Center ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas ICRAF International Center for Agroforestry ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture ILRI International Livestock Research Institute INSAH Institute du Sahel INTSTORMIL International Sorghum and Millet Innovation Laboratories of USAID IRAT Institut de Recherches Agronomiques Tropicales IRHO Institut de Recherche pour Les Huiles et Oleagineux (France) IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISAR Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research
- 18. Acronyms and Abbreviationsxiii IV Instrumental variable (used in statistical analysis) IVT Institute of Horticultural Plant Breeding (Netherlands) JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KSC Kenya Seed Company LAC Latin America and Caribbean LIV Local instrumental variable MAE Mean absolute error MAPE Mean absolute percentage error MAS Marker-assisted selection MDG Millennium Development Goals MSc Masters of science degree MTE Marginal treatment effect MV Modern variety NARO National Agricultural Research Organization (Uganda) NARS National agricultural research system NBRP National BioResource Project NCRI NEPAD National Cereals Research Institute (Badeggi, Nigeria) New Partnership for Africa’s Development NERICA New Rice for Africa (AfricaRice) NGO Non-governmental organization NISR National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda NRA Nominal rate of assistance NSA National seed authority NSCN National Seed Company of Malawi NVRC National variety release committee NVRS National Vegetable Research Station – Wellsbourne Project (UK) OLS Ordinary least squares OPV Open-pollinated varieties PABRA Pan-African Bean Research Alliance PhD Doctor of Philosophy degree PPP Purchasing Power Parity Dollars PRAPACE Regional potato and sweetpotato improvement network in Eastern and Central Africa (Acronym in French) PRONAF Project for Cowpeas in Africa PVS Participatory varietal selection QPM Quality protein maize RAB Research Agriculture Bureau (Rwanda) RE Random effects model SABRN The Southern Africa Bean Research Network SACCAR Southern Africa Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research and Training SADC Southern African Development Community SADC–GLIP Southern African Development Community – Grain Legume Improvement Program SAFGRAD Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development Project SAT Semi-Arid Tropics SAU State Agricultural Universities SPIA Standing Panel on Impact Assessment SARRNET Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network SASHA Sweetpotato Action for Security and Health in Africa SIMLESA Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
- 19. SSCA State SeedCertification Agency (India) SSDC State Seed Development Corporation (India) SVRC State Varietal Release Committee (India) SYs Scientist years TE Treatment effect TFP Total factor productivity TIA Trabalho de Inquerito (Mozambique national survey) Tifton University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA TRIVSA Tracking Improved Varieties in South Asia UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development VCU Value for cultivation and use WAAPP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program WCA Western and Central Africa WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association WECABREN West and Central Africa Bean Research Network xiv Acronyms and Abbreviations
- 20. Foreword The simple ideathat better seeds can change the lives of poor farmers has proven to be so powerful and enduring that efforts to increase the spread of improved crop varieties have now been at the core of agricultural development for more than 50 years. The early progress in breeding high-yielding semi-dwarf rice and wheat varieties provided the rationale for creating the CGIAR research system and for investing in national agricultural research systems around the world. How different would the progress in delivering improved varietal technologies over the past five decades have been had Dana Dalrymple not been collecting and analysing variety diffusion data during the 1970s and 1980s? Dalrymple’s data illustrating the temporal and geographic patterns of the Green Revolution uptake of modern varieties informed strategies to increase the impact of genetic improvement. Given the valuable insights provided by Dalrymple’s analysis, it remains a mystery how it is that this book represents just the second serious attempt in the past 30 years to develop a comprehensive picture of the diffusion of improved crop varieties in developing countries. Let us hope that the monitoring and analysis of diffusion becomes a routine and regular activity in future years. Crop Improvement, Adoption, and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa provides the most comprehensive, accurate and informative view of the spread of improved crop var- ieties in sub-Saharan Africa that has ever been produced.The coverage and quality of the data go well beyond anything available until now, and the attention given to verifying and improving data collec- tion methods sets a new standard in establishing the credibility of diffusion estimates. The studies in the book demonstrate that access to better seeds should remain a core concern for farmers, donors and governments. The book’s nuanced analysis also clearly illustrates the complexity of the story. While there has been progress in building the capacity of national crop breeding programmes, progress has been uneven across countries and crops. The diffusion and turnover of improved var- ieties shows even greater variability. Two of the more striking findings are that biotechnology and the private sector are playing surprisingly limited roles in delivering technological change to African farmers. Each of these roles needs to be better understood, and the data that this book makes publicly available provide a place to start in examining those roles. It is clear that despite the many institu- tional and scientific changes of recent years, conventional plant breeding conducted by CGIAR and national public sector scientists will be the source of improved genetics for the overwhelming major- ity of sub-Saharan farmers for the foreseeable future. And, despite the progress documented in this book, there remains much to be done to improve access to better crop technologies. The book also makes a strong case for the vital importance of continuing to monitor the generation and uptake of improved varieties. xv
- 21. xvi Foreword The dataand analysis contained in this volume greatly exceed the expectations of the original project design as first discussed in 2008. At that time, the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation’s newly created Agricultural Development division had just begun investing heavily in crop improvement in sub-Saharan Africa; yet little reliable recent data on variety uptake were available to guide those in- vestment decisions. The Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA), under the guidance of Derek Byerlee, Tim Kelley and Doug Gollin, should be congratulated for effectively organizing and execut- ing this valuable study. The editors and authors of this volume have done a wonderful job of produ- cing an important reference for agricultural development scholars, practitioners and investors. Greg Traxler Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington
- 22. Preface xvii Introduction For fifty yearsor so, development economists have been concerned with tracking the diffusion of im- proved agricultural technologies in the developing world. This focus is not based on mere curiosity. One reason for documenting diffusion is that it provides a simple measure of the success of agricul- tural research: when new crop varieties are taken up, or when new agronomic practices are adopted by farmers, it provides information about the effectiveness of the research and the success of re- search investments. Since a large fraction of agricultural research is publicly funded and since many genetic technologies diffuse freely, there may be no market signals of success. This makes diffusion data a valuable source of feedback for research planning. A second reason for documenting diffusion is that the resulting data can be used as an input into subsequent research intended to uncover the multidimensional impacts of the research – on productivity, on farm income, even on poverty and inequality. In addition, differential patterns ob- served across space and time can reveal underlying constraints or problems with technology take-up. Perhaps certain technologies fail to gain a foothold in particular agroecologies, or perhaps practices beloved by researchers have failed to spread widely. This information can feed back into the research process to inform scientists and shape further research. Indeed, information on diffusion can also inform the broader development community and can shape thinking about a wide set of potential constraints to adoption – resulting, perhaps, from failures in financial markets, extension and infor- mation, or simply reflecting high transport and transaction costs. Efforts to document the diffusion of improved crop varieties date back to the path-breaking work of Dana Dalrymple (1969, 1978, 1986a, 1986b). Dalrymple’s work drew on the cooperation of national research programmes and international scientists, and it provided the data on which were based many early analyses of the Green Revolution and its impacts. But for a variety of reasons, the important task of documenting diffusion was left to languish after Dalrymple’s last effort in 1986; the next major effort to document diffusion came more than a decade later. Under the leader- ship of Bob Evenson and drawing on the work of numerous collaborators, this study compiled data on the diffusion of improved varieties of 11 food crops, and it attempted to achieve global coverage. The project included three country case studies and several cross-cutting analyses and modelling exercises. A book (Evenson and Gollin, 2003) summarized the main findings of the project and es- tablished a 1998 baseline for crop varietal adoption and diffusion data. The current book emerges from an effort that represents the first major follow-up of the Even- son and Gollin baseline. It grows out of the DIIVA Project (Diffusion and Impact of Improved Varieties
- 23. xviii Preface in Africa),which was funded by the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) with the goal of assess- ing incremental progress in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in the years after 1998. The DIIVA Project (and the companion TRIVSA Project, focused on South Asia) have greatly advanced our knowledge of varietal adoption and diffusion, both by expanding knowledge about areas where diffusion was previously not well documented and by improving the methodologies used for measuring diffusion. The DIIVA Project was organized around three distinct activities: documenting key performance indicators of crop genetic improvement, collecting nationally representative survey data on varietal adoption, and assessing the impact of varietal change. The DIIVA Project covered 20 crops and 30 countries in SSA. Because some crops are locally absent or unimportant, the report does not account for every crop in every country; but coverage extends to 154 crop-by-country combinations that to- gether account for over 70% of the gross value of agricultural production in SSA. The study’s findings represent a major advance in terms of both the scope and quality of data for SSA. In the Evenson-led study of 2003, the available data on varietal adoption and diffusion in Africa were very limited. Many of these data were based on a combination of small-scale studies of adoption and rather vague regional estimates; the specific crop-by-country estimates of varietal adoption were mostly the product of interpolation and triangulation. The current study has enor- mously improved the quality of the evidence. In comparisons of adoption estimates between 1998 and 2010, it is important to note that the new data is of substantially higher quality than the old data. Thus, changes in the adoption estimates may simply reflect improvements in data quality, as opposed to changes in the underlying patterns of varietal use. We note that the entire database for the DIIVA study is publicly available, with full documenta- tion, on the ASTI website (http://www.asti.cgiar.org/diiva). We encourage readers and researchers to visit the website and to make use of the data. In addition to the data on MV adoption data, the database includes observations on varietal releases for each crop-by-country combination and data related to the number of full-time equivalent scientists engaged in crop improvement research. This will provide a benchmark at the level of individual countries and crops so that specific crop-by-coun- try combinations can be tracked and analysed over time. This of course assumes a comparable effort will be sustained over time at regular intervals so that progress can be assessed. Structure and Contribution This volume contains a wealth of information from the DIIVA study, beyond the varietal adoption estimates. For a start, it provides detailed information about the research investments in crop im- provement across SSA, at the level of individual commodities. This expands on the information pre- viously provided by ASTI and allows for an improved understanding of the differences in research intensity across commodities and countries. On adoption, the book provides a clear and carefully articulated statement of methods. Not all of the crop-country studies used the same approach to eliciting expert opinion on adoption, but many of the studies followed broadly similar methods. These are spelled out here, making for a sig- nificant improvement over the Evenson-Gollin study, which made little effort to impose uniformity of method on the different crop-country studies. The heart of the book is found in Part 2, which presents the commodity-based chapters. These offer a remarkable level of detail on the diffusion and adoption of different crops. Chapters 6−12 pre- sent data from the African studies of DIIVA. These are the major cereal crops (maize, sorghum, pearl millet, rice, wheat and barley); the main root crops (cassava, yam, sweetpotato, banana, and potato), and a number of different legume crops (cowpea, beans, groundnut, pigeonpea, soybean, chickpea, faba bean, field pea and lentil). Taken together, this set of chapters provides the most comprehensive examination of varietal adoption ever undertaken for Africa, and they will set the standard for future studies. These chapters shed light on wide disparities in research effort and success across crops and regions. The success of agricultural research has been uneven, and these chapters identify the chal- lenges and specific accomplishments that have given rise to differential adoption.
- 24. Preface xix Chapters 13and 14 provide a useful summary of findings from the TRIVSA study (Tracking Im- proved Varieties in South Asia), a companion to the DIIVA study that focused on South Asia.TheTRIV- SA study was undertaken more or less in parallel with DIIVA, using similar methods and data sources. Chapter 13 summarizes findings on rice improvement and adoption in South Asia, while Chapter 14 provides comparable results for sorghum, pearl millet, chickpea, pigeonpea and groundnut. In Part 3, the book provides three chapters that take up the challenge of moving from adoption estimates to impacts. When improved varieties diffuse, replacing previous varieties, there are potential benefits to both consumers and producers. The three studies in this part of the book show how the diffusion data can be used to estimate impacts. Chapters 15 and 16 provide methodologically similar estimates of the poverty impacts of technology improvements in maize (for the case of Ethiopia) and beans (for Uganda and Rwanda). These are important studies that are using frontier methods to take aim at very difficult questions. Estimating the poverty impacts of improved crop technologies is very difficult, as many of the benefits accrue to consumers, and the impact on producers will depend on the structure of the market (e.g. on the extent to which prices fall when production rises). These chapters combine models of individual markets with detailed and disaggregated household data, and they pro- vide valuable insights into the different impacts of the technology on different households. Both stud- ies find measurable and significant impacts on the well-being of the poor, with Chapter 15 showing a reduction in poverty in Ethiopia and Chapter 16 showing a reduction in food insecurity for house- holds in Rwanda and Uganda. These careful studies are frank in their discussion of the challenges involved in estimating impacts, but they also show that even with conservative approaches, improved crop germplasm continues to have significant impacts on the well-being of poor people. Chapter 17 reports the results of an important exercise: it attempts to show the aggregate effect of varietal improvement on agricultural productivity. Estimates from this analysis show that varietal adoption appears to have a strongly significant impact on total factor productivity in SSA, with an additional significant effect from the agricultural research effort of the Consultative Group on Inter- national Research (CGIAR).This chapter argues that improved varieties have raised average net crop yields on adopting areas by almost 50% since 1976−80. The methodological challenges here are large, but the results are generally in line with previous estimates that have shown large impacts. Part 4 of this book provides a series of extremely useful reflections on synthetic findings across the commodity studies in Part 2 and on the methods used in the DIIVA and TRIVSA studies in Parts 2 and 3. It highlights the different substantive findings and approaches on varietal generation and research output (in Chapter 18) and on varietal adoption and outcomes, including impact (Chapter 19). By making the cross-chapter results explicit and by assessing their implications for the strengths and weaknesses of crop improvement, these chapters provide a roadmap for those wishing to invest in varietal change in Africa. Chapter 20 discusses the results of efforts to validate expert opinion es- timates of varietal adoption by using household surveys. The two methods coincide well in some cases, but in other cases there are significant discrepancies. The Standing Panel on Impact Assess- ment (SPIA) is at present conducting further research to see how different methods of eliciting adop- tion data compare – and trying to validate these methods using genetic identification methods. We hope to learn more in the coming months and years to guide future research on adoption and diffu- sion. Finally, Chapter 21 talks about the data needs and methodological changes that face researchers trying to measure adoption and impact. This chapter offers a valuable assessment of the state of the art, and it also describes the challenges that need to be overcome. Key Findings and Implications Arguably the most significant finding of this report is the impressive growth achieved in terms of the share of cropped area now under modern varieties in SSA. In 1998, about 20−25% of cropped area was under modern varieties (based on a weighted average across 11 crops). By 2010, this figure had grown to 35% in 2010 (based on a similarly weighted average across 20 crops).1 Calculated another
- 25. way, the annualgrowth rate in the adoption of MVs was 1.45% per annum over this period.2 This in itself is a remarkable achievement for agricultural research. Although one can still ask questions about the quality of the data, the DIIVA study provides important evidence that agricultural research is continuing to provide technologies of value to farmers. Technology adoption is, in some sense, a logically sufficient measure of impact; farmers would not use these technologies if they did not provide some advantage. The continued growth in area under modern varieties indicates that research is continuing to provide farmers with useful technologies – and that farmers are continuing to find ways to take up these new technologies, in spite of the constraints that they face. Of course, there are crop-by-country combinations where adoption of MVs is still quite low – 14 of the crops are characterized by a mean adoption rate below 35%. It will be important to analyse the factors that have limited adoption rates for these crops. Conversely, there are crop-by-country combinations that have already achieved a rela- tively high (for Africa) level of MV adoption (soybean, wheat, maize, cassava, rice) or where adoption has been quite rapid – cassava, barley and maize doubled their share over this period. Here too, there may be lessons to be learned. But an important point to note is that, whether the 1998 base levels were relatively low or high, over 90% of the crop-by-country observations experienced a rise in MV adoption between the two studies. The notion that African crop farming is stagnant is not supported by the data from this study. Over time, as the level of MVs approaches full adoption, other measures of success of crop im- provement programmes, in particular the velocity of varietal change, will become more relevant. Even now, for many crops, this is an important measure of success. The DIIVA study team looked at this and found the area-weighted mean age of varieties in the field was 14 years across all crops – not much change from the earlier period. More analysis is clearly needed here to understand the causes of this. Some older ‘modern’ varieties are proving to be remarkably robust in the face of many new varieties being released – or alternatively, recent research has not always succeeded in producing genuinely useful technologies. How reliable are the estimates of adoption emerging from this study? Is there any way to meas- ure their accuracy? These questions occupied the DIIVA Project at every stage. By necessity, the DII- VA data largely draw on judgments made by expert panels. This remains the dominant method for estimating crop area under MVs at a large scale, due to the cost and complexity of collecting data on varietal diffusion through other means. Thus, the DIIVA study relied primarily on expert panel judg- ments (for 115 crop-by-country combinations). In a number of cases, however, these expert data were supplemented by estimates based on household surveys (for 36 crop-by-country combinations). It was possible to compare these two methods for 18 observations. Of these, ten lined up reasonably well, but household survey estimates were lower for eight observations. Unfortunately, there is no easy way of knowing which of the methods is closer to the truth. On the one hand, nationally repre- sentative household surveys might be presumed to be more reliable than expert opinion, since they are based on data collected from individual farm households. On the other hand, there may be gaps in coverage (e.g. because of the low probability of sampling from large commercial farms). Moreover, the quality of the data obtained from household respondents may not be higher: in many settings, it is not clear that farmers can accurately identify the varieties, and the vernacular names that they assign to particular varieties may make identification difficult.3 Taken together, we conclude only that further research is needed to reconcile the discrepancies be- tween expert opinion data and survey data on varietal adoption. It would be valuable to know whether there are consistent patterns that would allow us to predict which approach is more accurate for a par- ticular crop-by-country combination.This is certainly an area worthy of further analysis and research. SPIA is currently conducting research to establish cost-effective and reliable methods for measuring adoption, using DNA fingerprinting as a benchmark to assess the accuracy of alternative methods. Given that expert panel surveys are likely to remain a major source of data in the future when conducting large scale adoption surveys, there are valuable lessons to be learned from the report’s observations concerning how best to conduct expert surveys (Chapter 20).4 These lessons should not be lost in the vast array of data generated by this study. xx Preface
- 26. The estimates ofimpact in Chapters 15−17 are also of considerable importance. Although impact assessment is always a challenge, the clear findings from these chapters are that varietal improvement has affected outcomes for the poor. SPIA continues to seek improved methods for estimating impacts, but for now these results stand as some of the best available estimates. They provide strong evidence that research has increased agricultural productivity in Africa and that, for the specific cases reported in Chapters 15 and 16, this has resulted in reductions in poverty and food insecurity respectively. Issues Emerging and Future Directions for Research The pages that follow offer a richly detailed account of varietal improvement and its impacts in Af- rica (and to a limited degree in South Asia). We hope that many researchers will take advantage of the underlying (and publicly available) DIIVA data to construct additional estimates of productivity and impact, and we hope that the current volume will serve as the beginning for a lively conversation over the key messages to be taken from the data. The main results raise a number of issues that deserve further exploration. Some are easily an- swered. Others will require new methods – or perhaps may be so challenging that they simply invite speculation. For instance: • Is Africa finally experiencing a Green Revolution? If so, does Africa’s experience look like the Green Revolutions of Asia and LAC? Arguably, we are seeing diffusion of modern varieties with- out seeing much intensification of accompanying inputs. In Asia, the spread of modern var- ieties was linked to far greater use of fertilizer and mechanization; but in Africa, the growth of these inputs has been much slower. • Does yield growth in SSA seem to match the diffusion of modern varieties? Do we see substantial yield increases in the crops and countries where we see correspondingly large increases in adoption?This seems likeanimportantquestiontoask,butperhapsadifficultone.Akeychallenge is that, by many accounts, crop yield data are very poor in quality. It is not clear whether many countries in Africa conduct regular yield surveys based on crop cuts. Even theoretically, it is pos- sible that the diffusion of improved varieties need not be accompanied by an increase in yields; for instance, a new trait (e.g. drought tolerance) might allow for crop area to expand along an exten- sive margin where yields are lower.This could in principle result in a decline in average yield. • A related question: In the crops and commodities where adoption levels are high, have crop yields reached levels that might be viewed as satisfactory? If adoption in some crop-by-commodity combinations is nearly complete, and if yields are still low, what should we conclude? Is this evidence that crop genetic improvement is a weak tool in the sub-Saharan context? Or should we expect that successive generations of improved varieties will increase yields where previous generations have failed? Or should we simply accept that high rates of adoption provide suffi- cient evidence that improved varieties are useful, even if this is not manifested in crop yields? • What can we learn from the patterns of diffusion that might inform the research process? What characteristics seem to be associated with high levels of take-up? How can we learn from the DIIVA study to target future research more effectively? The Need for Continued Data Collection and Analysis The DIIVA study represents a major contribution towards measuring and understanding the diffu- sion of modern crop varieties. The value of the study serves as a reminder of the importance of collecting similar data on a regular basis – and of expanding the coverage across geographic areas. In the long run, varietal adoption and diffusion data should ideally become a regular component of Preface xxi
- 27. national agricultural statistics– collected, for example, as part of national agricultural censuses. In the short run, however, this task remains in the purview of research institutions such as the CGIAR and its partners. SPIA continues to support the collection of diffusion data and to promote the insti- tutionalization of data collection. Among the activities that SPIA is currently engaged in, as of mid-2015: • With numerous partners, SPIA is currently working to pioneer and validate new ways of meas- uring varieties in use, with the hope that these approaches can be incorporated routinely into micro studies and household surveys. • SPIA is working to collect and report varietal adoption data from Asia. • We are looking to expand the set of technologies for which adoption and diffusion data are col- lected; specifically, we seek to extend the data to include observations on improved agronomic practices (e.g. conservation agriculture); irrigation technologies; livestock technologies and practices; and a range of other changes that can potentially be linked to CGIAR research. In this sense, we think it is important that the DIIVA project be viewed as part of an ongoing set of research activities designed to reveal the continuing diffusion of agricultural technologies, broadly defined. Much remains to be done, and SPIA welcomes partners and researchers who bring new ap- proaches and ideas. SPIA Chair’s Acknowledgments As will be apparent from this foreword and the document that follows, the DIIVA Project involved a major undertaking. Any project of this size necessarily involves a team effort. In this case, the team was large, including researchers at seven CGIAR centres and numerous national partner institu- tions. The acknowledgments section of this report lists the full cast of participants, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of SPIA, all of those who contributed time and effort. The project depended in the final analysis on the efforts and expertise of many researchers based at CGIAR centres and in a range of national research institutions across Africa. We are grateful to the hundreds of scientists who contributed their time to this effort – whether through participating in panels or filling out surveys or providing their field notes, based in some cases on years of data collec- tion. The detailed field knowledge of scientists was ultimately one of the main sources of data for the DIIVA Project. We are grateful to all these scientists for their generosity in sharing time and for their desire to provide thoughtful and objective information about patterns of adoption and diffusion. Beyond this collective effort, however, I want to single out the outstanding contributions of sev- eral individuals who brought the DIIVA Project to fruition through their extraordinary efforts. First and foremost, we were exceptionally fortunate to have Tom Walker leading this effort on behalf of SPIA. Tom was perhaps uniquely qualified to lead this effort, on the basis of his long and distinguished record of research on agricultural technology adoption and its impacts. Not only did Tom effectively manage this large and complex multi-partner undertaking, but he also provided ex- pertise at every stage of the study. He provided crucial insights into methods of collecting varietal data – from experts, from farmers and from farm communities. Tom’s careful probing and his efforts to check and validate the data drew on his deep and detailed knowledge of African agriculture. We are enormously grateful to Tom Walker for his leadership and expertise; without him, the project could not possibly have achieved such a high-quality outcome. Tom’s contributions continued through the completion of the book, including the handling of the review process for individual chapters and the editing and cross-checking of numbers used throughout the manuscript. His thor- oughness and patience have been essential to the quality of this volume. Jeff Alwang was closely involved in the DIIVA Project from the beginning, and his involvement grew considerably as the project moved towards completion. Not only did he contribute to the valu- able poverty impact studies of Chapters 15 and 16, but in addition, he was a key figure in synthesizing xxii Preface
- 28. the study, asseen in Chapters 1, 2, 19 and 21. With a keen eye for detail, Jeff played a crucial role in editing the volume and working to shepherd it to completion. Jeff has long been an expert on agricul- tural technology and its impact, and SPIA is grateful to him for being willing to devote so much of his time and attention to this project. Perhaps no one was more important to the conceptualization and completion of the DIIVA study than Greg Traxler, programme officer of the Gates Foundation. Along with Prabhu Pingali (who was based at the time at the Gates Foundation), Greg urged the CGIAR to push ahead with a new effort to collect data on varietal diffusion – and he then helped to mobilize the funding for the project. Greg’s contributions went far beyond his role as a conduit for funding. Over the course of several years, Greg asked persistently about the scope and quality of data and pushed to set a high standard for the study. Another key figure in the history of the DIIVA Project was my predecessor as SPIA Chair, Derek Byerlee, who has remained a key participant throughout the duration of the project. Like Tom Walker, Derek brings an encyclopaedic knowledge of African agriculture, based on years of fieldwork and personal experience in most of the countries covered by the DIIVA study. As a dedicated social scientist of the highest calibre, Derek played a central role in the design and implementation of the study. My own term as SPIA Chair started as the DIIVA Project came to a close, so Derek was at the helm of SPIA for almost the entire duration of the project. Finally, two members of the SPIA secretariat staff – Tim Kelley and James Stevenson − deserve special recognition for their contributions to the project.Tim Kelley’s role cannot be easily described. As the head of the SPIA Secretariat,Tim played a key administrative role in managing the study. ButTim’s first-hand knowledge of the CGIAR, based on some thirty years as a researcher and research manager, was ultimately of enormous importance in the quality of the DIIVA Project and its findings. I think it is no exaggeration to say thatTim read every sentence produced by the DIIVA Project; his critical eye and high standards were matched by his constantly positive outlook.Tim played a similar role in shepherd- ing and reviewing the earlier Evenson-led study, and this provided him with a valuable long-term per- spective on the DIIVA study. In both cases, Tim’s contributions proved enormously valuable. Also at the SPIA secretariat, James Stevenson has played a key role both administratively and substantively in the DIIVA study. As a member of the project steering committee for DIIVA, James participated in every stage of the project; SPIA is fortunate to be able to draw on his skills as a re- searcher and his thoughtful analysis. In closing, I would like to honor the memory of Bob Evenson, who died in February 2013. Bob’s career-long efforts to document the diffusion and impact of agricultural technologies grew out of his passionate belief that science had the potential to improve the lives of the poor and of rural people. His illness prevented Bob from taking part in the planning of the DIIVA Project, but I have no doubt that he would have been delighted and impressed by the work that has been done – and eager to see it continued through the future. Douglas Gollin Professor of Development Economics Department of International Development Oxford University Chair, CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) Notes 1 If we look only at the paired comparison of 61 crop-by-country observations for the 10 continuing crops, area-weighted adoption was 27% in 1998 and 44% in 2010. 2 There are a number of qualifiers that must be kept in mind when making comparisons here, given that the number and types of crops and crop-by-country combinations varied between the two periods and that Preface xxiii
- 29. the methods usedto elicit expert opinion were not always consistent over the periods. Nevertheless, while the confidence interval may be large – perhaps more so for the earlier survey results when less scrutiny was applied to the method for eliciting expert opinion – there is no reason to believe that there is a particular upward or downward bias in these different period estimates.All one can say is, the study is using BAD – ‘best available data’ – and the methods used to collect those data are documented in the reports. 3 For instance, farmers may use the same name for distinct varieties, and they may use different names for the same variety. 4 In general, more effective elicitation was characterized by: • close and intensive supervision of CG project-related staff, • organization of and attendance at time-bound workshops with direct interaction with expert panel members, • greater spatial resolution in the elicitation of estimates that were subsequently aggregated to regional and national levels, • including more members from the informal sector and from NGOs with geographic-specific expertise in technology transfer on the panels, and feedback from CG Center breeders in the final stages of the process References Dalrymple, D. (1969) Technological Change in Agriculture: Effects and Implications for Developing Nations. USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, DC. Dalrymple, D. (1978) The Development and Spread of High-Yielding Varieties of Wheat and Rice in the Less-Developed Nations. 6th Edn. Foreign Agriculture Economic Report No. 95. USDA/USAID, Wash- ington, DC. Dalrymple, D. (1986a) Development and Spread of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in Developing Countries. USAID, Washington, DC. Dalrymple, D. (1986b) Development and Spread of High-Yielding Wheat Varieties in Developing Countries. USAID, Washington, DC. Evenson, R.E. and Gollin, D. (eds) (2003) Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. xxiv Preface
- 30. Acknowledgements This book isthe product of the effort of several hundred people, not all of whom are named here. The project it documents was first conceived in 2008 during a SPIA workshop organized by Flavio Avila in Brasilia, capital city of Brazil, where the need for a comprehensive assessment of the improved varieties of food crops in sub-Saharan Africa was strongly expressed. A project proposal workshop was subse- quently held in May 2009 at the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); a proposal was submitted by Bioversity International; and the grant was awarded later that year. The idea for this volume in the spirit of Evenson and Gollin’s 2003 publication Crop Variety Improvement and its Effects on Productivity was proposed and discussed at the project’s finalization workshop in Rome at Bioversity International in November 2012. The project ended on 30 June 2013. Greg Traxler from the Foundation was the conceptual force behind the Diffusion and Impact of Improved Varieties in Africa (DIIVA). Project that was fully supported by the BMGF in Prabhu Pinga- li’s Division of Agricultural Policy and Statistics. Greg served as an ex-officio member of the Project Steering Committee (PSC) that met 23 times during the life of the project. Derek Byerlee and Doug Gollin – the chairpersons of SPIA – headed the PSC, devoting considerable time and energy to its conduct and management. Tim Kelley guided all of the project’s activities at SPIA, interacting with the coordinator on a daily or at least weekly basis.Tim also coordinated the reviews of project-related papers and sub-proposals.Tim was ably assisted by James Stevenson who also sat on the PSC and was involved in several project-related activities, including the storage and public distribution of the data. We are thankful for the time and inspiration of other PSC members too: Mywish Maredia, Gerry O’Donoghue and Elisabetta Gotor. We are equally grateful to the following people who contributed to the success of the project in multiple ways – from timely consultancies, through full-fledged support at the CG Centers, to the organization of three project workshops, to reviews of papers: Giorgia Beltrame, Dana Dalry- mple, Daniel Calendo, Maria Piedade Caruche, Cheryl Doss, Jessamyn Findlay, Melanie Glover, Carolina Gonzalez, Ben Groom, Guy Hareau, Hilde Koper, Roberto LaRovere, C. Magorokosho, Ber- nadette Majebelle, Bonny Ntare, Alastair Orr, David Raitzer, Bryon Reyes Randy Shigetani, Cecily Stokes- Prindle, Gert-Jan Stads, Graham Thiele, Rob Tripp and Stan Wood. Others also warrant a special mention: Tim Dalton and Catherin Ragasa shared data with the DIIVA Project participants; Nienke Bintema hosted the DIIVA databases on the Agricultural Sciences and Technology Indicators Initiative (ASTI) website; James Burgess contributed substantially to pre- paring the databases for distribution; and Tony Murray spent many hours tailoring software to their storage and distribution. In addition: Peter Gregory drafted a proposal for funding on DNA fingerprint- ing; Abdoulaye Adam oversaw the design of the sampling survey; Bea Amara managed all the travel- xxv
- 31. xxvi Acknowledgements related requestsfrom the project; Patti Sands organized the final workshop; and Brenda Zepeda was responsible for all the financial accounts and reporting of the project. Princess Ferguson worked on several project-related publications, including this one, which was knowledgably and efficiently copy-edited by Frances East and ably published by Emma McCann, James Bishop and their colleagues at CABI Publishing. We acknowledge the following individuals from the CG Centers and their institutional partners for their invaluable collaboration in making this book a reality: AfricaRice: Patrice Y. Adegbola, Stella Everline Okello Adur, Daniel Andriambolanoro, Sekou Diawara, Lamin Dibba, Alioune Dieng, Sekou Doumbia, Chantal Ingabire, Dorothy Malaa Kenyi, Winfred A. Odenyo Kore, Nazir Mahamood; M. Hervé Nbedane, N. Robert Ngonde, VivianT. Ojehomon, Mathieu Ouedraogo, Koku Domenyo Tsatsu, Alexander Nino Wiredu. Bioversity: Edward Bbosa, Ronald Kakooza, Henry Kayondo, Ronald Mutebi, Betty Nakiyingi, Lydia Namayanja, Robert Ssebagala and Steven Ssengendo who assisted in data collection; Dr Alex Barekye, Micheal Batte, Dr Deborah Karamura and Tendo Ssali scientists from the National BioRe- source Project (NBRP), Bioversity, and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA); and the district agricultural and extension officers of various districts. Our thanks also go to the farmers interviewed in this study. CIAT: Dr Rowland Chirwa, Prof. Paul Kimani and Dr Clare Mukankusi who are three regional breeders, along with bean program coordinators and national groups of experts from Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Finally, we wish to dedicate our paper in this volume to Bonny Ongom who was a Global Information Systems (GIS) research assistant at CIAT in 2006–2011. Bonny was a key collector of in-country data, which he obtained by canvassing experts in project workshops. The authors of Chapter 16 are grateful for the support and contribution of Matthew Capelli and Stella Wambugo, research assistants at Virginia Tech and CIP, respectively. The authors also thank colleagues at Rwanda Agricultural Bureau, especially Josaphat Mugabo, Jean de Dieu Nsabimana, Jean-Claude Nshimiyimana, and Domitille Mukankubana, for contributions to the research. Helpful comments were received from participants in the DIIVA workshop in Rome, November 2012, and two anonymous reviewers. The authors are indebted to the BMGF for financial support. CIMMYT: Roberto Larovere for study start-up with Olaf Erenstein, Dan Makumbi, and B.M. Prasanna; and for country reports: Manuvanga Kiakanua (Angola), Moti Aleta and Chilot Tizale (Ethiopia), Lutta Muhammad (Kenya), Mahagayu Clerkson (Kenya), Alexander Phiri (Malawi), Zubeda Nduruma (Tanzania), Moses Mwesigwa (Uganda), Thomson Kalinda (Zambia) and Shamiso Chikobvu (Zimbabwe). CIP: Scientists in potato and sweetpotato programmes and officials in various NGO and extension services of Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, along with Maria Isabel Andrade, Merideth Bonierbale, Ted Carey, Paul Demo, Manuel Gastelo, Elmar Schulte-Geldermann, Marc Ghislain, Wolfgang Grüneberg, Stef de Haan, Diedonne Harahagazwe, Guy Hareau, Rogers Kakuhenzire, Imelda Kashaija, David Kipkoech, Juan Landeo, Jan Low, Everina Lukonge, Robert Mwanga, Obed Mwenye, Jean Ndirigwe, Jean Claude Nshimiyimana, Michel Ntimpirangeza, Jose Ricardo, Steffen Schulz, Ntizo Senkesha, Kirimi Sindi, Gorretie Ssemakula, Graham Thiele, Silver Tumwegamire and Gebremedhin Woldegiorgis. ICARDA:The experts and their partners from the national research systems of Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan whose contribution to this work deserve acknowledgment include: the late Geletu Bejiga and his staff in the ICARDA-Ethiopia country office, Mohammad Maatougui, Stefania Gran- do, Shiv Kumar, Muhammad Imtiaz, Fouad Maalouf, Tamer El-shater, Adefris Chere, Asnake Fikre, Birhane Lakew, Gemechu Keneni, Musa Jarso, Tamene Temesgen, Alemayehu Assefa, Abdelaziz Hashim, Gamal Elkheir. We would also like to thank the EIAR management in general and the Ho- leta Agricultural Research Center in particular for their logistical and administrative support and the enumerators, data entry and cleaning crew, the drivers and the development agents without whom the project would not be possible. Most importantly special thanks go to the kind and gener- ous Ethiopian farmers who volunteered to be interviewed and spared their invaluable time.
- 32. Acknowledgements xxvii ICRISAT: Expertsand national partner institutions that participated in the interviews as well as those who provided useful support throughout the research, including: Dimphyna (Kenya), Albert Chamango and Geoffrey Kananji (Malawi), Stephen Lymo, Rose Ubwe and Mponda (Tanzania), Jasper Mwesigwa Batureine (Uganda) and Francisco Miti and Catherine Mungoma (Zambia). In West and Central Africa the main collaborators were: H. Ajeigbe, A. Amadou, O. Cisse, C.A. Echekwu, I. Faye, C.T. Hash, A. Ibro, A. Kassari, O. Kodio, A. Magagi, A. Minougou, A. Moutari, J. Naino, B.R. Ntare, M. Sanogo, A. Toure, M. Yeye and R. Zangre. In India, the ICRISAT authors of Chapter 14 are grateful to officials of ICAR and the AICRP research projects on sorghum, pearl millet, chickpea, pigeonpea and groundnut for their close col- laboration and support from the inception of the TRIVSA Project to its end. We also thank scientists of ICRISAT, DSR, IIPR, DGR, respective SAUs and HPRC members for their generous help in data sharing and for their participation in the elicitation process. IRRI: The authors of Chapter 13 wish to acknowledge the funding support provided by the BMGF for the project TRIVSA. We are thankful to NARS collaborators from Bangladesh (Md. Adbus Salam, Md. Abu Bakr Siddique and Md. Ariful Islam), Bhutan (M. Ghimiray), Nepal (Sudeep Gautam, Hari Krishna Panta,Y.N. Ghimire and D. Gauchan), Sri Lanka (B.R. Wallisinghe, R.D.D.P. Rajapaksa, D.M.N. Dissanayake and THCS Perera), Chhattisgarh (A.K. Koshta and V.K. Chaudhary), Odisha (Debdutt Behura) and West Bengal (B. Bagchi) for their active participation in field work, data assem- bly and analysis. IITA: A number of people have contributed to the successful completion of the DIIVA study on modern variety release and adoption for IITA mandate crops in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors would like to thank Jonas Mwalughali (late), Makaiko Khonje, and Robertson Khataza for their out- standing research assistance. We also wish to acknowledge the contributions of the survey team leaders who coordinated data collection efforts and expert consultations in various countries – Adebayo Bamire, Mossi Illiassou, Luke Olarinde, Asman Wesonga, Eliya Kapalasa, Toussain Kendenga, Hobayo Claude, Bisase Dennis and Tafireyi Chamboko. We are particularly grateful to the national programme and private sector leaders and researchers from over 20 countries in SSA who provided a great deal of information used in the DIIVA study through extensive consultations and discussion as well as review of institutional documents and records including: Moniz Mutunda (Instituto de Investigação Agronomica, Angola); Aly Djima, Yallou Chabi Gouro, Kodjo Siaka, Abou Ogbon, Romuald Dossou, Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin, and J. Detongnon, (Société Nationale pour la Promotion Agricole) (Benin); Issa Drabo (Institut national d’Etudes et de Recherch- es Agricoles) and Jacob Sanou (Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles) (Burkina Faso); Alexandre Congera, (Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi); Eddy Mangaptche, Ndioro Mbassa,Tandzi Liliane, Zonkeng Celicard, Meppe Paco, Nguimgo Blaise, and Njualem Khum- bah (Institute of Agricultural Research for Development, Cameroon); Louise Akanvou, Philippe Gnonhouri, Amani Michel Kouakou, Francois N’gbesso, Boni N’zue and Siaka Traoré, (Centre National de Recherche Agronomique, Côte d’Ivoire); Joe Manu-Aduening, Henry Asumadu, Manfred Ewool, K. Obeng-Antwi, and Emmanuel Otoo (Crops Research Institute), Cecil Osei (Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing Program), and Kwabena Acheremu and Adjebeng Joseph (Savanna Agricultural Research Institute) (Ghana); Diallo Amadou, El Sanoussy Bah, Cheick Conde, Camara Fadjimba, Sekouba Korouma, Diallo Pathé, and Camara Sékouna (Institut de Recherche Agronomi- que de Guinee) (Guinea); Joseph Kamau (Kenya Agricultural Research Institute); M.C. Dzinkambani and Vito Sandifolo (Department of Agriculture Research Services) (Malawi); Ntji Coulibaly and Mamadou Touré (Institut d’Economie Rurale) (Mali); Anabela Zacarias (Agricultural Research Insti- tute of Mozambique) and Rogerio Cheulele (University of Eduardo Mondlane) (Mozambique); Moutari Adamou (Institut Nationale de Recherches Agronomiques du Niger); Paul Ilona (CIAT-Nigeria); Hakeem Ajeigbe (ICRISAT-Nigeria), U.S. Abdullahi (Institute of Agricultural Research); S.R. Akande and S.A. Olakojo (Institute of Agricultural Research Training), Shokalu Olumide (National Cereals Research Institute), S.O.S. Akinyemi (National Horticultural Research Institute), Njoku Damian (National Root Crops Research Institute), M.A.B. Fakorede (Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife), andIbikunleOlumide(PremierSeedNigeriaLtd.)(Nigeria);BambalaEmmanuël,LodiLama,andMbuya
- 33. xxviii Acknowledgements Kankolongo (InstitutNational d’Etude et de Recherches Agronomiques) (DR Congo); Ndiaga Cisse and Abdou Ndiaye (Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles) (Senegal); Edward Kanju (IITA- Tanzania); Akihila Didjeira, BéréTchabana, Etoudo N’kpenu, and Komi Somana (InstitutTogolais de Recherche Agronomique) (Togo); Elvis James Mubiru (IITA-Uganda), Godfrey Asea, Antony Bua, and Nelson Wanyera (National Agricultural Research Organization) (Uganda); Martin Chiona, B.L. Kaninga, and Laston Milambo (Zambia Agricultural Research Institute); and Patrick Nyambo (Department of Research and Specialist Services) and Caleb M. Souta and Jacob Tichagwa (SeedCo Limited) (Zimbabwe). Finally, support for the research reported in Chapter 17 was provided by the USAID-USDA Norman Borlaug Commemorative Research Initiative and the CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment. The views expressed in Chapter 17 are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Economic Research Service or the USDA.
- 34. © CGIAR 2015.Crop Improvement, Adoption and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (eds T.S. Walker and J. Alwang) 1 When a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa plants a food crop, the odds are increasing that the var- iety sown will be an improved variety touched by science. But more likely the farmer plants a local variety that is more or less the same as that cul- tivated by his or her parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. For some farmers, such as groundnut growers in West Africa and sweetpo- tato producers in East Africa, it is likely that the variety cultivated is a product of agricultural re- search but that the improved variety was bred more than 40 years ago. A lack of dynamism in varietal change in food crop production represents a wasted oppor- tunity that is potentially high, exacting a heavy toll on poor producers and consumers alike. Crop production consumed in the household and sold in the market may represent more than 50% of the income of poor farmers. Expenditures on staple and secondary food crops may eat up more than 60–70% of the budget of poor consumers. Because crop variety improvement can increase production that in turn can lead to declining and more stable prices, it is a cost-effective inter- vention with a broad scope to leverage positive outcomes and impacts for hundreds of millions of poor rural and urban households in sub- Saharan Africa. Modern varietal change is an important tool with large potential contributions to agricul- tural development. Unlike some other types of agricultural technology, modern varietal change is not limited by agroecology and population density, nor does it require major capital invest- ments by potential adopters. Uptake of improved varietiescanleaddirectlytopositiveconsequences for food security. Modern varietal change in and of itself may not lift large numbers of people out of poverty but greater dynamism in this area can go a long way to moving poor people closer to the poverty line. Moreover, modern varietal change can set the stage for the adoption of more intensive crop production practices, such as row planting, and is a precursor to the judicious use of purchased inputs that spark multiplier effects for economic growth. Agricultural Research: The Engine for Generating Varietal Change Since the independence of most African nations in the 1960s and 1970s, a foundation for mod- ern varietal change in food crops was laid down by public-sector national research programmes 1 The Importance of Generating and Documenting Varietal Change in Sub-Saharan Africa T.S. Walker1 * and J. Alwang2 1 Independent Researcher, Fletcher, North Carolina, USA; 2 Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA * E-mail: [email protected]
- 35. 2 T.S. Walkerand J. Alwang (NARS) in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Beginning in 1968, the International Agricul- tural Research Centers (IARCs) have been a partner in that effort.That seems like a long time ago but it is a recent undertaking compared to the genetic improvement in export crops, such as cocoa, cotton and rubber, that occurred much earlier in the 20th century. In spite of its youth, crop genetic improve- ment in food crops is not as vigorous or wide- spread as it should be in sub-Saharan Africa. Its effectiveness is compromised for multiple reasons. Agroecological conditions are extremely hetero- geneous in many African countries, especially compared to those in South Asia where wide- spread diffusion of modern varieties sparked the Green Revolution, which contributed to remark- able productivity growth and poverty reduction beginning in the mid-1960s. Limited infrastruc- ture and weak support systems in sub-Saharan Africa have constrained the uptake of improved varieties. Lack of funding for operating budgets is an important limitation that is shared by both NARS and IARCs. Largely because of declining global food prices, real resources had steadily be- come scarcer for crop improvement research by IARCs and NARS, especially from the early 1990s to the early 2000s (Beintema and Stads, 2006). Expansion of the mandates of the IARCs into areas such as natural resource management also contributed to the erosion of resources for gen- etic improvement. Since the abrupt rise in global food prices after 2008, funding for agricultural research has improved. Donors, in general, and the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), in particular, have invested heavily in food-crop genetic im- provement in sub-Saharan Africa. Once again, a strong partnership between NARS and IARCS is a hallmark of that investment. Documenting Varietal Change: The Need and Past Achievements Withouttheadoptionof agriculturaltechnologies, there is no impact (Adato and Meinzen-Dick, 2007). Indeed, the area planted to a new tech- nology is the most important determinant in the size of economic benefits (Walker and Crissman, 1996; Morris et al., 2003). Cost savings per unit of output of the new technology also determine impact by influencing diffusion and creating economic benefit for each area unit of spread. Impact analysis of varietal change has largely relied on the economic surplus approach toestimatestandardratesof returntotheresearch. These studies suggest that, although returns to researchhavebeenpositiveinsub-SaharanAfrica, they have been lower than in other regions. In addition to monitoring for a high return on in- vestment, however, donors want to be better informed about the impact of research on the development goals of poverty reduction, food se- curity and environmental sustainability. In spite of increasingly numerous reviews, impact assess- ment of agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa is still best described as sparse (Maredia and Raitzer, 2006). Highly specific information on adoption and benefits from variety use provides research managers with needed ammunition for deciding on the relative resource allocation for commod- ities and specific lines of research. To be success- ful, research needs to be sensitive to users’ de- mands. For crop genetic research, the demand for traits is of paramount importance. The oppor- tunity costs for research funds are high, and research on adoption levels and impacts can establish which traits are in demand and where acceptable trade-offs can be made. Globally, credible databases on the diffusion and impact of well-identified improved varieties are rare. Maize, other cereals and oilseeds are a notable example of where sales information on hybrid seed can provide solid data on varietal uptake. Vegetatively propagated crops, such as po- tatoes, that are legislatively required to be planted with clonal-specific certified seed represent an- other case. Aside from these exceptions varietal- specific information is seldom widely available for important food crops even in developed coun- tries. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stopped collecting data on the adoption of improved wheat varieties in the mid-1980s. But in developed-country agri- culture, improved varieties are replaced by farm- ers every 2–5 years; varietal change is no longer an issue that impinges on economic and social development. In contrast, not knowing about the pace and dynamics of varietal change is a luxury that developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa can ill afford because both the level of
- 36. The Importance ofGenerating and Documenting Varietal Change 3 modern cultivar adoption and the velocity of improved varietal turnover are low. Since the release of maize hybrids in Kenya in the1960s,episodicresearchonadoptionof modern cultivars has been conducted in sub- Saharan Africa(Gerhart,1974).DanaDalrymplewasthefirst agricultural scientist to make a systematic effort to document the diffusion of improved varieties in food crops. In 1978, Dana Dalrymple completed the sixth review of the spread of the high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of wheat and rice in developing countries (Dalrymple, 1978). These semi-dwarf, short-duration varieties had entered Africa as early asthelate1960s.Dalrympleestimatedthatthedif- fusion of modern rice varieties had reached 4% by 1978. He included 15 rice-growing countries in his assessment that was based mainly on direct communication with in-country scientists working on rice genetic improvement in Africa. By the 1970s, sub-Saharan African farmers began to benefit from recently bred varieties in several primary and secondary food crops. A firm baseline for evaluating the effectiveness of food- crop genetic improvement, however, only began toemergeinthemid-tolate-1990s.Aglobal moni- toring and evaluation research agenda (referred to here as the 1998 Initiative) retrospectively as- sessed varietal output, adoption and production impacts in food-crop genetic improvement in developing country agriculture (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). That initiative resulted in several surprises including the realization that dynamic varietal change was not confined to the so-called Green Revolution period between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s, but that it continued deep into the 1990s. But estimated adoption levels in Africa, averaging 22%, were especially low. The estimates reported in Evenson and Gollin (2003) were based on partial results with limited dataavailableforanumberof cropsandcountries. As a result, the picture of modern varietal adop- tion in sub-Saharan Africa was somewhat fuzzy and fragmented even at that time and, in the past decade, no comprehensive study had updated or clarified those estimates. The DIIVA Project Here, the baseline established by Evenson and Gollin (2003) has been updated, widened and deepened. We report on the results of a CGIAR project – Diffusion and Impact of Improved Var- ieties in Africa (DIIVA Project) – the first major study to focus on the diffusion and impacts of improved crop varieties in SSA. Supported by BMGF, seven CGIAR Centers (CG Centers) and their national and other partners carried out adoption research and impact assessments as part of DIIVA. The DIIVA Project, which was dir- ected and coordinated by CGIAR’s Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) and admin- istrated through Bioversity International, began on 1 December 2009 and ended on 30 June 2013. A budget of slightly under US$3 million was allocated to three objectives designed to: • Attainawiderunderstandingof theperform- ance of food-crop genetic improvement in priority crop-by-country combinations in sub-Saharan Africa; • Verify and gain a deeper understanding of the adoption and diffusion of new varieties in selected priority countries and food crops in sub-Saharan Africa; • Acquire more comprehensive insight in to the impact of crop improvement on poverty, nutrition and food security. The DIIVA Project is viewed as a major building block in the construction of a routine system for monitoring varietal adoption and impact in sub-Saharan Africa for the CGIAR re- search programmes. This work has been driven by three complementary activities that respond to three project objectives: (i) documenting the key performance indicators of crop genetic im- provement; (ii) collecting nationally representa- tive survey data on varietal adoption; and (iii) assessing the impact of varietal change. The novelty and value of the research re- ported in this book stems from its wide scope in terms of crops and countries with intensive data collection via standardized protocols.This stand- ardization permits comparisons across countries, over time and among crops in a given country. The study is also unique for its emphasis on val- idationandontheuseof soundintegratedmethods for impact assessment. In particular, household- and field-level data are used to estimate prod- uctivity gains, per-unit reductions in cost of production and other household-level outcomes. These methods represent an improvement over standard surplus estimation techniques, which
- 37. 4 T.S. Walkerand J. Alwang usually rely on data from experimental trials. Trial data do not reflect regional variability in agroecology and yield potential or idiosyncratic differences in household management of produc- tion processes. The adoption of improved varieties of 20 food crops in 30 countries covering about 85% of food crop production in sub-Saharan Africa was assessed in the DIIVA Project. More than 200 individuals, the majority of whom were scientists from national agricultural research systems, contributed to this effort. The DIIVA database contains information on more than 3500 formally and informally released varieties and more than 1150 improved varieties that were adopted by farmers in 2010 (http://www. asti.cgiar.org/diiva). This volume represents the full rendering of DIIVA-related research by the participant scien- tistswhoassembledtheinformationandcollected the data. Earlier publications with a narrower focus include Alene et al. (2011) and Walker et al. (2014). Fields crops in sub-Saharan Africa are al- most entirely grown in dryland agriculture. The BMGF also invested in a smaller comparative project called TRIVSA (Tracking Improved Var- ieties in South Asia) that supplied information on varietal generation and adoption in food crops cultivated in the rainy season in South Asia. Research from theTRIVSA Project is repre- sented by two chapters in this book and findings from South Asia serve as a point of reference for the results from sub-Saharan Africa that are highlighted in the synthesis chapters described below. Organization This volume is divided into four sections. Part 1 sets the stage by first reviewing investments in food-crop improvement in sub-Saharan Africa (Chapter 2). Chapter 2 shows that, starting from a low base in the 1960s, investments in crop im- provement in the region grew robustly before slowing in the 1980s. Following a long period of stagnation beginning in the 1980s, robust growth in funding returned in 2001. The chap- ter shows that funding increases have also been accompanied by a generalized improvement in human capacity in national systems, but that aggregate figures of investments and growth can be misleading. Growth in funding and capacity is concentrated in the larger national research systems, whereas some smaller systems have shrunk substantially. Studies of rates of return to agricultural research is sub-Saharan Africa are summarized and these show varied results but, before the mid-1990s, estimated rates of return to crop improvement were lower than those in other regions of the world. Chapter 3 defines concepts and hypotheses that have guided the DIIVA research on inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts.The study docu- ments two key inputs into crop improvement by year and country: scientific capacity and re- search intensity. Measured outputs in the study are variety releases, and outcomes are adoption and rate of variety turnover. The impact meas- ures employed vary by study; these include yield, productivity, household income and poverty reduction. Chapter 4 goes on to describe data, methods and crop by country coverage. The DIIVA data can be divided into three domains: assembled data on scientific capacity and var- ietal release/availability; elicited estimates of varietal adoption; and household survey data. The variety- specific data contain about 150 crop-by-country observations selected to cover the most important food crops in the main pro- ducing countries. Crop-by-country data were as- sembled to provide a broad perspective of the important food crops in the region and to allow the study to be comparable to the 1998 Initiative. Chapter 5 provides the historical context for genetic improvement for the 11 crops in the 1998 Initiative and an exploratory analysis of the variation in inputs, outputs and outcomes across commodities and countries. Country- and crop-specific comparisons show striking dif- ferences in scientific staff capacity and research intensity, but comparisons to the rest of the de- veloping world show that sub-Saharan African indicators of these inputs are in line with other continental regions. The 1998 estimates of var- iety release display high variability over time for most crops in many countries. The most salient finding is that varietal output from crop improve- ment programmes accelerated dramatically in the 1990s. This acceleration sets the stage for a renewed look at impacts, as a variety’s up- take lags behind its release, often by many years.
- 38. The Importance ofGenerating and Documenting Varietal Change 5 Impacts are likely to have become more pro- nounced and visible after 1998. Varietal generation, output, adoption and turnover in food crops are addressed in nine studies in Part 2. Chapters 6–12 focus on sub- Saharan Africa. They are organized around and are synonymous with the mandated-crops of these CG Centers: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (cassava, cowpea, maize and yams); International Center for Research in the Semi-arid Tropics (groundnut, pearl millet, pigeonpea and sorghum); International Center for Tropical Agriculture (beans); International Potato Center (potato and sweetpotato); Inter- national Center for Maize and Wheat Improve- ment; International Center for Agricultural Re- search in Dryland Areas (barley, chickpea and faba bean); and AfricaRice. This work is comple- mented by two comparative studies from South Asia where the commodity emphasis is on rain- fed rice in multiple countries and states in India (Chapter 13) and on sorghum, pearl millet, groundnut, pigeonpea and chickpea in peninsu- lar India (Chapter 14). The impact of the adoption of modern var- ieties is assessed in case studies on maize in Ethiopia (Chapter 15) and beans in Rwanda and Uganda (Chapter 16). These studies show that impacts of adoption on productivity and cost savings are relatively large at the field level. They show that poor farmers have not been excluded from adoption; these varietal improvements seem to be accessible to all farmers. Benefits are broad- based, but vary by characteristics of adopting farmersandtheiragroecologiesand,becauseareas planted are relatively small, impacts of adoption on household income and poverty are modest. Estimates of total factor productivity with the updated DIIVA adoption data in sub-Saharan Africa are found in Chapter 17, the final chapter in Part 3. Chapter 17 shows that adoption of im- proved food crop varieties raised productivity of adopting areas in sub-Saharan Africa by an average of 47% and accounted for about 15% of the growth in food crop production between 1980 and 2010. By 2010, the higher productiv- ity of improved food crop varieties had added US$6.2 billion to the annual value of agricul- tural production in the sub-continent. Both substance and process are featured in Part 4, which begins with two syntheses that draw on the data and findings in Chapters 6–14. Varietal generation and output are the subjects of Chapter 18. Adoption, turnover and impact are themes for Chapter 19. What we learned about estimating varietal adoption and assess- ing varietal impact is discussed and summarized in Chapters 20 and 21. References Adato, M. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (eds) (2007) Agricultural Research, Livelihoods and Poverty: Studies of Economic and Social impact in Six Countries. John Hopkins University Press and IFPRI, Washington, DC. Alene, A., Yegezu, Y., Ndjeunga, J., Labarta, R., Andrade, R. et al. (2011) Measuring the Effectiveness of Agricultural RD in Sub-Saharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output and Adoption: Ini- tial Results from the Diffusion of Improved Varieties in Africa Project. ASTI Conference Working Paper 7. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Beintema, N.M. and Stads, G.J. (2006) Agricultural RD in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Era of Stagnation. Background Report. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Dalrymple, D. (1978) The Development and Spread of the High-Yielding Varieties of Wheat and Rice among Less-Developed Nations. 6th Edn. Foreign Agricultural Economic Report No. 95. USDA/USAID, Washington, DC. Evenson, R.E. and Gollin, D. (eds) (2003) Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Gerhart, J.D. (1974) The Diffusion of Hybrid Maize in Western Kenya. PhD thesis. Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. Maredia, M.K. and Raitzer, D.A. (2006) CGIAR and NARS Partner Research in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence of Impact To Date. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Science Council Secretariat, Rome. Morris, M., Mekuria, M. and Gerpacioe, R. (2003) Impacts of CIMMYT maize breeding research. In: Evenson, R.E. and Gollin, D. (eds) Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of Inter- national Agricultural Research. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 135–158.
- 39. 6 T.S. Walkerand J. Alwang Walker, T. and Crissman, C. (1996) Case Studies of the Economic Impact of CIP-Related Technologies. International Potato Center (CIP), Lima. Walker, T., Alene, A., Ndjuenga, J., Labarta, R., Yigezu, Y. et al. (2014) Measuring the Effectiveness of Crop Improvement Research in Sub-Saharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output, Adoption and Change: 20 Crops, 30 Countries, and 1150 Cultivars in Farmers’ Fields. Report of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA). CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) Secretariat, Rome.
- 40. © CGIAR 2015.Crop Improvement, Adoption and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (eds T.S. Walker and J. Alwang) 7 Becauseagriculturalproductivityinsub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has historically been low and con- tinues to lag other regions of the world, there is increasing interest in understanding how re- search investments in the region are associated with productivity growth. To understand this relationship, it is important to begin with an assessment of historical investments in agricul- tural research. Research investments in support of SSA agriculture have received wide attention in the development literature and these studies have produced a broadly consistent picture. In- vestments in agricultural research and develop- ment (RD) in SSA started from a very low base immediately following independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Investment grew at a rapid rate in the 1960s and through the 1970s and 1980s, but slowed midway into the 1980s and declined in the 1990s. Since 2000, RD investments in the region have increased and growth in research expenditures was robust through 2008, the last year for which compre- hensive data are available. There remain, however, inconsistencies in the analysis of RD expenditures for SSA. For example, there has been only limited analysis of comparative investments across SSA in com- modity-specific research and whether the distri- bution of research resources accurately reflects thedistributionof commoditiesbyareaproduced. It is also well known that observed growth in SSA-wide agricultural RD from 2001 to 2008 was driven by investments in large systems1 such as Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. Little analysis has been conducted of growth patterns among medium-sized and, particularly, small systems. Evidence shows severe declines from 2001 to 2008 in several smaller systems (Agri- cultural Science and Technology Indicators; ASTI).These inconsistencies are partly due to in- formation challenges: data on research expend- itures come from multiple sources, many with irregular reporting practices, and many data sources have gaps. Given these challenges, it is important to summarize findings of studies on research expenditures in SSA, identify consistent patterns and explore discrepancies in reported trends. The purpose of this chapter is to document evidenceaboutagriculturalresearchinvestments, describe patterns of change over time, and dis- cuss the current state of knowledge and know- ledge gaps. The chapter begins with a discussion of information sources and inherent challenges in assembling consistent time series from alter- native sources. Important past studies are re- viewed critically with an aim at synthesizing the current state of knowledge about agricultural 2 Investments in and Impacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa J. Alwang* Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA * E-mail: [email protected]
- 41. 8 J. Alwang RDexpenditures in SSA. A short discussion fol- lows of the role of agricultural RD in promot- ing output and productivity in SSA. The chapter ends by discussing areas of agreement and dis- agreement. Data and Information Sources Public investments2 in agricultural research come through two major streams: (i) govern- ment and donor-sourced investments in na- tional agricultural research systems (NARS) and country-based research entities; and (ii) invest- ments made by International Agricultural Re- search Centers (IARCs) under the umbrella of the Consultative Group on International Agri- cultural Research (CGIAR). The former stream of investments has historically far exceeded the latter, but the latter, by leveraging research find- ings from other regions and focusing more heav- ily on basic research, plays an important role. In fact, Evenson and Gollin (2003) note that IARC research investments are more likely to be import- ant to NARS in SSA compared to other regions, because more than one-half of all improved var- ieties in SSA came from an IARC cross (compared to 36% worldwide). Funding for the CGIAR (CG Centers) has undergone substantial change. From 1990 to around 2006, global funding for the CG remained approximately constant in real terms at around US$400 million (2005 purchas- ing power parity; PPP). Since 2006, funding has grown relatively steadily to the point that it approached US$1 billion by 2013. CG funding sources have also changed, with the emergence of the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) as a major contributor to the CGIAR beginning in 2006. By 2013, BMGF accounted for more than 10% of total CGIAR Fund contributions, putting the Foundation among the top donors to the Fund. A third source of public research funding is through bilateral, multilateral and donor assist- ance to regional research groups and directly to university and private researchers. Examples of this stream include USAID-funded Collaborative Research Support Programs (now called Feed the Future Innovation Labs).The Department for International Development (DFID)3 provides sub- stantialdirectsupporttohost-countryresearchers through UK research councils and for private funds in developing countries such as the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa; the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund sup- ports research partnerships between Canadian and developing country researchers; other don- ors, including BMGF and other major philan- thropies, channel some funding for agricultural research through non-CG and non-NARS entities (Norton and Alwang, 2012). These latter fund- ing streams are difficult to trace, fluctuate over time, and may be absorbed into CG and NARS funding reports. They also historically represent a relatively small amount compared to the first two streams.4 As a result, most analyses of agri- cultural research expenditures do not explicitly include this third stream. Whereas information on IARC investments has been available for many years through indi- vidual centre annual reports and various compen- dia, informationonnationalresearchinvestments has historically been difficult to come by. An ini- tiative for collecting and compiling indicators on agricultural RD began in 1981 as a joint ven- ture of the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR)5 and the Inter- national Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). This initiative uses data from primary (extensive surveys in developing countries) and other sources to compile a benchmarked and compar- able data series for many developing countries. The initiative, now known as ASTI (Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators Initiative) has comprehensive data series from 32SSAcountries, which together contribute more than 90% of the region’s agricultural gross domestic product (GDP). Although this information is comprehen- sive, it is not complete, and further efforts are needed to fill data gaps.6 Measures An adequate measure of inputs into RD requires understanding of the institutional structure of agricultural research in SSA. Historically, most public agricultural research in the region was conducted in government agencies but research in institutions of higher education has grown.7 Inputs into the agricultural RD process thus in- clude both expenditures (put on a common PPP
- 42. Investments in andImpacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 9 basis) and scientist full-time equivalents (FTEs). Comparisons across countries of different sizes and resource endowments require normaliza- tion, such as research intensity (expenditures divided by agricultural GDP) or scientists per unit of agricultural GDP. Research intensity has intuitive appeal as an indicator because in 2003 the African Union’s New Partnership for Africa’s Development set a target research inten- sity of 1% for its member nations (Beintema and Stads, 2011). Brief Overview of Agricultural RD in Africa Real agricultural GDP growth in SSA averaged about 2% per year since 1961 and accelerated to 3.4% in 2001–2008 (Fuglie and Rada, 2013). Prior to 2000, agricultural productivity growth lagged behind population growth, implying lower food availability per person for the four decades between independence and the start of the new millennium.Causesof laggingproductivitygrowth include slow production of new crop varieties suitable for conditions in SSA, poor performance of input and output markets, lack of agricultural support services, discriminatory agricultural policies, and slow rates of adoption of improved varieties. Lagging productivity is partly explained by unique challenges in SSA: near-complete reli- ance on rainfed agriculture and extreme spatial variability in biotic and abiotic constraints. Also, prior to 2000, the impact of agricultural RD on SSA agricultural productivity growth was es- timated to be lower than elsewhere in the world. In fact estimates show that before 2002, agricul- tural output growth in the region was driven by increased resource use, not by enhanced agri- cultural productivity (Fuglie and Rada, 2013). Since the mid-1980s, however, annual total factor productivity growth in SSA agriculture has accelerated somewhat (to about 1%). This expansion coincides with increased availability and adoption of new agricultural technologies, including new crop varieties. In fact, by the late 1990s nearly 20% of the area planted to food crops in SSA was sown to improved varieties (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). SSA-wide adoption is uneven; among major foods approximately 18% of area is planted to improved varieties,8 but prior to the more comprehensive estimates presented in Part 2 of this volume, it was widely perceived that adoption of modern varieties of some important food crops, such as pearl millet and groundnut, was low to negligible (Fuglie and Rada, 2013). Thus, while adoption and spread of modern varieties is growing, there is substan- tial potential for future spread. The ultimate determinant of the supply of modern varieties is investment in agricultural RD, particularly investments in crop improve- ment research. Several studies have examined expenditures and scientist FTEs involved in agri- cultural RD in SSA. The main references for this research, summarized in Table 2.1, are Pardey et al. (1997), Evenson and Gollin (2003), Maredia and Raitzer (2006), Beintema and Stads (2011), and Fuglie and Rada (2013). Pri- mary data sources include the ASTI indicators for NARS research expenditures and various in- carnations of these data, CGIAR Center-based records, which account for CG investments, and ad-hoc surveys of IARC and NARS scientists and research administrators. Agricultural research expenditures in SSA As of the mid-1990s, studies of agricultural RD in Africa showed significant increases from a very low base in public investments through the 1960s and 1970s. This expenditure growth slowed in the mid-1980s and into the 1990s (Pardey et al., 1997; see Table 2.1). Data also show substantial inter-year variability, but little analysis has been conducted on this variability, except to note that year-to-year funding variability in SSA exceeds that in the rest of the developing world. During the latter part of the 20th century, instability in funding for SSA RD was much higher than other regions of the world. SSA accounted for 5% of global public RD in 2000, down from 7% in 1981. The slowdown in spending during 1980–2000islikelytohavelastingimpactsregion- wide (Beintema and Stads, 2011). The observed slowdown in spending on agricultural RD in the mid-1980s was par- tially caused by reductions in bilateral and multilateral grants and loans as donors turned to other investments, but national systems saw
- 43. 10 J. Alwang Table 2.1. Summaryof recent literature on agricultural RD in sub-Saharan Africa. Source Years Focus Data source Main findings Pardey et al. (1997) 1961–1991 Research expenditures by country, composition of expenditures; explicit focus on SSA IFPRI/ISNAR Government research constitutes lion’s share of expend- itures (91% in 1961 to 85.6% in 1991) University-based research expanded by 7.1% per year 1961–1991 Increase in researchers from 2000 to 9000 (1961–1991) Shift from expatriate researchers (90% to 11% of total research staff 1961–1991); nearly 65 % of NARS researchers have post-graduate degrees A few very large systems dominate Real research expenditures grew rapidly during 1960s, moderately in 1970s and ceased growth in 1980s through to early 1990s NARS are becoming increasingly dependent on external (to country) spending Strong heterogeneity – some systems continued to grow, while others shrank Evenson and Gollin (2003) Adoption and impacts of improved varieties; crop-specific estimates Various, depending on crop; most crop-specific data are from CG Center cross-sectional surveys Sorghum: low investments in African RD for sorghum despite its economic importance (data from late 1980s and early 1990s) Maize: lower research intensity in eastern and southern Africa compared to rest of the world; limited private sector involvement in maize breeding compared to rest of the world Millet and groundnuts: few details on research resources Maredia and Raitzer (2006) 1970s – 2004, with a focus on 2000–2004 Research expenditures of CGIAR, estimates of research impacts CGIAR Center reports; case studies of research impact 40% of annual CG research budget devoted to SSA since inception Virtually all CG Centers are heavily invested in SSA IITA, ICRAF, ILRI and CIMMYT have highest research expenditures in SSA System-wide cumulative investment of US$4.3 billion ($ 2004) by 2004 in SSA Change in composition of CG investments away from crop-productivity enhancements; dramatic decline in the real value of crop productivity, enhancing research since the mid-1980s
- 44. Investments in and Impacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 11 Beintema and Stads (2011) Focuson 2001–2008 Research expenditures and staffing ASTI Strong growth in real resources devoted to agricultural RD since 2001 in SSA Agricultural GDP growth in SSA lags behind overall growth even through 2008 Uneven patterns of spending: large systems drive overall trends and some very small NARS are vulnerable because of low spending and staffing levels Institutional arrangements for agricultural RD vary from country to country but single agency dominates in most; in smaller countries, bulk of research is being conducted by disperse government agencies and universities Government role is shrinking over time Researchers in higher education are growing and more than doubled from 1991–2008; the share of higher education in public RD research staff grew from 15 to 24% during the same period Fuglie and Rada (2013) 1981–2005 Research expenditures, spread of modern varieties, impacts of research ASTI, supplemented by CG Center reports RD investments have had a strong impact on total factor productivity region-wide Prior to mid-1980s, growth in agricultural output in SSA was due to increased use of inputs (land, labour and capital), not growth in productivity Since mid-1980s, total factor productivity growth in SSA averaged about 1% per year Policy environment affects linkages between research investments and productivity growth CIMMYT, Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat); ICRAF, International Center for Agroforestry; IITA, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; ILRI, International Livestock Research Institute.
- 45. 12 J. Alwang dwindlingsupport from their own governments. Lagging support is attributable to a number of factors, including moderating commodity and en- ergy prices, increased attention in public sector spending for social sectors, low perceived re- turns to agricultural investments in the region due to policy- related factors such as tax and marketing policies, and lack of broad public support for research. African NARS capacity started from a very low base following independence when staffing was thin and most senior scientific staff comprised expatriates (Pardey et al., 1997). Employment in SSA NARS grew at a robust average annual rate of 5% from 1961 to 1991, and by 1991 the region employed around 9000 full-time agri- cultural scientists (Table 2.2). Overall NARS growth was accompanied by a gradual shrink- ing of the share of expatriate scientists (to about 11% of the total) as national investments in- creased training of local scientists. SSA NARS funding relies disproportionately on donor funding and the dependence increased through the 1990s; donor contributions accounted for about 35% of total investments in 1996 (Pardey et al., 2007). Donor support represents a lar- ger share of total RD expenditures for the poorest countries, particularly for smaller poor countries. Region-wide agricultural research expend- itures began to grow again in 2001 and growth between 2001 and 2008 averaged more than 2% annually (Beintema and Stads, 2011). By 2008 the overall level of spending for the region reached US$1.7 billion (2005 PPP; seeTable 2.2). Investments in agricultural research are mani- fest in different measures. For example, scientist quality has improved over time. As of 2008, 73% of SSA agricultural scientists in SSA research systems had an advanced degree. This should be compared to about 65% in 1991 and 45% in the early 1980s (Beintema and Stads, 2011; Pardey et al., 1997). Intra-Regional Differences The aggregate spending picture presented above obscures important differences within SSA. These differences include stark heterogeneity in national system size and quality, and different patterns of investment over time and within sys- tems. A salient characteristic of the agricultural research complex in SSA is uneven size with a few very large systems predominating9 (Pardey et al., 1997). This unevenness makes it difficult to make generalizations from aggregate trends; the aggregates obscure major differences across countries and for individual years. For example, investments in the Nigerian system grew during the 1960s and 1970s as oil revenues boomed, but shrunk dramatically during the 1980s to the point where they were (in 1991) less than one-half what they were in the 1970s. Some systems had relatively even growth, such as Kenya, Burkina Faso and Ethiopia, while others, including Nigeria, Ghana and Madagascar, had rapid growth followed by a decade-long decline in real research expenditures. Size disparities acrosstheregionwerereducedsomewhatbetween 1961 and 1991 as the number of mid-sized SSA research systems (those with between 100 and 400 researchers) grew – from 3 in 1961 to 18 in 1991. However, national system size and quality remain uneven and generalizations about re- gional growth patterns are difficult to make. As of 2008, eight countries – Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda,Tanzania, Ethiopia and Sudan – with large research systems account for about 70% of SSA’s agricultural RD spending Table 2.2. Long-term trends in research expenditures and FTE capacity (31 ASTI countries). Year Expenditures (millions 2005 PPP $) Rate of growth Researchers Rate of growth 1971 963 3,060 1981 1,218 1.7 5,819 5.4 1991 1,335 0.6 9,065 3.8 2001 1,432 1.0 9,824 1.3 2008 1,741 2.4 12,120 2.8 Source: Beintema and Stads (2011).
- 46. Investments in andImpacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 13 and 64% of its FTE researchers. In addition, over one-third of the region-wide expenditure growth during 2001–2008 was driven by increases in Nigeria, Ghana, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda, and the funding (FTE) concentration in the eight large systems has grown from 53% since 1991. This imbalance distorts the overall picture and creates doubt about the sustainability of RD investments in the remaining countries. Cur- rently, some countries have stagnant systems with too few resources to guarantee long-term survival.10 In the smaller and less well-funded systems, national commitment to continued funding is questionable and the systems are vul- nerable to cut-backs from external sources. More regional cooperation may be necessary to strengthen these relatively small systems (Bein- tema and Stads, 2011). National systems also exhibit heterogeneity in the composition of spending. Ghana and Nigeria expend large proportions of their budgets on scientist salaries, while other countries such as Uganda andTanzania spend far higher propor- tions on operations (Uganda) and capital invest- ments (Tanzania). Although agricultural research staff in SSA grew rapidly from 1961 through to 1991, RD expenditures grew at a slower rate and, in some systems, real research expenditure growth was negative during the 1990s. Differ- ences in spending patterns are reflected in uneven scientistquality:in1991,63%of theSSAnational scientists with PhDs worked in three systems: Nigeria, South Africa and the Sudan. The robust increase in scientist numbers in SSA from 1961 to 2008 was not accompanied by growth in other areas of research funding; there- fore, region-wide resources allocated per scientist have declined over time.11 Several factors explain this decline, including changing proportions of expatriate researchers, changes in educational attainment of researchers and changes in funding for support staff. The decline became most pro- nounced in the 1980s but all of the aggregate fall occurred prior to 1990 (Fuglie and Rada). Since 1990, aggregate research resources per scientist have grown slightly in SSA, possibly reflecting otherindicationsof recommitmentbyseveralgov- ernments to agricultural research. The shallow- ing of research resources prior to 1990 combined with irregular overall funding levels had clearly negative effects on the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural RD in the region (Pardey et al., 1997) but these effects may be somewhat miti- gated by changes since 2001 (Fig. 2.1). Despite their relatively optimistic assess- ment of recent funding trends, Beintema and 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Number of scientists RD spending (million 2005 $) NARS PPP$ NARS US$ CGIAR US$ for SSA NARS SY Fig. 2.1. Total agricultural RD spending by source and number of scientists in SSA NARS (excluding South Africa), 1961–2008. SY, scientist years. (Source: Fuglie and Rada, 2013.)
- 47. 14 J. Alwang Stads(2011) find that only 8 of 31 countries in their analysis had funding intensity ratios that exceeded the region-wide target of 1%. This disparity is further evidence of within-SSA het- erogeneity research investments. Funding reduc- tions experienced during the 1980s and 1990s are having a lasting effect on research capacity; current intensity ratios are still below levels in the late 1980s. BeintemaandStadsarguethattotalresearch expenditures and staffing levels are a poor indi- cator of funding sufficiency; only three of the eight ‘large systems’ (with funding of more than US$50 million per year) met the targeted fund- ing intensity ratio. Sudan and Ethiopia, two of the larger African systems, have intensity ratios among the bottom for the 31 countries included in the analysis; the size of the systems distorts the region-wide funding analysis presented above. Ratios of staff per million dollars expended varied dramatically by country suggesting major differ- ences in composition of systems or in the rela- tionship between staffing levels and overall systemcosts.TheGuineasystemhadover57FTEsper million dollars spent, whereas Côte d’Ivoire and South Africa had fewer than 3 FTEs per million inRDexpenditures.Smallersystemstend to have more FTEs per dollar of expenditure, which indi- cates – consistent with the overall findings – that some of the smaller systems face viability issues. An analysis of funding sources reveals a mixed bag: some SSA countries are heavily dependent on outside sources of funding; others, particularly the larger systems, rely on resources from their own government. Many NARS have di- versified their funding sources to include a mix of government funding, dedicated commodity taxes, sales of goods (e.g. seeds) and services (e.g. exten- sion) and donor funding. Those systems more dependent on commodity tax revenues (e.g. Maur- itius) find commodity price variability to be a problem for sustainability. The overall conclusion of the report with respect to funding is one of diversity. Across SSA, multiple funding models can be found, and these models evolve over time as country and external conditions change. IARC contributions International agricultural research centres have playedanimportanthistoricalroleinstrengthening agricultural research and contributing to variety releases in SSA. Evidence shows that IARC invest- ments complement NARS investments; NARS investments were estimated to be about 15% higher than they would have been in the ab- sence of IARC funds (Evenson and Gollin, 2003, Chapter 21). This finding might indicate that the slowdown in aggregate funding for agricultural research in SSA documented by Pardey et al. (1997) reflects changes in donor emphasis and the reaction of individual NARS to this changed emphasis. Growth in research spending since 2000 (documented further below) reflects donor interests along with a growing SSA-wide consen- sus in support of agricultural RD. The CGIAR presence in SSA is broad based because virtually all the centres have had a majorpresenceintheregionsincetheearly1970s or since the date when a particular centre joined theCGIARsystem(MarediaandRaitzer,2006)12 . Since its inception, the CGIAR as a whole has invested more than 40% of its global research budgettoSSA(FuglieandRada,2013).TheCGIAR investment share devoted to SSA has remained high over time but the composition of the re- search budget has changed. The proportion of CGIAR research expenditures on productivity- enhancing technologies (mostly crop improve- ment research) has shrunk dramatically over time. During 1972–1976, more than 80% of the CGIAR SSA research budget was devoted to crop productivity-enhancing research; by 2002, this share fell to less than 33% (Maredia and Raitzer, 2006). The change in composition is partiallydrivenbytheemergenceof non-commodity focused centres and reflects a system-wide change in emphasis. Over the same period, the CGIAR share devoted to environmental improvement rose from zero to almost 15%, policy research experienced a similar growth in prominence, whereas biodiversity research rose from zero to almost 7%. In terms of overall resources devoted to SSA, IITA, followed by ICRAF and ILRI, each spent more than US$15 million annually dur- ing 2000–2004, and CIMMYT, ICRISAT and IFPRI spent between US$10 and US$15 million annually during the same period (see Maredia and Raitzer, 2006, Figure 4, p.13). As a result of these factors, nominal values of expenditures on productivity-enhancing re- search allocated to SSA in 2002 were identical to levels in the mid-1980s (about US$60 million)
- 48. Investments in andImpacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 15 so the real value of expenditures on this research has fallen dramatically. Because the CG Center is often a leader in setting broad research priorities fortheregion,shiftsawayfromcrop-improvement research are likely to have occurred for national systems. These shifts have clear consequences for variety releases and productivity changes. Crop-specific research investment patterns In SSA, six food crops – sorghum, maize, millet, cassava, cowpea and groundnuts – account for about 73% of cropped food area, and, if rice, banana, beans and yams areas are included, they account for nearly 90% (Fuglie and Rada, 2013). Data show that research investments in RD in SSA for these key crops lag behind those of other regions of the world. Lower investments by national governments in SSA even extend to the crops that represent the largest shares of land area. Evidence also shows fewer releases of MVs (modern varieties) in SSA compared to the rest of the developing world since the early 1960s. However, the rate of MV release for SSA has picked up since the late 1970s (Evenson and Gollin, 2003, multiple chapters). Although sorghum is widely planted in Africa, resources for crop improvement research for sorghum in the region are limited.13 Outside of Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya, SSA NARS gener- ally devote only between one and five scientists to sorghum; and region-wide there are only about 170 scientists engaged in sorghum re- search.14 Interestingly, Nigeria, which together with Sudan is the largest producer of sorghum (in terms of planted area and production levels), had only six (1991–1992 data from ICRISAT) scientists involved in sorghum research (Sudan had 21). NARS size unevenness in SSA is further reflected in differences in resources devoted to specific crops. Despite its obvious importance to SSA smallholders, African NARS have invested far fewer resources (quantity and scientist qual- ity) in sorghum compared to countries in Asia (Deb and Bantilan, 2003). The case of millet, another important consumer crop in West Africa is similar to that of sorghum.15 Pearl millet repre- sents more than 95% of the millet planted in SSA and yields in the region are low. Despite its importance as a consumer crop, pearl millet commands few RD resources; an estimated 250 scientists across SSA were involved in pearl millet research in the late 1990s, with many of these scientists sharing time on other crops (Bantilan and Deb, 2003). Evidence for these important crops suggests an imbalance: together they account for about 33% of cropped area in SSA, yet less than 5% of the region’s FTE researchers were engaged in sorghum and millet research as of 1991.16 No evidence since then has shown this imbalance to have changed. Patterns of crop improvement for maize dif- fer by subregion within SSA. Maize breeding programmes in East and Southern Africa (ESA) have lower research intensities, fewer scientist numbers and are more centralized than similar programmesinAsiaandLatinAmerica.17 Whereas some national programmes have decentralized their maize breeding18 to reflect agroecological heterogeneity, decentralized breeding probably suffers from acute resource shallowing. The SSA region also is characterized by less involvement of private sector breeding in ESA (an estimated 45 FTEs compared to 109 in the public sector) and West and Central Africa (WCA; 51 senior and intermediate-level researchers compared to 112 in the public sector) compared to other regions of the world. This outcome is probably due to the relative lack of commercialized maize sectors in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for over one- half of the world’s cassava production and an estimated 95% of the crop in the region is dedi- cated to human consumption. Prior to estab- lishment of the IARCs, cassava research, unlike most other major food crops, commanded virtu- ally no NARS resources throughout the develop- ing world. Within a few years of establishment of CIAT and IITA, several NARS established cas- sava RD programmes. In cassava RD, the IARCs have had a major impact because many of the scientists working in national research systems were trained by CIAT and IITA.19 Esti- mates show about 49 cassava breeders working in NARS, universities and the private sector in 1998. This figure compares favourably with Asia (23 total) and Latin America and the Caribbean (16 total), and breeding intensity in SSA in 1998 was comparable with other parts of the world (approximately 0.6 FTEs per million tonnes of production). Although research intensities for
- 49. 16 J. Alwang cassavain SSA do not differ substantially from those in the rest of the world, these estimates are very low by any standard because few, if any, other crops are characterized by a research intensity at or below 1.0 scientist per million tonnes of production. Of the less important (on an SSA-wide scale) foods, rice research in West Africa has been limited by relatively small numbers of sci- entists in the NARS (fewer than 46 FTEs by 1998). In spite of this limited capacity, more than 319 improved varieties had been released by 2003 with more than 40% of them having some contribution from CG germplasm or par- ents. Numbers of bean breeders have grown in SSA NARS from two in 1980 to more than 40 by 1998.20 Wheat, although accounting for a rela- tively small percentage of SSA cropland, had more than 104 FTE scientists in 1997, up from 62 in 1992. NARS expenditures on wheat re- search for SSA reached about 3.7 million ($1990) in 1990.21 Research Impacts Studies examining the impacts of agricultural research include those focusing on intermediate measures such as variety release or land area covered by improved varieties, impacts or rates of return from specific research programmes and aggregate rate of return studies. Studies of impacts of agricultural research on agricultural productivity in SSA have employed various methods including direct econometric estima- tion (e.g. Fuglie and Rada, 2013), summaries of findings from existing studies (e.g. Maredia and Raitzer, 2006) and meta-analyses of economet- ric studies (e.g. Alston et al., 2000). Trends reflecting the spread of modern var- ieties in Africa are now relatively well known (Evenson and Gollin, 2003; Fuglie and Rada, 2013; and several chapters from this volume).22 The spread of these varieties in SSA has lagged behind that in other areas, but a recent increase in this spread is noted in several chapters of this volume. By 1998, the share of SSA area planted to modern varieties was 23%, far lower than Asia (83%), the Middle East and North Africa (56%), and Latin America (51%) (Renkow and Byerlee, 2010). CGIAR contributions to modern variety development in SSA were, however, thought to be larger than its contribution in other regions, suggesting strongly that the role of the CGIAR in genetic improvement in SSA is high (Renkow and Byerlee, 2010). Of the major cereal crops in SSA (sorghum, maize and millet, which account for approximately 86% of cereal cropped land), about 20% was planted to im- proved varieties in 2005 (see Table 2.1). Overall, although data are incomplete, approximately 18% of food-cropped area in SSA is now planted to improved varieties and the vast majority of these are from CGIAR sources (see Table 2.1). Much of the increased adoption has occurred since the mid-1980s and evidence shows that for some crops in some areas adoption rates are increasing. For example, Alene et al. (2009) document that about 60% of maize area in WCA is now under improved varieties. Like the discus- sion of research investments, the aggregate pic- ture for adoption rates in SSA masks important successes. Numerous studies have been conducted on impacts of agricultural research in SSA. Block (1995) used a precursor to the ASTI data set and found that RD expenditures explain about one- third of the productivity growth in SSA between 1983 and 1988. Masters et al. (1998) examined 32 case studies of the relationship between re- search expenditures and agricultural output in SSA.They found that 24 of these studies reported annual returns over 20% and many were far higher, with most gains arising in the late 1980s and 1990s.23 For a comprehensive account of evidence accumulated prior to 2000, see Alston et al. (2000). Their meta-analysis included 47 studies of assessments of research impacts from SSA conducted between 1958 and 1997 that generally found quite high rates of return to individual research programmes (Alston et al., 2000). Notably, the vast majority of these stud- ies focused on research conducted by NARS (40) and only four focused exclusively on research conducted by a CG Center (Maredia and Raitzer, 2006). Maredia and Raitzer found that the CGIAR’s impact in terms of benefits and costs in SSA was generally lower than system-wide esti- mates of impact and the major impacts in SSA haveemerged from research on biological control (almost all due to control of the cassava mealy bug). Renkow and Byerlee (2010) noted that the relatively low spread of modern varieties in SSA
- 50. Investments in andImpacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 17 meant that the CGIAR contribution to yield growth from 1965 to 1998 was much lower than in other regions. This picture has changed, how- ever, with several recently emerging SSA success stories. Recently documented crop genetic im- provement success stories for Africa include maize (Alene et al., 2009), cowpea (Kristjanson et al., 2002), common bean (Kalyebara et al., 2008) and rice (Diagne, 2006). Fuglie and Rada (2013) focused on mech- anisms by which national agricultural research investments affect productivity and identified two pathways of impact: research investments can help diffuse a CGIAR technology, which sub- sequently raises farm productivity, and they can affect total factor productivity (TFP) through other, unspecified means, such as by furthering diffusion of non-CGIAR technologies, influen- cing policy changes, or by encouraging farmers to improve their resource management. The Fuglie and Rada (2013) econometric analysis found both pathways to be important; national expend- itures on agricultural research as well as other policy reforms – such as enhanced education and investments in infrastructure – helped diffuse CGIAR-sourcedtechnologyandothernon-specific crop technologies. Both factors helped raise TFP in agriculture. CGIAR-generated technologies were associated with a 45–82% increase in TFP over the period. The study examined limited measures of research expenditure complemen- tarity and found that increased investments in NARSledtosignificantlymorediffusionof CGIAR- sourced technologies, but it did not examine whether increased CGIAR investments enhanced the productivity of NARS research. Evidence of impacts of agricultural research in SSA on non-efficiency objectives is more limited. These alternative objectives include pov- erty reduction, improved environmental sustain- ability, gender empowerment and others. Ren- kow and Byerlee (2010) summarized studies of non-efficiency outcomes of CGIAR research in SSA, and showed limited evidence of impacts on poverty and on the environment. Chapters 15 and 16 on distributional impacts in this volume find that impacts of improved maize (Ethiopia) and beans (Rwanda and Uganda) on poverty are rather modest. In these studies, resource-scarce farmers are able to adopt the new varieties, and variety adoption is accompanied by increased net income from farming. However, small farm size limits the magnitude of income gains; there- fore, the direct effect on the adopting household is relatively small. Market-mediated effects, how- ever, can be larger, depending on the condi- tions in the respective markets (Chapter 15 and Chapter 16, this volume). Discussion The overall trends in agricultural RD expend- itures in SSA are clear. Starting from a low base in the early 1960s, aggregate funding grew throughout the 1960s, slowed in the 1970s, and underwent an even more dramatic slowdown in the 1980s and through the 1990s. Since 2000, steady increases in funding have come from ex- ternaldonorsandnationalgovernments.Growth in research expenditures has, however, been un- even, with individual countries showing pat- terns that differ from mean trends. Even during the post-2001 period of overall growth, 13 of 30 ASTI countries had negative compound growth rates. Uneven growth in research funding cre- ates a region characterized by several very large NARS whose resource allocations and other decisions dominate the overall picture. This dominance has fallen over time with the growth of anumberof medium-sizedsystems,butsystem- wide trends still mask substantial intra-regional variation. An important question that none of the research addressed is whether there has been ‘convergence’ in spending. Convergence24 occurs when systems with high research intensity at a starting point grow their intensity at a slower rate than systems with low intensities. Under convergence, we would expect research inten- sities to approach a steady state where the inten- sities become relatively equal for all countries.To examine the tendency toward convergence, we graph for each country research intensity at a suitable start point (1965) and examine the per- centage change in intensity from this point through the end of the data series (2008). Figure 2.2 shows evidence of convergence over the entire period. All but one country with moderate-high intensities above 0.0075 in 1965 experienced negative intensity growth from 1965 to 2008, whereas those with starting intensities below 0.004 showed higher rates of growth.
- 51. 18 J. Alwang Thispattern is consistent with a pattern of in- creased investments over time in areas where re- search is lacking and, possibly, of diminishing returns in well-funded systems. Further analysis shows that the 1980s were characterized by strong convergence in research intensities across agricultural RD sys- tems in SSA (Fig. 2.3a), while patterns of con- vergence disappeared after 1990 (Fig. 2.3b).The explanation for this changing pattern is not ob- vious but the finding implies that, until around 1990, countries in the region as a whole were investing in research in a pattern that reflects simple economic considerations (e.g. higher in- vestments in relatively under-funded systems). This pattern was broken following the slowdown in research investments experienced in the early 1990s and growth in intensity was actually negative in the decade prior to 2000. Investment patterns since 2000 show renewed tendency to- ward convergence in Fig. 2.3c. In fact, the region-wide within-year vari- ability in research intensity has grown substan- tially since the early 1960s (Fig. 2.4) indicating a growing spread of high- and low-intensity countries in SSA. Variability in research inten- sity across countries increased modestly until the mid-1990s and then grew dramatically since the late 1990s. This trend confirms the Beintema and Stads (2011) conclusion that the recent growth in agricultural research expend- ituresinSSAisnotbroad-based.Afewcountriesare increasing investments substantially, whereas others are not. Support for agricultural RD has experi- enced fits of increase and decrease for the entire SSA region and, in an even more pronounced fashion, for individual countries. This variability may contribute to lower than expected research productivity. Uncertainty about longer-term fund- ing prospects has clear potential to damage multi- year research efforts and may bias researchers toward engaging in projects with shorter-term payoffs. Lags between research expenditures and impacts on agricultural productivity are quite long and, whereas the impacts of variable fund- ing on productivity are less well-known, evidence shows funding slowdowns experienced begin- ning in the 1980s may persist in lowering agri- cultural productivity even today. Since the early 1960s, a dramatic shift in scientific capability has occurred in the SSA region, with African scientists now representing a large majority of agricultural researchers. Region- wide, more than 70% of researchers now have advanced degrees (30% have PhDs). −1 0 1 2 3 Change 1965−2008 (%) 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 Research intensity 1965 Fig. 2.2. Convergence in SSA research intensity, 1965–2008. (Source: Own analysis using data from Fuglie and Rada (2013) supplemented with World Bank data.)
- 52. Investments in andImpacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 19 Evidence shows, however, that this scientific capacity is being spread thinly; scientist numbers as well as proportions of budgets spent on scien- tific salaries have grown, leading to a shallowing of the resource pool for operating expenditures. Some smaller systems have lost researchers and pressure continues to be high to increase train- ing pools and salaries for scientists. Although high salaries are needed to retain the most productive scientists, more information is needed Fig. 2.3. Convergence patterns for research intensity in SSA countries, sub-periods. (Source: Own analysis using data from Fuglie and Rada (2013) supplemented with World Bank data.) 0 2 4 6 (a) Change 1980−1990 (%) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 Research intensity 1980 −1 −.5 0 .5 1 Change 1990−2000 (%) 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 Research intensity 1990 (b)
- 53. 20 J. Alwang onthe consequences of dedicating high propor- tions of research budgets to staff salaries. The CGIAR has had a major influence on the development and direction of NARS in SSA bytrainingNARSscientists,providinggermplasm andcollaboratingcloselywithNARS-ledresearch. NARS and CGIAR research expenditures have been complementary; increased CG spending is associatedwithadditionalresourcesfromnational governments suggesting a potential crowding-in effect. Whereas a few of the smaller systems are still dependent on donor funding, the region as a whole has undergone a transition toward alter- native funding streams. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Coefficient of variation Year Fig. 2.4. Annual SSA-wide coefficient of variation in research intensity, 1965–2005. (Source: own analysis using data from Fuglie and Rada (2013) supplemented with World Bank data.) −.5 0 .5 1 1.5 Change 2000−2008 (%) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Research intensity 2000 (c) Fig. 2.3. Continued.
- 54. Investments in andImpacts of Crop Improvement Research in Africa 21 Since 2000, agricultural RD in SSA has be- come increasingly interlinked across the region. This integration has been promoted by regional groups including the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA); the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern andCentralAfrica(ASARECA);andothers.These groups help coordinate research across the region through scientist networks. Commodity- specific networks such as the Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA), comprising 24 coun- trymembers,havealsostrengthenedregion-wide coordination, collaboration and research infor- mation sharing. Perhaps their primary strength is to allow specialization of individual national agricultural research systems in certain fields. As a result, it becomes more possible to obtain economies of scale in research and cross-network sharing is particularly beneficial for small coun- tries that might lack a critical mass. A clear implication of the analysis sum- marized in this chapter is that it is dangerous to make summary statements about region-wide trends. As with most economic phenomena, a region- wide analysis masks important differ- ences. It is clear that to understand impacts of investments in SSA agricultural RD focused studies are required and only through the aggre- gation of focused results can the whole picture be understood. Notes 1 Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya account for about half of total agricultural RD spending in the region; Ghana, Uganda and Tanzania are also relatively large systems. 2 Data on private research investments in SSA are limited and, as a result, an assessment of private- sector research is not included here. Public research historically dominated agricultural research in SSA and, while government agencies accounted for about 73% of full time equivalent (FTE) researchers in 2008, this number had fallen from 82% in 1991 (Beintema and Stads, 2011). Beintema and Stads note that most privately funded research in Africa is conducted in government agencies and universities (and thus, these expenditures would appear among other indicators of public-sector expenditures), and privately con- ducted research represents only 2% of total research funding for SSA. Private sector research is probably most evident in the hybrid maize sector; by 1998 farmers in Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe were heavy users of private-sector hybrids. In contrast, private sector maize hybrids have had hardly any traction in West and Central Africa. 3 Currently about 50% of DFID funding for agricultural research in developing countries goes directly for core support for the CGIAR; the other half flows through other mechanisms. Although a large part of this remainder will show up in CG and NARS accounts, a substantial portion will not. 4 BMGF funding now represents a relatively large proportion of total agricultural research funding in SSA. The BMGF helped form the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which provides large-scale support in the areas of plant breeding and soil health. 5 ISNAR was subsequently absorbed into IFPRI. 6 As an example, Fuglie and Rada (2013), discussed in detail below, merged ASTI data with information on area cropped under CGIAR-sourced varieties. 7 Beintema and Stads note that from 1991 to 2008 the proportion of agricultural researchers at African universities grew from 14 to 24%. Despite this growth, university researchers, on average, spend less than 25% of their time on research. 8 Estimates come from Fuglie and Rada (2013) and include information from 32 countries. 9 South Africa (1339), Nigeria (1013) and Kenya (819) were the largest systems, and Tanzania (546) was the only other SSA NARS with more than 500 employees in 1991. 10 Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya each have more than 1000 FTE scientists, and 16 other NARS have FTEs in the 100–500 range. 11 Fuglie and Rada show that region-wide research expenditures per scientist per year fell in real terms by more than 50% from 1961 to 2008. 12 IRRI is the exception as the West African Rice Development Association (WARDA), now AfricaRice, conducts rice research for much of West Africa. IRRI has, however, invested considerably in rice research in Madagascar, Tanzania, Mozambique and other rice-growing countries in southern Africa. Historically, rice has had a more diversified pattern of institutional investment in SSA than any other food crop.
- 55. Random documents withunrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 56. AUSTRIAN CAKE.—Take athick straight-sided pound cake about the circumference of a large dinner-plate, and cut it horizontally into slices, the whole breadth of the cake, and rather more than half an inch thick. Spread each slice, thickly and smoothly, with marmalade of peach, raspberry, strawberry, or orange. The marmalade may be all the same, or of a different sort on each slice. Lay the slices, nicely, and evenly, one upon another, taking care that none of the marmalade oozes down from between the edges. Then make a thick icing of white of egg and powdered loaf-sugar, and flavour it with rose or orange-flower water. Heap a large portion of it on the centre of the cake, and with a broad knife (dipped frequently in cold water) spread it smoothly all over the top and sides. Then set it away to harden. You may ornament it by putting icing into a small syringe and pressing it out into the form of a centre-piece and border of flowers. To do this requires practice, taste, and ingenuity. When the cake is to be eaten, cut it down into triangular pieces; each including a portion of the different layers of marmalade. Instead of marmalade you may use for this cake, fresh strawberries, mashed smoothly and sweetened with white sugar. MADISON CAKE.—Pick clean two pounds of sultana raisins, (those that have no seeds,) and cut them in half. If you cannot procure the sultana, use the bloom or muscatel raisins, removing all the seeds. When the raisins are cut in two, dredge them thickly on all sides with flour, to prevent their sinking or clodding in the cake while baking. Sift into a pan a pound and three quarters (not more) of flour. Cut up a pound of fresh butter into a deep pan. Mix with it a pound of white lump-sugar finely powdered; and stir them together till they become a thick, white, cream. Have ready a tea-spoonful of powdered nutmeg, and a table-spoonful of powdered cinnamon, and mix these spices, gradually, with the butter and sugar. Beat fourteen eggs (not fewer) till very light and thick. Then stir them, gradually, into the beaten butter and sugar, alternately with the flour and a pint of rich milk, (sour milk will be best.) Add at the last a very small tea-
- 57. spoonful of pearlash,or of bi-carbonate of soda, dissolved in a large wine-glass of brandy. Give the whole a hard stirring, and then put it immediately into a deep circular tin pan, the sides and bottom of which have been first well greased with fresh butter. Set it directly into a well-heated oven, and let it bake from five to six hours, according to its size. It requires long and steady baking. When cool, cover it (top and sides) with a thick icing, made in the usual way of beaten white of egg and sugar, and flavoured with rose-water or lemon. If the above directions are closely followed this will be found a very fine cake, and it will keep soft and fresh a week if the air is carefully excluded from it. It will be still better, if in addition to the two pounds of raisins, you mix in two pounds of Zante currants, picked, washed, dried before the fire, and then well floured. Half a pound of citron cut into slips and floured, may also be added. STRAWBERRY CAKES.—Sift a small quart of flour into a pan, and cut up among it half a pound of the best fresh butter; or mix in a pint of butter if it is soft enough to measure in that manner. Rub with your hands the butter into the flour, till the whole is crumbled fine. Beat three eggs very light; and then mix with them three table- spoonfuls of powdered loaf-sugar. Wet the flour and butter with the beaten egg and sugar, so as to form a dough. If you find it too stiff, add a very little cold water. Knead the dough till it quits your hands, and leaves them clean. Spread some flour on your paste-board, and roll out the dough into a rather thick sheet. Cut it into round cakes with the edge of a tumbler, or something similar; dipping the cutter frequently into flour to prevent its sticking. Butter some large square iron pans or baking sheets. Lay the cakes in, not too close to each other. Set them in a brisk oven, and bake them light brown. Have ready a sufficient quantity of ripe strawberries, mashed and made very sweet with powdered white sugar. Reserve some of your finest strawberries whole. When the cakes are cool, split them, place them
- 58. on flat dishes,and cover the bottom piece of each with mashed strawberry, put on thickly. Then lay on the top pieces, pressing them down. Have ready some icing, and spread it thickly over the top and down the sides of each cake, so as to enclose both the upper and lower pieces. Before the icing has quite dried, ornament the top of every cake with the whole strawberries, a large one in the centre, and the smaller ones placed round in a close circle. These are delicious and beautiful cakes if properly made. The strawberries, not being cooked, will retain all their natural flavour. Instead of strawberries you may use raspberries. The large white or buff-coloured raspberry is the finest, if to be eaten uncooked. PEACH CAKES.—Pick clean and wash a quart of dried peaches, and let them stew all night in as much clear water as will cover them. In the morning, drain off most of the water, leaving only as much of it about the peaches as will suffice to prevent them from burning after they are set over the fire. It will be best to have them soaked in the vessel in which you intend to stew them. Keep them covered while stewing, except when you take off the lid to stir them up from the bottom. When they are all quite soft, and can be mashed into a smooth jam or marmalade, mix in half a pound of brown sugar, and set the peaches to cool. In the mean time, soften a quarter of a pound of the best fresh butter in half a pint of warm milk, heated on the stove, but not allowed to come to a simmer. Sift a pound of flour into a pan; pour in the warm milk and butter (first stirring them well together) and a wine-glass of strong, fresh yeast. Mix the whole into a dough. Cover it, and set it in a warm place to rise. When quite light and cracked all over the surface, flour your paste-board, put the dough upon it; mix in a small tea-spoonful of sub-carbonate of soda, and knead it well; set it again in a warm place for half an hour. Then divide the dough into equal portions, and make it up into round cakes about the size in circumference of the top of a tumbler. Knead each cake. Then roll them out into a thin sheet. Have ready the peach jam, mashed very smooth, and with a
- 59. portion of itcover thickly the half of each cake. Fold over the other half, so as to enclose the peach jam in the form of a half-moon. Bring the two edges closely together and crimp them neatly. Lay the cakes in buttered square pans, and bake them brown. When done grate sugar over the top. These cakes are nice for children, being very light, if properly made and baked. They are by no means rich, and are good substitutes for tarts. Similar cakes may be made with stewed apple, flavoured with lemon and sweetened. Or with raspberries, or any other convenient fruit stewed to a jam. SMALL LEMON CAKES.—Break up a pound of fine loaf-sugar, and on some of the lumps rub off all the yellow rind of four lemons. Then powder all the sugar. Beat to a stiff froth the whites of three eggs. Mix the sugar, gradually (a tea-spoonful at a time) with the beaten white of egg, so as to make a paste, stirring it very hard. Spread some white paper (cut exactly to fit) on the bottom of a square shallow baking-pan. Place equal portions of the paste at regular distances on this paper, making them into round heaps, and smoothing their surfaces with the back of a spoon or a broad-bladed knife, dipped frequently in cold water. Put the cakes into a moderate oven and bake them a light brown. When cool take them off the paper. You may make orange cakes in this manner. Strawberry cakes may be made as above, mixing the juice of ripe strawberries with the sugar. Raspberry cakes also. FINE HONEY CAKE.—Mix a quart of strained honey with half a pound of powdered white sugar, and half a pound of fresh butter, and the juice of two oranges or lemons. Warm these ingredients slightly, just enough to soften the butter. Then stir the mixture very hard, adding a grated nutmeg. Mix in, gradually, two pounds (or less) of sifted flour. Make it into a dough, just stiff enough to roll out
- 60. easily. Beat itwell all over with a rolling-pin. Then roll it out into a large sheet, half an inch thick; cut it into round cakes with the top of a tumbler, (dipped frequently in flour,) lay them in shallow tin pans, (slightly buttered,) and bake them well. CHOCOLATE CAKE.—Scrape down three ounces of the best and purest chocolate, or prepared cocoa. Cut up, into a deep pan, three- quarters of a pound of fresh butter; add to it a pound of powdered loaf-sugar; and stir the butter and sugar together till very light and white. Have ready fourteen ounces (two ounces less than a pound) of sifted flour; a powdered nutmeg; and a tea-spoonful of powdered cinnamon—mixed together. Beat the whites of ten eggs till they stand alone; then the yolks till they are very thick and smooth. Then mix the yolks and whites gradually together, beating very hard when they are all mixed. Add the eggs, by degrees, to the beaten butter and sugar, in turn with the flour and the scraped chocolate,—a little at a time of each; also the spice. Stir the whole very hard. Put the mixture into a buttered tin pan with straight sides, and bake it at least four hours. If nothing is to be baked afterwards, let it remain in till the oven becomes cool. When cold, ice it. LEMON PUFFS.—Take a pound of the best loaf-sugar, and powder it. Grate upon lumps of the same sugar the yellow rind of four large ripe lemons; having first rolled each lemon under your hand, upon a table, to increase the juice. Then powder these pieces of sugar also, and add them to the rest. Strain the juice of the lemons over the sugar, mixing it well in. Have ready in a saucer some extra powdered sugar. Beat to a stiff froth the whites of four eggs, and then gradually and thoroughly beat into it the lemon and sugar, till the mixture is very thick and smooth. If too thin, add more sugar; if too thick, more beaten white of egg. Take a sheet of nice white paper, and lay it smoothly in a square tin pan; having first cut it to fit exactly. Put on it, at equal distances, a round spot of thinly-spread powdered loaf-sugar, about the size of a half-dollar or a little larger.
- 61. Upon each spotplace with a spoon a pile of the mixture; smoothing it with a knife dipped in water, and making the surface even. Sift over each a little powdered sugar. Set the pan in a quick oven, and bake the puffs of a light brown. A few minutes’ baking will suffice. They should rise very high. When cool, loosen them carefully from the paper by inserting a broad knife beneath. Then spread them out on a large flat dish, and keep them in a dry, cool place till wanted. ORANGE PUFFS may be made in the same manner, omitting the rind, and using the juice only of five oranges; unless they are all of a very large size, and then four may suffice. Very nice puffs can be made with the juice of strawberries, raspberries, currants, or cherries; mixed, as above, with beaten white of egg and sugar. ROSE MERINGUES.—Beat to a stiff froth the whites of six eggs, and then beat in by degrees, a spoonful at a time, a pound or more of finely-powdered loaf-sugar, till it is of the consistence of very thick icing or meringue. Have ready a sufficient quantity of freshly- gathered rosebuds, about half grown. Having removed the stalks and green leaves, take as many of the buds as will weigh three ounces. With a pair of sharp scissors clip or mince them as small as possible into the pan of meringue; stirring them in with a spoon. Then stir the whole very hard. Have ready some sheets of white paper, laid on baking tins. Drop the meringues on it, in heaps all of the same size, and not too close together. Smooth them with the back of a spoon or broad knife, dipped in cold water. Set them in a moderate cool oven, and bake them about twenty minutes. Take out one and try it, and if not thoroughly done, continue them longer in the oven. To heighten the red colour, add to the white of egg, before you beat it, a very little water, in which has been steeped a thin muslin bag of alkanet-root; or you may colour it with a little cochineal powder.
- 62. Orange-blossom meringues maybe made as above. WHIPPED CREAM MERINGUES.—Take the whites of eight eggs, and beat them to a stiff froth, that will stand alone. Then beat into them, gradually, a tea-spoonful at a time, two pounds or more of finely-powdered loaf-sugar; continuing to add sugar till the mixture is very thick, and finishing with a little lemon-juice or extract of rose. Have ready some sheets of white paper, laid on a baking-board, and with a spoon drop the mixture on it in long oval heaps, about four inches in length. Smooth and shape them with a broad-bladed knife, dipped occasionally in cold water. The baking-board used for this purpose should be an inch thick, and must have a slip of iron beneath each end to elevate it from the floor of the oven, so that it may not scorch, nor the bottoms of the meringues be baked too hard. This baking-board must not be of pine wood, as a pine board will communicate a disagreeable taste of turpentine. The oven must be moderate. Bake the meringues of a light brown. When done, take them off the paper by slipping a knife nicely beneath the bottom of each. Then push back or scoop out carefully a portion of the inside of each meringue, taking care not to break them. Have ready some nice whipped cream, made in the following proportion:—Take a quarter of a pound of broken-up loaf-sugar, and on some of the lumps rub off the yellow rind of two large lemons. Powder the sugar, and then mix with it the juice of the lemons, and grate in some nutmeg. Mix the sugar with a half-pint of sweet white wine. Put into a pan a pint of rich cream, and whip it with rods or a wooden whisk, or mill it with a chocolate mill, till it is a stiff froth. Then mix in, gradually, the other ingredients; continuing to whip it hard a while after they are all in. As you proceed, lay the froth on an inverted sieve, with a dish underneath to catch the droppings; which droppings must afterwards be whipped, and added to the rest. Fill the inside of each meringue with a portion of the whipped cream. Then put two together, so as to form one long oval cake, joining them nicely, so as to unite the flat parts that were next the paper, leaving the inside filled with the whipped cream. Set them again in
- 63. the oven fora few minutes. They must be done with great care and nicety, so as not to break. Each meringue should be about the usual length of a middle finger. In dropping them on the paper, take care to shape the oval ends handsomely and smoothly. They should look like very long kisses. CREAM TARTS.—Put into a tea-cup a large table-spoonful of arrow-root flour. Pour on it a very little cold milk, and mix it very smooth with a spoon; seeing that it is entirely free from lumps. Boil, in a sauce-pan, a quart of cream or rich unskimmed milk, with the yellow rind of a large lemon or orange, pared thin, or cut into slips; or use for flavouring a handful of bitter almonds or peach kernels, blanched and broken up; or, what is still better, a vanilla bean. The milk must boil slowly (keeping it closely covered) till it is highly flavoured. Then strain out the lemon-peel or other flavouring, and set away the milk to cool. Beat the yolks of eight eggs till very thick and smooth, and stir them gradually into the milk, alternately with four heaped table-spoonfuls of powdered loaf-sugar. Add some grated nutmeg. Put the whole into a sauce-pan, and place it on hot coals or on the stove, and continue to stir it till it begins to boil. Then remove it immediately, lest it should curdle, and keep stirring it till it begins to cool. Afterwards set it in a cold place. Sift into a pan a pound and a half of flour; mix in a quarter of a pound of white sugar; cut up in it half a pound of fresh butter, and rub it well into the flour and sugar. Beat two eggs very light, and with them wet the flour, c., to a dough, adding a very small level tea-spoonful of soda, dissolved in a very little cold water. Mix the paste well till it becomes a lump of dough. Then beat it on all sides with the rolling-pin. Transfer it to the paste-board, and roll it out thin. Divide it equally into square pieces. Put thickly on each piece a portion of the cream or custard mixture, and fold over it the four corners of the paste, so that they approach each other in the centre. Dredge each tart with powdered loaf-sugar. Set them into the oven,
- 64. and let thembake of a light brown. They are best when fresh, but not warm; and will be found delicious. The custard may be coloured green by boiling pistachio nuts in the milk, with the flavouring. ICE-CREAM CAKES.—Stir together, till very light, a quarter of a pound of powdered sugar and a quarter of a pound of fresh butter. Beat six eggs very light, and stir into them half a pint of rich milk. Add, gradually, the eggs and milk to the butter and sugar, alternately with a half pound of sifted flour. Add a glass of sweet wine, and some grated nutmeg. When all the ingredients are mixed, stir the batter very hard. Then put it into small, deep pans, or cups, that have been well-buttered, filling them about two-thirds with the batter. Set them, immediately, into a brisk oven, and bake them brown. When done, remove them from the cups, and place them, to cool, on an inverted sieve. When quite cold, make a slit or incision in the side of each cake. If very light, and properly baked, they will be hollow in the middle. Fill up this cavity with ice-cream, carefully put in with a spoon, and then close the slit, with your fingers, to prevent the cream running out. Spread them on a large dish. Either send them to table immediately, before the ice-cream melts, or keep them on ice till wanted. LEMON OR ORANGE KISSES.—Take three large, ripe lemons, or oranges, and rub off the yellow rind, upon some pieces belonging to a pound of fine loaf-sugar. Then powder all the pound of sugar, and squeeze among the sugar (through a strainer) the juice of the lemons or oranges; mixing it well in. Beat the whites of four eggs to a stiff froth, that will stand alone. Then beat in, very hard, the sugar, c., a tea-spoonful at a time. Lay a sheet of white paper on a board. Drop the mixture on it, in oval piles, smoothing them with a broad- bladed knife, dipped frequently in cold water. Set them in a moderate oven, and when they are coloured a light brown, take them out, slip a knife carefully under each, to remove them from the
- 65. papers, and placetwo bottoms together, so as to give them the form of an egg. If you use oranges, scoop out a small hollow in the bottom of each half-kiss, as soon as they are baked, and fill the cavity with orange-pulp, sweetened. Then join the two halves together. Instead of lemon or orange, they may be finely flavoured, by mixing with the powdered sugar a sufficient quantity of extract of vanilla. CHOCOLATE MACCAROONS.—Blanch half a pound of shelled sweet almonds, by scalding them with boiling water, till the skin peels off easily. Then throw them into a bowl of cold water, and let them stand awhile. Take them out and wipe them, separately. Afterwards set them in a warm place, to dry thoroughly. Put them, one at a time, into a marble mortar, and pound them to a smooth paste; moistening them, as you proceed, with a few drops of rose- water, to prevent their oiling. When you have pounded one or two, take them out of the mortar, with a tea-spoon, and put them into a deep plate, beside you, and continue removing the almonds to the plate, till they are all done. Scrape down, as fine as possible, half a pound of the best chocolate, or of Baker’s prepared cocoa, and mix it, thoroughly, with the pounded almonds. Then set the plate in a cool place. Put the whites of eight eggs into a shallow pan, and beat them to a stiff froth, that will stand alone. Have ready a pound and a half of finely-powdered loaf-sugar. Stir it, hard, into the beaten white-of-egg, a spoonful at a time. Then stir in, gradually, the mixture of almond and chocolate; and beat the whole very hard. Drop the mixture, in equal portions, upon thin white paper, laid on square tin pans, smoothing them, with a spoon, into round cakes, about the size of a half-dollar. Dredge the top of each, lightly, with powdered sugar. Set them into a quick oven, and bake them a light brown. When done, take them off the paper. For the first experiment, in making these maccaroons, it may be well to try a smaller quantity. For instance, a quarter of a pound of
- 66. shelled almonds; aquarter of a pound of chocolate; four eggs; and three-quarters of a pound of sugar. LEMON MACCAROONS.—Take four large ripe lemons, and rub off the yellow surface of the rind, upon a lump of sugar. Then powder that sugar, and add to it not quite a pound of loaf-sugar, already powdered. Break four eggs into a shallow pan, and beat them till very thick and light. Then add the juice of the lemons, squeezed through a strainer, and a tea-spoonful of powdered nutmeg and cinnamon, and stir in the sugar, a little at a time, alternately with three large heaped-up table-spoonfuls of sifted flour. A little more flour may, probably, be found necessary. Mix the whole, thoroughly, so as to form a soft paste. Have ready some shallow, square baking- pans, or sheets of iron, the bottoms covered with white paper, laid smoothly in. Moisten your hands with water, and then take up portions of the mixture, and roll them into balls, about the size of a large plum, laying them, as you proceed, upon the paper, but rather more than an inch apart. Lastly, with the blade of a knife, dipped in water, smooth the surface of each. Set them into a moderate oven, and bake them brown. Try one, when you think they are done. If not sufficiently baked, let them remain longer in the oven. As soon as they are cold, loosen them from the paper, by slipping under them a broad-bladed knife. Orange maccaroons may be made in this manner, using the grated rind of two oranges only, but the juice of four. To make vanilla maccaroons, boil, in a covered vessel, a vanilla bean, with as much milk as will barely cover it. When the milk is strongly flavoured with the vanilla, strain it, and, when cold, add it to the beaten egg. Then stir in, gradually, the sugar, spice, and flour, and proceed as above. GROUND-NUT MACCAROONS.—Take a sufficiency of ground-nuts, that have been roasted in an iron pot, over the fire; remove the shells; and weigh a pound of the nuts. Put them into a pan of cold water, and wash off the skins. Have ready some beaten white of
- 67. egg. Pound theground-nuts, (two or three at a time,) in a marble mortar, adding, frequently, a little cold water, to prevent their oiling. They must be pounded to a smooth, light paste; and, as you proceed, remove the paste to a saucer or a plate. Beat, to a stiff froth, the whites of four eggs, and then beat into it, gradually, a pound of powdered loaf-sugar, and a large tea-spoonful of powdered mace and nutmeg mixed. Then stir in, by degrees, the pounded ground-nuts, till the mixture becomes very thick. Flour your hands, and roll, between them, portions of the mixture, forming each portion into a little ball. Lay sheets of white paper on flat baking- tins, and place on them the maccaroons, at equal distances, flattening them all a little, so as to press down the balls into cakes. Then sift powdered sugar over each. Place them in a brisk oven, with more heat at the top than in the bottom. Bake them about ten minutes. Almond maccaroons may be made as above, mixing one-quarter of a pound of shelled bitter almonds with three-quarters of shelled sweet almonds. For almond maccaroons, instead of flouring your hands, you may dip them in cold water; and when the maccaroons are formed on the papers, go slightly over every one, with your fingers wet with cold water. Maccaroons may be made, also, of grated cocoa-nut, mixed with beaten white of egg and powdered sugar. WEST INDIA COCOA-NUT CAKE.—Cut up and peel some pieces of a very ripe cocoa-nut. Lay the pieces for awhile in cold water. Then take them out; wipe them very dry; and grate, very finely, as much as, when grated, will weigh half a pound. Powder half a pound of the best loaf-sugar. Beat eight eggs, till very light, thick, and smooth. Then stir the grated cocoa-nut and the powdered sugar, alternately, into the pan of beaten egg, a little at a time of each; adding a handful of sifted flour, a powdered nutmeg, and a glass of sweet wine. Stir the whole very hard. Butter a square tin pan. Put in the mixture, set it immediately into a quick oven, and bake it well;
- 68. seeing that theheat is well kept up all the time. When cool, cut it into squares. Have ready a thick icing, made of powdered sugar and white of egg, flavoured with rose-water, or extract of roses. Ice each square of the cake, all over the top and sides. You may bake it in a loaf, in a deep, circular pan. Ice the whole surface, and ornament it. For a large cake, baked in a loaf, allow a pound of grated cocoa- nut; a pound of sugar; sixteen eggs; two handfuls of flour; two nutmegs, and two glasses of wine. It will require very long baking. RICE-FLOUR POUND-CAKE.—Weigh a pound of broken up loaf- sugar of the best quality. Upon some of the largest lumps rub off the yellow rind of three large ripe lemons that have been previously rolled under your hand, on a table, to increase the juice. Then powder finely all the pound of sugar. Cut up into a deep pan a pound of the best fresh butter; mix with it the powdered sugar, and stir them together, with a wooden spaddle, till perfectly light. Squeeze the juice of the lemons through a strainer into a bowl, mix with it half a grated nutmeg, and add it to the butter and sugar. Sift a pound (or a quart) of rice-flour into a pan, and in another shallow pan beat twelve eggs till they are smooth and thick. Then stir the beaten egg and the rice-flour, alternately, into the butter and sugar, a little at a time of each. Having stirred the whole long and hard, put the mixture into a buttered tin pan that has straight or upright sides; set it immediately into a well-heated oven, and bake it thoroughly. It will require four or five hours, in proportion to its thickness. When done, it will shrink a little from the sides of the pan; and a twig from a corn-broom, or a wooden skewer plunged down to the bottom of the cake, will come out dry and clean. When cool, ice it; adding a little rose-water or lemon-juice to the icing. Heap the icing first on the centre of the top, and then with a broad-bladed knife, (dipped occasionally into a bowl of cold water,) spread it evenly all over the surface of the cake.
- 69. Instead of lemons,you may use for flavouring this cake, the yellow rind of two oranges grated on the sugar, and the juice of three mixed with the spice. Orange-rind being stronger and more powerful in taste than that of lemon, a smaller quantity of it will suffice. You may bake the above mixture in little tins, like queen-cakes; taking care to grease them with fresh butter. This mixture will make a nice pudding; using only half a pound of rice-flour, but the above quantities of all the other ingredients. Bake it in china or handsome white-ware, as it must go to table in the dish it is baked in. RICE SPONGE-CAKE.—Put twelve eggs into a scale, and balance them in the other scale with their weight in broken loaf-sugar. Take out four of the eggs, remove the sugar, and balance the remaining eight eggs with an equal quantity of rice-flour. Rub off on some lumps of the sugar, the yellow rind of three fine large ripe lemons. Then powder all the sugar. Break the eggs, one at a time, into a saucer, and put all the whites into a pitcher, and all the yolks into a broad shallow earthen pan. Having poured the whites of egg from the pitcher through a strainer into a rather shallow pan, beat them till so stiff that they stand alone. Then add the powdered sugar, gradually, to the white of egg, and beat it in well. In the other pan, beat the yolks till very smooth and thick. Then mix them, gradually, a little at a time, with the white of egg and sugar. Lastly, stir in, by degrees, the rice-flour, adding it lightly, and stirring it slowly and gently round till the surface is covered with bubbles. Transfer it directly to a butter tin pan; set it immediately into a brisk oven; and bake it an hour and a half or more, according to its thickness. Ice it when cool; flavouring the icing-with lemon or rose. This cake will be best the day it is baked. In every sort of sponge-cake, Naples-biscuit, lady-fingers, and in all cakes made without butter, it is important to know that though the egg and sugar is to be beaten very hard, the flour, which must
- 70. always go inat the last, must be stirred in very slowly and lightly, holding the whisk or stirring-rods perpendicularly or upright in your hand; and moving it gently round and round on the surface of the batter without allowing it to go down deeply. If the flour is stirred in hard and fast, the cake will certainly be tough, leathery, and unwholesome. Sponge-cake when cut should look coarse-grained and rough. SWEET POTATOE CAKE.—Half-boil some fine sweet potatoes; peel them; and when cold, grate as much as will weigh half a pound. If boiled long enough to become soft, they will render the cake heavy. Stir together in a deep pan, half a pound of fresh butter, and half a pound of powdered loaf-sugar, till quite light and creamy. Then add a tea-spoonful of powdered mace, nutmeg, and cinnamon, all mixed together; and the juice and grated rind of two large lemons or oranges. Beat in a shallow pan six eggs till very smooth and thick; and stir them into the pan of butter and sugar in turn with the grated sweet-potatoe, a little of each at a time. Then stir the whole very hard. Butter a deep tin pan with straight sides. Put in the mixture, and bake it well. If you want more cake than the above quantity, double the proportions of each ingredient; but bake the mixture in two pans, rather than in one. Ice it when cold, adding a little lemon or orange-juice to the icing. In spreading the icing, begin by heaping it on the centre of the cake, and then gradually bringing it all over the top and sides, dipping the knife, frequently, into a bowl of cold water. CHOCOLATE PUFFS.—Beat very stiff the whites of two eggs, and then beat in, gradually, half a pound of powdered loaf-sugar. Scrape down very fine, an ounce and a half of the best chocolate, (prepared cocoa is better still,) and dredge it with flour to prevent its oiling; mixing the flour well among it. Then add it, gradually, to the mixture of white of egg and sugar, and stir the whole very hard. Cover the bottom of a square tin pan with a sheet of fine white paper, cut to fit
- 71. exactly. Place uponit thin spots of powdered loaf-sugar about the size of a half-dollar. Pile a portion of the mixture on each spot, smoothing it with the back of a spoon or a broad knife, dipped in cold water. Sift white sugar over the top of each. Set the pan into a brisk oven, and bake them a few minutes. When cold, loosen them from the paper with a broad knife. COCOA-NUT PUFFS.—Break up a large ripe cocoa-nut. Pare the pieces, and lay them awhile in cold water. Then wipe them dry, and grate them as finely as possible. Lay the grated cocoa-nut in well- formed heaps on a large handsome dish. It will require no cooking. The heaps should be about the circumference of a dollar, and must not touch each other. Flatten them down in the middle, so as to make a hollow in the centre of each heap; and upon this pile some very nice sweetmeat. Make an excellent whipped cream, well sweetened and flavoured with lemon and wine, and beat it to a stiff froth. Pile some of this cream high upon each cake over the sweetmeats. If on a supper-table you may arrange them in circles round a glass stand. PALMER CAKES.—Sift a pound of flour into a pan, and rub into it half a pound of butter, and a quarter of a pound of powdered loaf- sugar. Add a tea-spoonful of mixed spice, powdered cinnamon, nutmeg, and mace. Wet the mixture with two well-beaten eggs; the juice of a large lemon or orange; and sufficient rose-water to make it into a dough just stiff enough to roll out easily. Sprinkle a little flour on the paste-board; lay the lump of dough upon it, roll it out rather thin, and cut it into round cakes with the edge of a tumbler dipped every time in flour to prevent stickiness. Lay the cakes in buttered square pans. Set them in a rather brisk oven, and bake them brown. LIGHT SEED CAKE.—Sift into a pan a pound and a half of flour; cut up in it a pound of fresh butter, and rub it well into the flour with
- 72. your hands. Mixin six table-spoonfuls of strong fresh yeast; add gradually as much warm milk as will make it a soft dough, and knead it well. Cover it with a double cloth and set it in a warm place to rise. When quite light, and cracked all over the surface, mix in, alternately, a quarter of a pound of powdered white sugar, and a quarter of a pound of carraway seeds, a little of each at a time. Knead the dough well a second time, adding a small tea-spoonful of soda dissolved in a very little warm water. Cover it and set it to rise again. It will probably require now but half an hour. Transfer it to a circular tin pan, slightly buttered, and bake it in a loaf. It is best when eaten fresh, but not warm. It may be baked in a square pan, and cut into square pieces when cool. CARRAWAY CAKE.—Sift half a pound of rice flour into a dish. In a deep pan cut up half a pound of fresh butter, and mix with it half a pound of powdered loaf-sugar. Having warmed them slightly, stir together the butter and sugar till very light and creamy. Break five eggs, and beat them in a shallow pan till thick and smooth. Then stir them, gradually, into the pan of beaten sugar and butter, alternately with the flour; a little of each at a time. Add, by degrees, a tea- spoonful of powdered cinnamon and nutmeg mixed; a wine-glass of rose water or of rose-brandy, and half an ounce or more of carraway seeds thrown in a few at a time, stirring hard all the while. Butter a square iron pan; put in the mixture; set it in a rather brisk oven, and bake it well. When done, sift powdered sugar over it; and when cool, cut it into long squares. WONDERS.—Cut up half a pound of fresh butter into a pound of sifted flour, and rub them well together with your hands. Mix in three-quarters of a pound of white sugar, and a large tea-spoonful of cinnamon. Add a glass of good white wine, and a glass of rose- water. Beat six eggs very light, and mix them gradually with the above ingredients, so as to form a dough. If you find the dough too soft, add by degrees a little more flour. Roll out the dough into a
- 73. thick sheet, andcut it into long slips with a jagging-iron. Then form each strip into the figure 8. Have ready over the fire a pot of boiling lard. Throw the cakes into it, a few at a time, and let them cook till they are well browned all over. Then take them out, with a perforated skimmer, draining back into the pot the lard that is about them. As you take them out lay them on a flat dish, the bottom of which is strewed with powdered sugar. They will keep a week, but like most other cakes are best the day they are baked. SOFT CRULLERS.—Sift three quarters of a pound of flour, and powder half a pound of loaf-sugar. Heat a pint of water in a round- bottomed sauce-pan, and when quite warm, mix the flour with it gradually. Set half a pound of fresh butter over the fire in a small vessel; and when it begins to melt, stir it gradually into the flour and water. Then add by degrees the powdered sugar, and half a grated nutmeg. Take the sauce-pan off the fire, and beat the contents, with a wooden spaddle or spatula, till they are thoroughly mixed. Then beat six eggs very light, and stir them gradually into the mixture. Beat the whole very hard, till it becomes a thick batter. Flour a paste-board very well, and lay out the batter upon it in rings, (the best way is to pass it through a screw funnel.) Have ready, on the fire, a pot of boiling lard of the very best quality. Put in the crullers, removing them from the board by carefully taking them up, one at a time, on a broad-bladed knife. Boil but a few at a time. They must be of a fine brown. Lift them out on a perforated skimmer, draining the lard from them back into the pot. Lay them on a large dish, and sift powdered white sugar over them. Soft crullers cannot be made in warm weather. NOTIONS.—Put into a sauce-pan a pint of milk, and two table- spoonfuls of fresh butter. Set it over the fire, and when the butter begins to melt, stir it well through the milk. As soon as it comes to a boil, begin to stir in a pint of sifted flour, a little at a time; making the mixture very smooth, and pressing out all the lumps. Let it
- 74. continue to boilfive minutes after the flour is all in. Then pour it into a deep pan, and set it to cool. In another pan beat six eggs very light. When it is nearly cool, stir the beaten egg into the mixture, a little at a time; stirring the whole very hard, till it is as light as possible. Have ready, over the fire, a pot with a pound or more of fresh lard melting in it. When the lard comes to a boil, take up portions of the batter in a large spoon, or a small ladle, and drop them into the boiling lard, so as to form separate balls. When they are well browned, take them out with a perforated skimmer, draining the lard from them back into the pot. Lay them on a flat dish, and when all are done, sift over them a mixture of powdered sugar and powdered cinnamon or nutmeg. They should be eaten quite fresh. CROSS-BUNS.—Pick clean a pound and a half of Zante currants; wash, drain, and dry them; spreading them on a large flat dish, placed in a slanting position near the fire or in the sun. When they are perfectly dry, dredge them thickly with flour to prevent their sinking or clodding in the cakes. Sift into a deep pan two pounds of fine flour, and mix thoroughly with it a table-spoonful of powdered cinnamon, (or of mixed nutmeg and cinnamon,) and half a pound of powdered white sugar. Cut up half a pound of the best fresh butter in half a pint of rich milk. Warm it till the butter is quite soft, but not till it melts. While warm, stir into the milk and butter two wine- glasses (or a jill) of strong fresh yeast. Make a hole in the centre of the pan of flour; pour in the mixed liquid; then, with a spoon or a broad knife, mix the flour gradually in; beginning round the edge of the hole. Proceed thus till you have the entire mass of ingredients thoroughly incorporated; stirring it hard as you go on. Cover the pan with a clean flannel or a thick towel, and set it in a warm place near the fire to rise. When it has risen well, and the surface of the dough is cracked all over, mix in a small tea-spoonful of soda, dissolved; flour your paste-board; divide the dough into equal portions, and mixing in the currants, knead it into round cakes about the size of a
- 75. small saucer. Placethem on a large flat dish, cover them, and set them again in a warm place for about half an hour. Then butter some square tin or iron baking-pans; transfer the buns to them; and brush each bun lightly over with a glazing of beaten white of eggs, sweetened with a little sugar. Then, with the back of a knife, mark each bun with a cross, deeply indented in the dough, and extending entirely from one edge to another. Let the oven be quite ready; set in it the buns; and bake them of a deep brown colour. In England, and in other parts of Europe, it is customary to have hot cross-buns at breakfast on the morning of Good Friday. They are very good cakes at any time; but are best when fresh. TO ICE A LARGE CAKE.—It requires practice to ice cakes smoothly. It is a good rule to allow a large quarter of a pound of powdered loaf-sugar to the white of every egg. The whites of four eggs and a pound of sugar will ice a large cake. Having strained the white of egg into a broad, shallow pan, beat it to a stiff froth with hickory rods or a large silver fork. It must be beaten till it stands alone. Have ready the powdered sugar in a bowl beside you; add it, gradually, to the beaten white of egg, a tea-spoonful at a time, and beat it very hard. Perhaps some additional sugar may be required to make the icing sufficiently thick. Flavour it by beating in at the last a few drops of oil of lemon, or a spoonful of fresh lemon or orange-juice, or a few drops of extract of vanilla, or extract of roses. Lemon-juice will make it more adhesive, so that it will stick on better. Turn bottom- upwards the empty pan in which the cake was baked, and place this pan on a large flat dish, or an old server. Dredge the cake all over with flour, to take off the greasiness of the outside, which greasiness may otherwise prevent the icing from sticking well. Then wipe off the flour with a clean towel. Take up the icing with a spoon, and begin by heaping a large quantity of it on the middle of the top of the cake. Then, with a broad-bladed knife, spread it down evenly and smoothly, till the top and sides are all covered with it of an equal thickness. Have beside you a bowl of cold water, into which dip the knife-blade, occasionally, as you go on spreading and smoothing the
- 76. icing. Put itinto a warm place to harden. When nearly dry, have ready sufficient icing to ornament or flower the cake. This must be done by means of a small syringe. By working and moving this syringe skilfully, the icing will fall from it so as to form borders, beadings, wreaths, and centre-pieces, according to your taste. If you cannot procure a syringe, a substitute may be formed by rolling or folding a piece of thick, smooth writing paper into a conical or sugar- loaf form. At the large end of this cone leave paper enough to turn down all round, so as to prevent the side opening, and the icing escaping. The pointed end must be neatly cut off with scissors, leaving a small round hole, through which the icing is to be pressed out when ornamenting the cake. The hole must be cut perfectly even; otherwise the icing will come out crooked and unmanageable. These paper cones, in skilful hands, may succeed tolerably; but they must be continually renewed, and are far less convenient than a syringe, which can be bought at a small cost, and is always ready for use. Where much icing is to be done, it is well to have a set of syringes with the points of different patterns. To decorate cakes with ornamental icing, requires practice, skill, and taste. A person that has a good knowledge of drawing can generally do it very handsomely. To colour it of a beautiful pink, tie up a little alkanet in a thin muslin bag, and let it infuse in the icing after it is made, squeezing the bag occasionally. When sufficiently coloured, take out the bag, and give the icing a hard stirring or beating before you put it on. Cover the cake all over with the pink icing, and then have ready some white icing for the border and other ornaments,—to be put on with the syringe. Icing may be made stiffer and more adhesive by mixing with it, gradually, a small portion of dissolved gum tragacanth. This solution is prepared by melting gum tragacanth in boiling water, (if wanted for immediate use,) having first picked the gum quite clean. The proportion is half an ounce of the gum to half a pint of water. It is slow in dissolving. To keep it from spoiling, add to the gum (before the water) a few drops of strong oil of lemon, or oil of cinnamon.
- 77. FRENCH ICING FORCAKES.—Dissolve some fine white gum arabic (finely powdered) in rose-water. The proportion should be, as much of the gum-arabic powder as will lie on a ten-cent piece to a tea- spoonful of rose-water. Beat some white of egg to a stiff froth that will stand alone. Stir in, gradually, sufficient double-refined powdered loaf-sugar to make it very thick, (a good proportion is four ounces of sugar to the white of one egg,) add to this quantity a tea- spoonful of the rose-water with the gum arabic dissolved in it, and beat the whole very hard. Instead of rose-water you may dissolve the gum in fresh lemon-juice. Previous to icing the cake, dredge it with flour, and in a few minutes wipe it off with a clean towel. This, by removing the greasiness of the outside, will make the icing stick on the better. Heap the icing first on the middle of the top of the cake; then with a broad-bladed knife spread it evenly all over the surface. Dip the knife frequently in a bowl of cold water as you proceed, and smooth the icing well. If not thick enough, wait till it dries, and then add a second coat. ALMOND ICING.—Take half a pound of shelled sweet almonds, and three ounces of shelled bitter almonds. Put them, a few at a time, into a large bowl, and pour on boiling water to loosen the skins. As you peel them, throw the almonds into a bowl of cold water. When they are all blanched, pound them one at a time in a marble mortar, adding frequently a few drops of rose-water to prevent their oiling. They must be pounded to a smooth paste without the smallest particles of lumps. As you pound the almonds, remove this paste with a tea-spoon to a deep plate. Beat the whites of four eggs to a stiff froth. Then, gradually beat in a pound of the best double-refined sugar. Lastly, add, by degrees, the almond paste, a little at a time, and beat the whole very hard. If too thick, thin it with lemon-juice.
- 78. APPLE CAKE.—Make anice light paste with the proportion of three quarters of a pound of fresh butter to a pound and a quarter of sifted flour. Roll it out into a large round sheet. Have ready a sufficiency of fine juicy apples, pared, cored, and sliced thin; mixed with one or two sliced quinces; and half a pound, or more, of the best raisins, seeded and cut in half. Make the mixture very sweet with brown sugar; and add some grated nutmeg; and a wine-glass, or more, of rose-water; or else the juice and grated yellow rind of one or two lemons. Mix all thoroughly, and put it on the sheet of paste; which must then be closed over the heap of mixture so as to form a very large dumpling. Put it into a small dutch-oven, and set it over hot coals, having previously heated the oven-lid by standing it upright before the fire. Then lay on the lid, with hot coals spread over it. Have ready a sufficient quantity of butter, brown sugar, and powdered cinnamon, stirred together till very light. Spread a portion of it on the bottom of the oven. While the cake is baking, remove the oven-lid frequently, and baste the cake with this mixture, which will form a sort of thick brown crust, covering it all over. It should bake from two to three hours; or longer if it is large. When thoroughly done, turn it out on a dish. It should be eaten fresh, the day it is baked; either warm or cold.
- 79. This is aGerman cake, and will be found very good. CINNAMON CAKES.—Make a paste as above, and roll it out thin into a square sheet. Have ready a mixture of brown sugar; fresh butter; and a large portion of ground cinnamon; all stirred together till very light. Spread this mixture thickly over the sheet of paste; then roll it up, as you would a rolled up marmalade pudding. After it is rolled up, cut it down into pieces or cakes of equal size, and press them rather flat. Have ready over the fire a skillet or frying-pan with plenty of fresh butter boiling hard. Put in some of the cakes and fry them brown. As fast as they are done, take them out on a perforated skimmer; drain off the butter, and lay them on a hot dish. Then put in more cakes, till all are fried. They should be eaten warm, first sifting powdered white sugar over them. These cakes, also, are German. They may be conveniently prepared when you are making pies, as the same paste will do for both. GINGER POUND CAKE.—Cut up in a pan three quarters of a pound of butter; mix with it a pint of West India molasses, and a tea-cup of brown sugar. If in winter, set it over the fire till the butter has become soft enough to mix easily with the molasses and sugar. Then take it off, and stir them well together. Sift into a pan a pound of flour. In another pan, beat five eggs very light. Add gradually the beaten eggs and the flour, to the mixture of butter, sugar, and molasses, with two large table-spoonfuls of ground ginger, and a heaped tea-spoonful of powdered cinnamon. Then stir in a glass of brandy, and lastly a small tea-spoonful of sal-eratus or sub- carbonate of soda melted in a very little milk. Stir the whole very hard. Transfer the mixture to a buttered tin-pan, and bake it in a moderate oven from two to three hours, in proportion to its thickness.
- 80. This cake willbe much improved by the addition of a pound of sultana or seedless raisins, well dredged with flour to prevent their sinking, and stirred in, gradually, at the last. You may add also the yellow rind of a lemon or orange grated fine. FLEMINGTON GINGERBREAD.—Stir together till quite light, a quarter of a pound of fresh butter, and a quarter of a pound of brown sugar. Then mix in half a pint of West India molasses. Sift rather less than a pint and a half of flour. Beat four eggs till very light, and stir them gradually into the mixture, alternately with the sifted flour. Add a heaping table-spoonful of ginger, and a tea- spoonful of powdered cinnamon. Stir all well. Dissolve a level tea- spoonful of soda or pearlash in as much warm water as will melt it; then stir it in at the last. Put the mixture into a buttered tin-pan, (either square or round,) set it immediately into the oven, which must be brisk but not too hot; and bake it well. When you think it done, probe it to the bottom with a knife or a broom-twig, stuck down into the centre; and do not take the cake from the oven unless the knife comes out clean and dry. It requires long baking. GINGER CRACKERS.—Mix together in a deep pan, a pint of West India molasses; half a pound of butter; and a quarter of a pound of brown sugar; two large table-spoonfuls of ginger; a tea-spoonful of powdered cinnamon; a small tea-spoonful of pearlash or soda, dissolved in a little warm water; and sufficient sifted flour to make a dough just stiff enough to roll out conveniently. Let the whole be well incorporated into a large lump. Knead it till it leaves your hands clean; then beat it hard with a rolling-pin, which will make it crisp when baked. Divide the dough, and roll it out into sheets half an inch thick. Cut it into cakes with a tin cutter about the usual size of a cracker-biscuit, or with the edge of a teacup dipped frequently into flour to prevent its sticking. Lay the cakes at regular distances in
- 81. square pans slightlybuttered. Set them directly into a moderately brisk oven, and bake them well, first pricking them with a fork. Ginger crackers are excellent on a sea voyage. If made exactly as above they will keep many weeks. In greasing all cake-pans use only the best fresh butter: otherwise the outside of a thick cake will taste disagreeably, and the whole of a thin cake will have an unpleasant flavour. SEA-VOYAGE GINGERBREAD.—Sift two pounds of flour into a pan, and cut up in it a pound and a quarter of fresh butter; rub the butter well into the flour, and then mix in a pint of West India molasses and a pound of the best brown sugar. Beat eight eggs till very light. Stir into the beaten egg two glasses or a jill of brandy. Add also to the egg a teacup-full of ground ginger, and a table-spoonful of powdered cinnamon, with a tea-spoonful of soda melted in a little warm water. Wet the flour, c., with this mixture till it becomes a soft dough. Sprinkle a little flour on your paste-board, and with a broad knife spread portions of the mixture thickly and smoothly upon it. The thickness must be equal all through; therefore spread it carefully and evenly, as the dough will be too soft to roll out. Then with the edge of a tumbler dipped in flour, cut it out into round cakes. Have ready square pans, slightly buttered; lay the cakes in them sufficiently far apart to prevent their running into each other when baked. Set the pans into a brisk oven, and bake the cakes well, seeing that they do not burn. You may cut them out small with the lid of a cannister (or something similar) the usual size of gingerbread nuts. These cakes will keep during a long voyage, and are frequently carried to sea. Many persons find highly-spiced gingerbread a preventive to sea-sickness. SPICED GINGERBREAD.—Sift into a deep pan a pound and a half of flour, and cut up in it half a pound of the best fresh butter. Rub
- 82. them together, withyour hands, till thoroughly incorporated. Then add half a pound of brown sugar, crushed fine with the rolling-pin; a table-spoonful of mixed spice, consisting of equal quantities of powdered cloves, mace, and cinnamon. Also, a table-spoonful of ground ginger, and two table-spoonfuls of carraway seeds. Mix the whole together, and wet it with a pint of West India molasses. Dissolve a small tea-spoonful of pearlash or soda in a very little warm water. Mix it into the other ingredients. Spread some flour on your paste-board, take the dough out of the pan, flour your hands, and knead the dough till it ceases entirely to be sticky. Roll it out into a very thick square sheet; cut it into long straight slips; twist every two slips together, rounding off the ends nicely. Lay them (not too closely) in buttered square pans, and bake them well. As gingerbread burns easily, take care not to have the oven too hot. Instead of forming it into twisted strips, you may cut the sheet of gingerbread-dough into round cakes with the edge of a tumbler, which, as you proceed, must be frequently dipped in flour. CARRAWAY GINGERBREAD.—Cut up half a pound of fresh butter in a pint of West India molasses and warm them together slightly, till the butter is quite soft. Then stir them well, and add, gradually, a pound of good brown sugar, a table-spoonful of powdered cinnamon, and two heaped table-spoonfuls of ground ginger, or three, if the ginger is not very strong. Sift two pounds or two quarts of flour. Beat four eggs till very thick and light, and stir them, gradually, into the mixture, in turn with the flour, and five or six large table-spoonfuls of carraway seeds, a little at a time. Dissolve a very small tea-spoonful of pearlash or soda in as much lukewarm water as will cover it. Then stir it in at the last. Stir all very hard. Transfer it to a buttered tin pan with straight sides, and bake it in a loaf in a moderate oven. It will require a great deal of baking. MOLASSES GINGERBREAD.—Mix together a quart of West India molasses, and a pint of milk. Cut up in them a pound of fresh butter.
- 83. Set the panon a stove, or in a warm place till the butter becomes soft enough to stir and mix well into the molasses and milk. They must be merely warmed but not made hot. Then stir in a small teacup of ginger, and a table-spoonful of powdered cinnamon. Add, gradually, a little at a time, three pounds of sifted flour. The whole should be a thick batter. Lastly, stir in a large tea-spoonful of soda, or a smaller one of pearlash or sal-eratus, dissolved in a very little lukewarm water. Bake the mixture either in little tins, or in a large loaf. If the latter, it will require very long baking; as long as a black- cake. MOLASSES CAKE.—Cut up a quarter of a pound of fresh butter into a pint of West India molasses. Warm it just sufficiently to soften the butter, and make it mix easily. Stir it well into the molasses, and add a table-spoonful of powdered cinnamon. Beat three eggs very light, and stir them, gradually, into the mixture, in turn with barely enough of sifted flour (not more than a pint and a half) to make it about as thick as pound-cake batter. Add, at the last, a small or level tea-spoonful of pearlash, or a full one of soda, dissolved in a very little warm water. Butter some small tin cake-pans, or patty-pans, put in the mixture, and set them immediately into the oven, which must not be too hot, as all cakes made with molasses are peculiarly liable to scorch on the outside. SUGAR CAKE.—Sift two pounds of flour into a pan, and cut up in it a pound of fresh butter. Rub with your hands the butter into the flour till it is thoroughly mixed. Then rub in a pound of sugar, and a grated nutmeg. Wet the whole with half a pint of rich milk (or a jill of rose-water, and a jill of milk) mixed with a well-beaten egg. Add, at the last, a very small tea-spoonful of pearlash or soda, dissolved in a little vinegar or warm water. Roll out the dough thick, and beat it well on both sides with the rolling-pin. Then roll it thin, and cut it into square cakes, notching the edges with a knife. Put them into a
- 84. shallow pan slightlybuttered, (taking care not to place them too near, lest they run into each other,) and bake them a light brown. You may mix into the dough two table-spoonfuls of carraway seeds. MOLASSES BREAD CAKE.—On a bread-making day, when the wheat-bread has risen perfectly light and is cracked on the surface, take as much of the dough as will fill a quart bowl, and place it in a broad pan. Cut up a quarter of a pound of fresh butter, and set it over the fire to warm and soften, but do not let it melt to an oil. When quite soft, mix with it half a pint of West India molasses, a small table-spoonful of powdered cinnamon, and the finely-grated yellow rind of a large orange or lemon; adding also the juice. Have ready three eggs, well beaten, and add them gradually to the mixture. It must form a lump of soft dough; but not too thin to knead with your hands. Knead it well on the paste-board for a quarter of an hour. Butter some tin pans; put an equal portion of the dough into each; cover them; and set them in a warm but not a hot place for a quarter of an hour before baking. Then bake the cakes well. Instead of small pans you may bake the whole of the dough in one large one. This cake should be eaten the day it is baked; fresh but not warm. All sweet cakes in which yeast is an ingredient are best and most wholesome when fresh, as the next day they become hard, dry, and comparatively heavy. BREAD MUFFINS.—Take some bread dough that has risen as light as possible, and knead into it some well-beaten egg in the proportion of two eggs to about a pound of dough. Then mix in a tea-spoonful of soda that has been dissolved in a very little lukewarm water. Let the dough stand in a warm place for a quarter of an hour. Then bake it in muffin-rings. You can thus, with very little trouble, have muffins for tea whenever you bake bread in the afternoon.
- 85. TO FRESHEN CAKES.—Cakeswhen stale may be much improved, if about an hour before they are wanted for tea, you enclose them in a circular wooden box with a tight-fitting lid, and place it on the marble hearth before a good coal fire; but not so close as to be in danger of scorching the box, which must be turned round, occasionally, so as to receive the heat equally on all sides. A tin or stone-ware box will not answer at all for this purpose, being too cold. If you burn wood-fires, set the box with the cake into a plate- warmer, or place it on a tall skillet, so as to be out of the way of coals or ashes falling on it, should the sticks break on the fire.
- 86. DOMESTIC LIQUORS, ETC. GOOSEBERRYCHAMPAGNE.—Take large, fine gooseberries, that are full-grown, but not yet beginning to turn red; and pick off their tops and tails. Then weigh the fruit, and allow a gallon of clear, soft water to every three pounds of gooseberries. Put them into a large, clean tub; pour on a little of the water; pound and mash them, thoroughly, with a wooden beetle; add the remainder of the water, and give the whole a hard stirring. Cover the tub with a cloth, and let it stand four days; stirring it frequently and thoroughly, to the bottom. Then strain the liquid, through a coarse linen cloth, into another vessel; and to each gallon of liquid add four pounds of fine loaf-sugar; and to every five gallons a quart of the best and clearest French brandy. Mix the whole well together; and put it into a clean cask, that will just hold it, as it should be filled full. Place the cask on its side, in a cool, dry part of the cellar; and lay the bung loosely on the top. Secure the cask firmly in its place, so that it cannot, by any chance, be shaken or moved; as the least disturbance will injure the wine. Let it work for a fortnight, or more; till the fermentation is quite over, and the hissing has ceased. Then bottle it; driving in the corks tightly. Lay the bottles on their sides. In six months, it will be fit for drinking, and will be found as brisk as real champagne. GREEN CURRANT WINE.—The currants must be full-grown, but not yet beginning to redden. Strip them from the stems; weigh them; and to every three pounds allow a gallon of soft water. Mash
- 87. them well, andproceed exactly as in the receipt for gooseberry champagne; except that you may use the best light-coloured brown sugar, instead of loaf. Instead of bottling it, as soon as it has done fermenting, you may, whenever the hissing is over, put in the bung tightly; and let the wine remain in the cask. In six months, it will be fit for drinking. PEACH WINE.—Take eight pounds of ripe, juicy, free-stone peaches, of the best kind. Slice them into two gallons of soft water; and add five pounds of loaf-sugar, broken small. Crack all the stones; extract the kernels; break them up; and lay them in the bottom of a clean tub. Put the peaches, with the dissolved sugar, into a kettle; and boil and skim it, until the scum ceases to rise. Then strain it, through a large sieve, into the tub that has the kernels in the bottom. Stir all well together, and cover it closely till it grows quite cool. Then put in a large slice of toasted bread, covered all over with strong, fresh yeast. Leave it to ferment; and, when the fermentation is over, strain it into a keg, and add a bottle of muscadel or sweet malaga wine. Let it stand six months. Then draw off a little in a glass, and, if it is not quite clear, take out a pint of the wine; mix with it an ounce of powdered gum-arabic; dissolve it in a slow heat; and then add an ounce of powdered chalk. When they are dissolved, return the pint of wine to the keg, stirring it in, lightly, with a stick; but taking care not to let the stick go down to the bottom, lest it should disturb the lees, or sediment. Let it stand three days longer, and then bottle it. It will be fit for use in another six months. Apricot wine may be made in the same manner. DOMESTIC FRONTINIAC.—Put into a large kettle, twelve pounds of broken-up loaf-sugar; and pour on it six gallons of clear, soft water, and let the sugar dissolve. Take seven pounds of the best raisins, and chop them small, having first removed the seeds. Mix the raisins with the dissolved sugar; set the kettle over the fire, and let it boil for an hour, skimming it well. Have ready half a peck of
- 88. full-blown elder-blossoms, gatheredjust before they are ready to fall from the branches. Take the kettle from the fire; pour the liquor into a clean tub; and as soon as it has cooled, (so as to be merely lukewarm,) stir in the elder-flowers. Cover it closely. Next day, add six large table-spoonfuls of lemon-syrup, and four of strong, fresh yeast. After the wine has fermented two days, strain it into a clean cask; and, after it has stood two months, bottle it. Next summer, it will be in fine order for drinking, and will be found a delicious wine; very similar to the real Frontiniac. MORELLA WINE.—Take a sufficiency of large, fine morella cherries. They must all be perfectly ripe, and free from blemish. Extract the stones; carefully saving all the juice. Return it to the cherries; put them into a clean tub; and let them stand, in a cold place, undisturbed, till next morning. Then mash and press them through a cullender, or sieve, or put them into a thin linen bag, and squeeze out all the juice; then measure it. To every quart of juice, allow a large half-pound of fine loaf-sugar, and mix them well together, in a clean cask. Crack the stones; tie them up in a thin bag; and suspend the bag in the cask, in the midst of the liquor. Leave it to ferment; and, when the fermentation ceases, stop it closely. Let it stand four months, leaving the bag of cherry-stones in the cask. Then bottle it, and in three months it will be fit to drink. DOMESTIC TOKAY.—Take fine grapes, that are all perfectly ripe; pick them carefully from the stalks, omitting all that are blemished; put them into a large hair sieve, placed over a large, deep pan, or a clean tub. Mash the grapes, with your hand, squeezing and pressing out all the juice. To every quart of juice, allow a pound of sultana raisins, chopped small, or of bloom raisins, seeded and chopped. Let the grape-juice and raisins stand twelve days; stirring it twice or three times every day. Then strain the liquor into a cask; but do not stop it closely till after three days. Let it stand eight months; then bottle it. If it is not clear, take out a pint of the wine; mix with it half
- 89. an ounce ofisinglass, shaved fine, or an ounce of powdered gum- arabic. Set it in a warm place, and, when dissolved, add an ounce of fine chalk. This will be sufficient to fine a barrel of wine. Stir it lightly into the rest. Let it stand three or four days, and then bottle it. BLACKBERRY WINE.—The blackberries must all be full ripe, and without blemish. Measure them; and to every quart of fruit allow a quart of clear, soft water. Boil the water by itself. Put the blackberries into a clean tub, and mash them with a wooden beetle, or a mallet. When the water has boiled, pour it on the blackberries, and let it stand, till next morning, in a cool place, stirring it occasionally. Then press out all the juice, measure it, and to every quart of liquid allow half a pound of sugar. Put the sugar into a cask, and strain the liquid upon it, through a linen bag. Stir it frequently, till the sugar is thoroughly dissolved. Let the cask remain unstopped, till the liquor has done working. Then add half an ounce of isinglass, or an ounce of gum-arabic, dissolved in a little hot water. You may substitute, for the isinglass, or gum-arabic, the beaten whites of four eggs. Keep it open till next day. Then bung it. It may be bottled in two months. Raspberry wine may be made as above. Black currant wine, also. ROSOLIS.—Put four pounds of the best loaf-sugar into a large porcelain kettle; and pour on it three quarts of water. When it has melted, set it over the fire, and boil and skim it, till the scum ceases to rise. Then add the whites of three eggs, whisked to a froth; and put in the shells also, broken small. Let it again come to a boil. Then take it off the fire; and, when it is only lukewarm, throw in a quart of fresh rose-leaves, stirring them well through the liquid. Cover the vessel, and let it stand till next day, till the fragrance of the roses is extracted. Then remove the first rose-leaves, with a skimmer, and put into it a second, and afterwards, a third supply. When the syrup has a fine rose-flavour, strain it through a linen bag. If not perfectly
- 90. Welcome to ourwebsite – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com