n?u=RePEc:zwi:uconnr:04&r=dev

33). Given problems with aflatoxin contamination, 32% of producers did not report the problem
to anyone. For HHs that did report a problem they most often turned to farm group members
(21%), neighbors (18%), and extension agents (17%) (Table A-34). Based on discussions and
feedback some HHs made changes, the most prevalent being: drying method (28%), storage
method (21%), and what to discard (16%) (Table A-35).
The average percentage loss from aflatoxin contamination for affected HHs is 5% of the total
harvest (Table A-36). In terms of storage practices, about 60% of affected HHs removed infected
nuts before storing, 26% did so sometimes, and 16% did not remove any nuts (Table A-37).
When it comes to consumption, 80% of HHs remove contaminated groundnuts and do not eat
them, 13% do not remove them before eating sometimes, and 6% do not remove them at all
(Table A-38). Removal of contaminated groundnuts before selling is done always by 34% of
HHs and sometimes by 36% and the remaining 30% never remove contaminated groundnuts
(Table A-39). Strict preference for aflatoxin-free groundnuts among buyers is indicated by 54%
of HHs, with only 10% answering sometimes, and 36% of HHs indicating none (Table A-40). In
most cases contaminated groundnuts are either thrown away (54%) or fed to animals (36%)
(Table A-41). The most important cause of aflatoxin contamination listed by respondents is poor
drying (58%) followed by too much rain (19%). When asked about the second most important
cause poor storage ranked the highest (36%) (Table A-42). However, 75% of HHs dried
groundnuts on the open earth at home with only 3% using a tarpaulin, and 10% on pavement
(Table A-43). It is important to note that drying groundnuts along the tarmac roads on pavement
is not a recommended practice, though in the case of on-farm drying pavement is a better
alternative to the open earth, but clean plastic or tarpaulin is definitively the best practice (Okello
et al. 2010). Given poor drying is the primary cause listed for aflatoxin contamination this is a
striking result, and we would expect HHs to engage in preventive practices. At the same time
farmers are likely to be resource constrained and simply do not have access to tarpaulins or onfarm
pavement. The exception to this is Mbale, where 90% of HHs dry groundnuts on pavement,
i.e., on the road side, due to an acute land shortage associated with the district’s hilly terrain
(Table A-43).
Upon further inspection we find several exceptions to the overall trends described above. In the
case of aflatoxin awareness respondents from the sub county of Sironko recognized aflatoxin by
name in 88% of cases compared to the overall average of 60% (Table A-31). In Mbale 90% of
respondents indicated having problems with aflatoxin compared to 65% overall (Table A-32).
Geographically, Sironko and Mbale are higher altitude regions with greater precipitation
throughout the year and hilly terrain. The process of drying in these regions given the
environment is more difficult, and these conditions can greatly increase aflatoxin levels,
particularly in groundnuts and maize. In terms of reporting contamination, BEN do so more than
either the C_IN or C_OUT control groups, most often turning to fellow group members. HHs
from the C_IN group on the other hand are more likely to consult with neighbors than either of
the other two groups (Table A-34). Across all groups average losses in Pallisa were greatest and,
25