Click on the link below to view the webinar by Rekiya Abdulmalik and Hauwa Ahmed from the Institute for Agricultural Research, Nigeria, on 13 November 2025 entitled Tricot Experience in Nigeria with Groundnut, Pearl millet and Sorghum.
Presenter Bio: Dr. Rekiya Abdulmalik is a sorghum breeder and a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Agricultural Research, Ahmadu Bello University in Nigeria. Her colleague Dr. Hauwa Ahmed is a groundnut breeder also at the Institute for Agricultural Research. Their work focuses on developing high-yielding, nutrient-rich and stress-tolerant crop varieties in collaboration with national and international partners.
For more info, contact Rekiya at rekimalik83@yahoo.com
Summary of presentation: Tricot was used to evaluate elite sorghum, pearl millet, and groundnut genotypes, involving 900 farmers in 30 communities across the dryland regions of Nigeria. Methods included a balanced incomplete block design and digital data collection via ODK and ClimMob. The results showed that genotypes 1680044-B-184-B-2 and ICSX 1680005-B-67-B-1 of sorghum, ICGV-IS 14877 and ICGV 196104 of groundnut, and the hybrids LCICMA-1 x TORONIUO and GAM-A-11-14 x SUPERSOSAT of millet were most preferred. Farmers’ preferences were mainly influenced by yield and grain size, demonstrating tricot’s effectiveness in aligning breeding outcomes with farmer priorities and accelerating the adoption of improved varieties.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Are the cultural practices identical among the farmers, and are the analyses be carried out directly on ClimMob? | Most of the major cultural activities were similar in the farm locations. For climate however, because of the diversity of the regions we could see some differences, while some areas are wetter, in others lke in the Sahelian area, the soils are lighter, so the activities cut across Sahelian Sudan and northern Guinea Savannah zones. And yes, the analyses will be done directly on ClimMob. |
| How did you measure marketability? Because we’ve had situations where farms tell us they are not able to answer the marketability part because they were not able to sell it. | With respect to marketability, the farmers know from the nature of the material the ones that command more value. It’s not that until they are able to sell these materials before they respond to the questions, but based on the qualities of this materials that we have, they are able to know which material consumers will buy more |
| Did you do a qualitative food assessment of groundnut to capture women traits, preference in terms of oil quality, cooking time and food product quality? | No, no, we didn’t do that. It was basically from just growing and then to harvest. There was no quality assessment of the groundnut materials. |
| The farming systems where the colleagues are working have strong links between crops and livestock. Do you integrate those sort of traits, such as suitability for livestock crop integration, or livestock feeding, etc? | No, this part is only on the crops. But we are proposing another webinar soon, where Dr Abraham is going to talk extensively on the socio economics aspect, and there you will hear more on other aspects of this project. |
| Is there an explanation for the low statistical power in the groundnut trial? Did you take the results back to the farmers to enhance their understanding and motivation? | For the statistical power, I think it has to do with the level of responses we got. Of course, the level of responses did not match what the number of respondents, so I think that would have influenced the statistical power. For the feedback, we had a feedback workshop after the trial where we talked to the farmers on the results obtained. This was very much appreciated by the farmers. They were encouraged that their preferences were being taken into consideration in varietal development. |
| What are the challenges you encountered in combining the three trot in tricot testing? | There were no major challenges—only minor ones, such as some farmers choosing to intercrop sorghum with another legume, which was accommodated using a flexible trial design allowing vertical or horizontal crop layouts. The main technical issue observed was in Bochi state, where the introduced millet type was planted earlier than the local practice (farmers usually plant a long-season millet around mid-August), so the trial millet did not perform well. Overall, farmers had good knowledge of millet, sorghum, and groundnut, often growing them together or in combinations on the same field. |
| Considering the challenges outlined, what portion of the established trials was affected or lost? | In some locations, entire trials were lost due to sudden flooding that occurred within just two to three days, making the plots inaccessible and preventing harvest data collection. Most data that were collected focused on vegetative growth stages before the floods arrived. There were also cases of theft and partial loss of plants, which had a big impact because the plots were very small (about four ridges by five meters). For future activities, it was suggested that plot sizes be increased as resources (especially seed) allow, to reduce the impact of such losses on overall productivity. |
| Are there any flood tolerant varieties in the pipeline? | We don’t have any flooding resistant varieties in the pipeline, but it is something to consider. |
| What percentage of farmers fully participated in the trial from the beginning to the end? | We can say about 65% of farmers fully participated. |
| What were some of the lessons that you learned and how you advise other scientists interested in the tricot methodology? | Key lessons included the importance of sensitizing farmers about the project so they understand its benefits and are more motivated to protect and adopt the technologies introduced. Regular monitoring visits were also found to be crucial, as farmers may feel the work is unimportant if scientists do not return to check on progress. This highlights that field visitation should be a core, non-negotiable component of such trials. Additionally, ongoing capacity building and refresher trainings are essential to maintain farmers’ skills and engagement over time. |
| Were the site visits mainly done by the scientist, or were they done by the field agents? | We matched three, three partner institutions coming together now this locations to prevent duplication of effort. The monitor was conducted by the scientist. So, example, you have five states, and there are five of us. So each scientist will take one state and visit the three crops in each location, the communities that we were able to manage resource efficiently. |