Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 16;6(6):1607–1620. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.735

Table 8.

Mean rankinga of farmers’ perceptions on consequences of aflatoxin contamination

Consequence Ease of identification of the consequence Severity of the consequence Need for control of the consequence
Food and feed
Change in taste 1.8 (0.1)b 2.3 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1)
Change in smell 1.7 (0.1) 1.9 (0.0) 2.0 (0.0)
Change in color 1.4 (0.0) 2.2 (0.2) 2.3 (0.2)
Health
Development of liver cancer 2.3 (0.2) 1.9 (0.1) 1.7 (0.0)
Delay of child growth 2.1 (0.1) 1.7 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1)
Lower resistance to diseases of animals 2.3 (0.1) 2.2 (0.0) 2.2 (0.2)
Economic
Difficulty in selling crops 1.7 (0.0) 2.0 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1)
Reduction in marketable price 2.3 (0.1) 2.3 (0.2) 2.2 (0.1)
Kendal's correlation coefficient 0.01 0.03 0.02
Chi‐square 15.3 49.7 33.8
p‐Value 0.03 0.00 0.00
N 127
a

A five‐point scale ranking (1 =  strongly agree, 2 =  fairly agree, 3 =  neutral, 4 =  a little agree, and 5 =  not at all).

b

Mean (standard deviation).