value chain analysis of chaya (mayan spinach) in guatemala · (segeplan 2013). petén was selected...

Value Chain Analysis of Chaya (Mayan Spinach) in Guatemala

NADEZDA AMAYA*, STEFANO PADULOSI, AND GENNIFER MELDRUM

Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a 00054 Maccarese, Rome, Italy*Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected]@cgiar.org

Chaya is a highly nutritious perennial leafy vegetable native to Mesoamerica. This drought-resistant crop has lowproduction and consumption levels in Guatemala, but has the potential to help agriculture and food systems bemore nutritious and resilient. This study analyzed the value chain of chaya inGuatemala, and identified bottlenecksand opportunities for its use-enhancement. This research, the first of its kind applied to this crop in Guatemala,combinedRapidMarket Appraisal tools. Small-scale chaya production, consumption, andmarketingwere observedin three focal sites (Guatemala City, Petén, andDry Corridor). It was observed that producers are not motivated toproduce chaya commercially and vendors are unwilling to sell it because of low demand and profitability. OneGuatemalan company identified produces nutraceutical chaya products with few sales points in the country andoccasionally abroad. Low demand is a primary bottleneck in the value chain due to lack of consumer awareness,changing eating habits, limited recipes, and availability in home-gardens. There is also a reluctance to grow,consume, or sell a crop perceived as a “food of the poor.” Low prices and profitability were other constraintsregistered. The findings can inform future interventions for enhancing the use of this crop to fight malnutrition.

Chaya es un vegetal de hoja perenne muy nutritivo originario de Mesoamérica. Este cultivo resistente a la sequía,tiene bajos niveles de producción y consumo en Guatemala, pero tiene el potencial de ayudar a que sistemasagrícolas alimentarios sean más nutritivos y resistentes. Este estudio analizó la cadena de valor de la chaya enGuatemala e identificó cuellos de botella y oportunidades para mejorar su uso. Esta investigación, la primera de sutipo aplicada a este cultivo en Guatemala, combinó herramientas de evaluación rápida de mercado. Se estudio laproducción, consumo y comercialización de chaya a pequeña escala en tres sitios focales (Ciudad de Guatemala,Petén yCorredor Seco). Se observó que los productores no estánmotivados para producir chaya comercialmente ylos vendedores no están dispuestos a venderla debido a su baja demanda y rentabilidad. Una empresa guatemaltecaidentificada produce productos nutracéuticos de chaya con pocos puntos de venta en el país y ocasionalmente en elextranjero. La baja demanda es un cuello de botella importante en la cadena de valor, que se debe a la falta deconocimiento del consumidor, cambios en hábitos alimenticios, pocas recetas y limitada disponibilidad en huertosfamiliares. También existe una renuencia a cultivar, consumir o vender un cultivo que se percibe como “alimentode pobres.” Otras restricciones identificadas fueron bajos precios y rentabilidad. Los hallazgos de este estudiopueden informar futuras intervenciones para mejorar el uso de este cultivo para combatir la desnutrición.

Key Words: Food security, Income generation, Indigenous vegetable, Markets, Neglected andunderutilized species, Nutrition.

Key Words: Seguridad alimentaria, generación de Ingreso, vegetales Indígenas, mercados, especiesolvidadas y subutilizadas, nutrición.

Introduction

Chaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifoliusMill I.M. Johnst)is a nutritious leafy vegetable in the Euphorbiaceaefamily. This crop, also known as “Mayan spinach,”has been cultivated for centuries by the Mayans as a

1 Received 20 March 2019; accepted 3 December2019; published online ___________

Electronic supplementary material The online versionof this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-019-09483-y) contains supplementary material, which is avail-able to authorized users.

Economic Botany, XX(X), 2019, pp. 1–15© 2019, The Author(s)

staple food, typically planted in homegardens andmaize fields (Booth et al. 1992; Ross-Ibarra 2003).Chaya was likely domesticated in the Yucatan pen-insula, but is commonly used throughout Meso-america, with the highest production found in theMexican states of Yucatan, Campeche, andQuintana Roo (Cifuentes et al. 2010). This planthas been introduced in other parts of the world inrecognition of its nutritional value (e.g., Africa andAsia; Porres and Cifuentes 2014). Chaya is a peren-nial shrub that is well adapted to drought-proneareas, has a short growth cycle, and is relatively easyto cultivate (Kuti and Torres 1996). The plant canreach a mean height of 3–5 m, and its leaves can beharvested year-round. It has been estimated that aplantation can reach an annual production of 30–60 tons per hectare of fresh leaves (Porres andCifuentes 2014).Chaya is an important source of vitamins (A, C),

minerals (calcium, iron, zinc, phosphorus, magne-sium), protein, carbohydrates, and polyunsaturatedfatty acids, of which 50% are omega-3 type (Kumaret al. 2011; Molina-Cruz et al. 1997). Chaya leaveshave high nutritional values compared to other leafyvegetables consumed in Central America (Fig. 1).For instance, 100 g of fresh leaves contain aboutfour times an adult’s daily vitamin C requirement,which is 10 times the amount found in chard (Betavulgaris L.) and eight times that of spinach (Spinaciaoleracea L.; FDA 2016; Leung and Flores 1961;Molina-Cruz and Cifuentes 2001). Owing to itsdry protein content (31% compared with 25% incommon bean), chaya can help raise Guatemalans’protein intake, which is among the lowest in

Central America (Neufeld et al. 2006). Chaya isfurthermore known for its role in treating varioushealth issues, including diabetes, obesity, kidneystones (Ross-Ibarra and Molina-Cruz 2002), andgastrointestinal disorders (Kuti and Torres 1996),although more research is needed to validate itshealing properties (Ferraz et al. 2018). Uncookedchaya leaves contain toxic cyanide glycosides, whichdiffer significantly by variety (Cifuentes et al. 2010),but are destroyed with just five minutes in boilingwater (González-Laredo et al. 2003).In Guatemala, chaya is cultivated in 17 of the

country’s 22 departments, with the highest produc-tion in Petén, Izabal, and Alta Verapaz (Cifuenteset al. 2010). Four cultivars can be found in thecountry: Estrella, Mansa, Plegada, and Picuda,among which the first two are the most popular(Cifuentes et al. 2010). Chaya’s potential as aneconomically viable and highly nutritious foodsource has been known for decades (Molina-Cruzet al. 1997). Nevertheless, its cultivation and con-sumption remain on a small scale in Guatemala andits existence and values are unknown to a large partof the population (Azurdia 2016). This situation iscommon to many nutritious crops around theworld—referred to as neglected and underutilizedspecies—that are important in local food traditionsbut are not integrated to their full potential inmainstream food and agriculture systems (Hunteret al. 2019; Padulosi et al. 2019).Weak value chains are an important factor that

limit the use of nutritious traditional crops(Baldermann et al. 2016). A value chain is a seriesof activities performed to bring an agricultural

1.9

0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4

5.2

7

3.7

2.8

1.6

2.4 2

1.5

0.7 1

350

100

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Chaya Chipilin Amaranthleaves

Spinach Chard

Per 1

00 g

fres

h w

eigh

t

Nutri�onal composi�on of leafy vegetables

Fat (gm) Protein (gm) Fiber (gm) Vitamin C (mg)

90

78

50

28

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Daily

requ

irem

ents

for a

dults

65 46 34

Fig. 1. Comparison of nutritional composition between chaya, similar leafy vegetables consumed in CentralAmerica, and daily requirements. Source: FDA ( 2016); Leung and Flores (1961); Molina-Cruz and Cifuentes (2001)

ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL

product from production to consumption, withvalue being added at each stage (Kaplinsky andMorris 2000). Often multiple constraints are facedin the value chains of neglected and underutilizedspecies, which undermine their competitiveness andmakes them less attractive to grow, commercialize,and consume when other options are available(Padulosi et al. 2015, 2019). These bottlenecksinclude: (1) agronomic constraints that result inlow or irregular yields; (2) commercialization con-straints, such as insufficient margins, infrastructurelimitations, and scant coordination among valuechain actors; and (3) weak consumer demand linkedto low awareness, low prestige of the crop, difficultprocessing, and issues related to product quality andconvenience (Gruère et al. 2008; Padulosi et al.2015). Identification of value chain bottlenecks isa key step toward identifying strategies to encouragegreater use of these crops and realizing their fullvalues (Gruère et al. 2008).

The marketing of chaya in Guatemala has notcommanded considerable research attention so far,and it is rare to see its leaves on sale in local andregional markets (Azurdia 2016). The organizationand obstacles in the chaya value chain have not beendocumented to our knowledge. This study aimed tofill this gap by providing insights on how to betterleverage chaya’s livelihood benefits. A RapidMarketAppraisal (RMA) method was applied to collectqualitative information from producers, traders,consumers, and other value chain actors (Ferris2012; Holtzman 2003), which was complementedby interviews with experts, literature review, andinternet searches. Variations of this approach havebeen applied to assess the value chains of otherneglected and underutilized species in other regions(Bandula et al. 2016; Van Looy et al. 2008). Weexpected that multiple problems exist at differentpoints in the value chain for chaya related to pro-duction, commercialization, and consumer demandthat limit its integration into the mainstream foodsystem. The presence of bottlenecks was assessedthrough qualitative analysis of information gatheredin the interviews.

Study Sites

Guatemala is a Mesoamerican country rich incultural and biological diversity, where most of thepopulation is of indigenous descent (Grant 2015).The agricultural sector accounts for 10% of thegross domestic product, employs over 29.4% of

the labor force, and uses 36% of the country’s landarea, of which half is destined to grow staple grains(maize, beans, and sorghum) and commercial crops(coffee, bananas, sugar cane; FAO 2018). Small-holder and subsistence farmers represent 92% ofagricultural producers, albeit cultivating as a wholeonly one-fifth of the land (INE 2004). Guatemalafaces widespread poverty, with 54% of its popula-tion living under the poverty line and 13% inextreme poverty (UN 2017). Chronic malnutritionaffects half of children under five (FAO et al. 2017)and 80% of the indigenous population (MAGA2015).

Three sites with distinct climatic and socioeco-nomic conditions were selected for the value chainanalysis in order to capture a range of contextualvariation helpful to provide insights into the realityand opportunities for marketing chaya in Guatema-la. The location of the study sites is shown in Fig. 2,and features of the sites are summarized in Table 1and described below:

1) Guatemala City, situated in the central-southpart of the country, is the largest city in Guate-mala and Central America (INE 2011). It is themajor market for goods and services and themost economically powerful center in Guatema-la. Considering that any major commercializa-tion of chaya in the country would likely involvethe major urban centers, five markets were sur-veyed there: Central Mayoreo (CENMA),Palmita, Presidenta, Terminal, and Central.

2) Petén, the northernmost department, accountsfor one-third of Guatemala’s total area. It pre-sents a tropical climate with a long rainy season(MAGA 2016). Tourism is one of the mostimportant engines of its economy, along withagriculture, forestry, and fruit production(SEGEPLAN 2013). Petén was selected becausethe highest levels of chaya production and use inGuatemala have been documented there(Azurdia 2016). Two local markets in the mu-nicipality of Flores (San Benito and Santa Elena)were selected jointly with three communities inthe municipalities of San Andres, San Jose, andFlores, which supply chaya to those markets(Narciso et al. 2013).

3) Chiquimula and Zacapa departments are locatedin the south-eastern part of Guatemala. They arepart of the Dry Corridor, a semi-arid zone that

AMAYA ET AL.: VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF CHAYA (MAYAN SPINACH) IN GUATEMALA2019]

exhibits frequent periods of drought, poor soils,and low agricultural performance (SEGEPLAN2011a, b). Nearly all the work force is engaged inagriculture, mostly in the production of staplegrains and to a lesser extent fruits and vegetables,such as chaya (SEGEPLAN 2002). These de-partments were selected as an ideal setting forexploring the current and future prospects ofchaya for nutrition and income generation asthe population faces a high burden of povertyand chronic malnutrition. Four markets inChiquimula (Central, Terminal, Esquipulas,and Jocotán) and one in Zacapa (Zacapa) weretargeted, along with seven communities distrib-uted in three municipalities (Camotán, Jocotán,and San Juan Ermita) that have important com-mercial flows with the chosen markets.

Moreover, to better contextualize the chaya valuechain in Guatemala, the Mexican State of Yucatan

was also included in the study, given the high levelsof chaya cultivation documented in the region(Azurdia 2016). Two important markets in thecapital city of Merida were visited (Lucas de Galvezand Casa del Pueblo), as well as one in the rural area(Oxkutzcab).

Methods

The RMAmethod applied in this study relied ona combination of secondary information, field ob-servations, and primary qualitative data collectedthrough semi-structured interviews. As there waslimited information in literature about the chayavalue chain, we started by interviewing knowledge-able experts from governmental institutions,NGOs, universities, and the private sector. We thensurveyed leafy vegetable traders and consumers inthe twelve focal markets, which are the most impor-tant, busiest, and key suppliers of products forsmaller markets in their respective sites. Likewise,

Fig. 2. Location of focal markets and producer communities included in the study

TABLE 1. RELEVANT CONDITIONS, BY SITE. SOURCE: IICA 2015, INE 2014, MSPAS ET AL. 2017

Guatemala City Petén Chiquimula Zacapa Merida

Population (million) 3.2 0.66 0.36 0.22 0.89Altitude (meters above sea level) 1500 80–510 160–1850 130–880 10Temperature °C 12–25 21–32 27–42 21–34 28–38Annual precipitation (mm) 250 1265–1800 775–1115 500–1500 1037Poverty 33% 61% 71% 56% 29%Malnutrition 25% 37% 56% 40% 27%


surveys were carried out with chaya producers in theten communities selected in Chiquimula and Petén.The presence and level of use of chaya in restau-rants, supermarkets, and health food stores were alsoinvestigated in the target sites. The steps followedfor the implementation of the RMA are provided asElectronic Supplementary Material (ESM) in Ap-pendix 1.

Respondents were selected through convenienceand snowball sampling methods. Approximately 3–5 interviews were conducted at each stage of thechaya value chain by site (ESM, Appendix 2). Intotal, 186 informants were interviewed betweenMarch and November 2017, including vendors ofleafy vegetables (64), consumers in local and region-al markets (43), restaurants that use leafy vegetables(16), processing industry (4), chaya producers (20),and knowledgeable experts (39). Five types of semi-structured interview guidelines, including openquestions tailored to the specific group of actors,were applied to allow a natural flow of discussion.The information collected covered current practicesfor production, consumption, marketing, and pro-cessing of chaya and other leafy vegetables: stake-holders’ roles, market competitiveness, product at-tributes, prices, trends, and incentives. All the inter-views were recorded in notebooks and audio record-ings, with the participants’ oral consent. Interviewswith producers and experts typically lasted 60–90 min, and those with vendors and consumers20–30 min on average. Direct observations duringfield visits also supported our understanding of thecontext and local conditions in which the chayavalue chain operates.

DATA ANALYSIS

The qualitative data gathered were transcribed inMicrosoft Word and systematized using MicrosoftExcel. The general analysis strategy was pattern-matching, which is a common approach for explan-atory studies (Hyde 2000). Guiding questions wereassessed regarding core processes and actors alongthe chaya value chain, including bottlenecks, op-portunities, and the context in which it performs.First, individual case descriptions (i.e., actorsinterviewed) were made; then the data from eachcase were compared and contrasted to the othercases (cross-case analysis). This comparison wasmade using key words, themes, and categories(e.g., quantity, frequency, and uses) to help identifypatterns among these elements and how they relateto each other, including contradictory data, which

made the analysis stronger. Particular attention waspaid to identifying potential reasons for the under-utilization of chaya and whether this related toissues in production, commercialization, and/orconsumer demand. Finally, the analyzed informa-tion was used to go beyond description of particularcases to general explanations, and to representgraphically the basic structure of the chaya valuechain (ESM, Appendix 3).

Results

VENDOR SURVEYS

Based on direct observations in all the focal mar-kets, we estimated that between 5 and 10% of thevendors were selling vegetables, of which 20–50%sold leafy vegetables. Some of these vendors werecommercializing their products in established stallsand others placed their produce in small baskets onthe floor, which was the case for most selling chaya.Besides Spanish, a third of the vegetable vendorsinterviewed in the markets also spoke Mayan lan-guages: Cakchiquel and Quiche (Guatemala City),Kekchi (Petén), and Mam (Chiquimula). Around80% of the informants and all those selling chayawere women, who according to respondents “un-derstand business better than men.” In GuatemalaCity, 22% of the vendors interviewed knew aboutchaya, while all of those in Petén (100%) and themajority in the Dry Corridor (77%) were aware ofthis plant. Only 14 of the 54 respondents wereselling chaya at the time of the interviews (Table 2).

Finding chaya in the focal markets was difficultand we were only able to encounter it on sale in 6 ofthe 12 surveyed markets: Central and Palmita inGuatemala City, San Benito and Santa Elena inPetén, and Jocotán and Central in Chiquimula. Inthese markets chaya was sold in bundles (Fig. 3),made by 15–25 fresh leaves tied together with string(weighing approximately 250 g/bundle) and insmall amounts (10–15 bundles). Estrella andMansawere the varieties sold in Guatemala City andChiquimula, whereas Estrella was the only typefound in Petén.

In Petén and Chiquimula, chaya vendors werepredominantly farmers who produced the leaves intheir homegardens and brought a mean 70% oftheir fresh production to the markets for direct saleto consumers. In other cases, vendors bought chayadirectly from producers. The vendors reached themarket by bus, taxi, bicycle, foot, or a combination


of them, taking them around 30–60 min to arrive.However, vendors from remote communities re-ported deficient infrastructure and limited accessto transportation, which makes it difficult to accessthe market. In Guatemala City, a similar situationfor chaya supply was observed, except that somevendors in smaller markets (Central and Palmita)were found to source chaya from La Terminal, alarge wholesale market which is an important hubfor agricultural products coming from across Gua-temala. Other leafy vegetables generally had a sim-ilar value chain pathway as chaya, although withmore links to large wholesale markets.Due to limited demand in Guatemala City, ven-

dors sell chaya mostly on request at higher prices.They reported selling a mean 3 bundles/week at aprice of 0.6 USD/bundle (exchange rate at the timeof study: 1 USD = 7.33 Quetzal/GTQ). In theother sites, sales volumes were generally higher,but prices lower. In Petén, vendors sold a mean 10bundles/week at a price of 0.45 USD/bundle. InChiquimula sales volumes were more variable, rang-ing from 1 bundle/week in the Central market to 24bundles/week in Jocotán, with mean prices of 0.22–0.41 USD/bundle. With these rates, we estimatedthat a vendor could make a mean of 9 USD permonth from chaya sales in Guatemala City, 22USD in Petén, and 12 USD in Chiquimula, witha mean rate of return at 41%, 26%, and 9%,respectively (ESM, Appendix 4). Although chayasales only represent a mean 1.5% of vendors’ grossincome from vegetable sales, they contribute tocovering production and transaction costs.

Vendors interviewed were selling a total of 25species of leafy vegetables and herbs, of which themost important, based on their demand, includedchipilín (Crotalaria longirostrata Hook. & Arn.),black nightshade (Solanum americanum Mill. andS. nigrescens M. Martens & Galeotti), chard, spin-ach, watercress (Nasturtium officinale R.Br.), leafamaranth (Amaranthus sp.), lettuce (Lactuca sativaL.), squash leaves (Cucurbita sp.), coriander(Coriandrum sativum L.), parsley (Petroselinumcrispum Mill. Fuss), and spearmint (Mentha spicataL.; ESM, Appendix 5). Prices of these leafy vegeta-bles ranged from 0.14–1.23 USD/bundle over theyear, noting that their bundles were similar in sizeand weight as chaya’s. In Guatemala City, the priceof chaya was one of the highest of all leafy vegetableson offer, only surpassed by spinach (Fig. 4). Bycontrast, in Chiquimula, chaya’s price was the low-est compared to other leafy vegetables; while inPetén it was mid-range. Vendors explained thatthe prices of edible leaves, including chaya, tend tobe higher by 0.14–0.27 USD/bundle in the sum-mer (December–May) as compared to the winter orrainy season (June–November) because productionis lower, access to water is limited, and only peoplewith access to irrigation produce enough to sell.Low consumer demand was a reason mentioned

by 88% of all the vendors interviewed for not sellingchaya and preferring to trade other vegetables in-stead. Some vendors observed that people have lostthe habit of consuming chaya and are not aware ofits nutritional and medicinal qualities. Another rea-son for low demand for chaya in Petén and

TABLE 2. VENDORS INTERVIEWED IN FOCAL MARKETS IN GUATEMALA, BY SITE

Site Market Estimated # of vendors # of leafy vegetable vendors interviewed

Vegetable Leafy vegetables Total Chaya vendors

<TB>Guatemala City CENMA 50 10 4Palmita 50 20 6 2Presidenta 20 5 4Terminal 250 100 5Central 50 15 4 1

Petén San Benito 25 10 4 3Santa Elena 20 10 5 4

Dry Corridor Central 40 15 3 1Esquipulas 50 20 4Jocotán 30 15 6 3Terminal 80 20 4Zacapa 50 25 5

Total 715 265 54 14


Chiquimula was the fact that it is grown in manyhouseholds’ homegardens, and thus people do notneed to purchase it from the market. In these areas,around a third of vendors also expressed that there isa stigma on chaya as “food of the poor” that reducesdemand and makes them embarrassed to sell it.Around 75% of vendors in Guatemala City whodo not sell chaya and 60% of those in Petén and theDry Corridor expressed their willingness to start

selling it, provided that a high demand and goodsale price were in place, which would be enoughincentive to produce or procure it.

In contrast to the situation seen in Guatemala,chaya vendors were easily found in the selectedmarkets in Merida, Mexico. These vendors soldthe leaves either by weight or in plastic bags eachcontaining 20–30 leaves. The quantity of chayasold, as well as the frequency of the sales in the

Fig. 3. Chaya bundles found in the focal markets

1.1

1.9

2.3

1.3

1.7

1.0

1.5 1.4

0.9

1.7

2.1

1.5 1.7

2.1 1.7

2.2 2.2

2.7 2.3 2.3

1.6 1.5 1.2

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

CHIQUIMULA PETEN GUATEMALA CITY

USD/

Kg

Chaya

Chard

Watercress

Black nightshade

Chipilin

Spinach

Squash leaves

Amaranth leaves

Chiquimula mean price

Peten mean price

Guatemala City mean price

Fig. 4. Comparison of mean sales prices between chaya and commonly consumed leafy vegetables in focal markets


markets visited, was higher than that observed inGuatemala. Chaya was usually sold every day atprices that ranged from 1.5–3.5 USD/kg. In theurban markets visited, a vendor reported selling amean 80 kg of chaya per week, while in the ruralmarket a vendor sold around 27.5 kg/week. Ven-dors interviewed stated that demand for chaya ishigher than for other leafy vegetables, such as spin-ach and lettuce, because of its importance in Mayaculture and traditional gastronomy. For instance,chaya sales double during the week of Easter be-cause it is a key ingredient of typical dishes con-sumed during this holiday. Chaya was also easilyfound in many restaurants, food stores, and super-markets (e.g., Walmart) in Merida, suggesting thatthis crop is much more popular here than in Gua-temala. Respondents moreover highlighted that iscustomary for houses in Merida to have at least onechaya plant in the homegarden.

CONSUMERS SURVEYS

Among the consumers interviewed in the mar-kets, 20% in Guatemala City stated that they knewabout chaya, versus 100% in Petén and 70% in theDry Corridor. The majority (75%) of those whoknew chaya consumed it occasionally. In Guatema-la City, only one of the 10 respondents consumedchaya, consumption that was motivated by knowl-edge of its nutritional value and availability in thehomegarden.More than half (60%) the consumers in Petén

and 10% in the Dry Corridor consumed chaya outof custom as they grew up eating it at home, whileits nutritional and/or medicinal values were a pri-mary motivation for 40% and 90% of them toconsume chaya, respectively. Across all sites, a fam-ily of six members consumed a mean two bundles ofchaya per week, which they procured from theirhomegarden, neighbors, or market.When not avail-able at home, consumers in Petén estimated to buy1–2 bundles/week, while those in the Dry Corridorbought 2–3 bundles/week. Besides chaya, con-sumers reported purchasing a mean of 7 bundles/month of other edible leaves, such as black night-shade, chipilín, spinach, chard, and watercress touse in soups, salads, rice, with eggs and tamales(steamed maize dough wrapped in maize husk).Overall, 60% of chaya consumers said they

would like to increase their consumption, but theynoted that its availability in markets is unreliable.Forty percent of chaya consumers were not inter-ested in increasing their intake because they already

consume enough; and also, interviewees inChiquimula stated that their children prefer thetaste of chipilín or black nightshade over chaya.Of the consumers in Guatemala City and the DryCorridor that never heard about chaya, almost all(92%) were interested to try it because of its nutri-tional and medicinal properties that were explainedduring the interviews.

RESTAURANT SURVEYS

There are smal l restaurants known as“Comedores” located in the focal markets in Gua-temala City, Petén, and the Dry Corridor. Only oneof the 14 Comedores found in the visited marketsreported using chaya as an ingredient in one of itsdishes. This restaurant was located in Zacapa mar-ket, where a chaya soup is served for 0.68 USDwhen clients request it in advance, which tends tohappen around twice a month. According to ownersof the Comedores interviewed in Petén,Chiquimula, and Zacapa, most of their clients comefrom rural communities where they usually eattraditional vegetables like chaya; thus they prefereating something different when visiting the mar-ket. The most popular foods offered in these restau-rants include fried chicken, rice, beans, and tortillas(thin flatbread, made from ground maize cooked inlimewater).In Petén, we found a restaurant named “La

Chaya,” where a diversity of dishes with chaya areoffered. The restaurant’s mission, according to itsowner, is to contribute to safeguarding the country’sfood and Maya culture, and make its gastronomybetter known and appreciated. This unique restau-rant targets tourists and affluent consumers, offeringdishes ranging from chaya tamales to more elaboraterecipes (e.g., omelets, pasta) that cannot be foundelsewhere in Petén. We were not able to find anyother restaurant in the focal sites that includes chayain its menus.

PROCESSING INDUSTRY SURVEYS

The expert and internet surveys revealed that afew private companies are processing and sellingnutraceutical products based on chaya (ESM, Ap-pendix 6). We were able to interview the owners offour of these companies: Eurotropic, Sanue, ChayaHerbal, and Chaya Trading. In their marketingcampaigns, these companies advertise chaya for itsnutritional and health benefits, includingpreventing and treating obesity, anemia, kidney


disease, and diabetes. Most of these benefits areknown from anecdotal information, and at leastthe last three have been supported by clinical trialswith mice (Oladeinde et al. 2007). These compa-nies have been selling chaya products for more thanfive years and according to them, they are gaininggood acceptance, even though we were not able tohave access to their sales volumes.

Eurotropic is the only Guatemalan-based com-pany among those identified. It sells chaya flour andcapsules on a small-scale but at high prices (27–34USD/package) in Guatemala and occasionally inthe USA and Canada. An important challenge thiscompany faces is the limited demand as a result ofconsumers’ low awareness about chaya and its mul-tiple benefits. However, the owner’s connectionswith traders and the promotion of the products ininternational markets and agricultural fairs are keyadvantages for the company. We located a healthfood store in Antigua (Guatemala) that occasionallysells Eurotropic’s products. No other sale pointswere identified that carried products made fromchaya in the sites surveyed through our study.

PRODUCER SURVEYS

To explore the current use and future prospectsof chaya at the community level, 20 chaya pro-ducers in Petén and Chiquimula were interviewedfrom communities that produce, consume, andsupply chaya to the focal markets. The producerswere selected for the interview following a conve-nience sampling approach. Most of the chaya pro-ducers interviewed were women (70%), and allspoke Spanish. Their primary economic activitywas small-scale agriculture. Their main crops weremaize and beans that were grown for subsistenceand income, complemented by production of leafyvegetables, fruits, tubers, and flowers. In both de-partments, the whole family participates in chayaproduction and marketing activities, but womentend to be more engaged in its cultivation anddeciding how to use the production.

All the producers interviewed in Petén andChiquimula stated they grow chaya mainly for itsnutritional and medicinal benefits, especially forfighting anemia and stimulating lactation. More-over, in Petén 60% of the respondents added thatthey continue producing chaya out of habit. Mostinterviewees in Petén (40%) and Chiquimula(73%) appreciated that chaya grows easily, requiringfew inputs and minimal care. The following com-ment by a producer in Chiquimula stresses this

concept very well: “Chaya grows alone, it does notneed so much care, basically it takes care of itself.”Producers also appreciated its resistance to pests anddiseases and drought tolerance; as stated by onerespondent: “Chaya is fierce to face drought pe-riods.” Nevertheless, heavy drought spells and lim-ited access to water were found to reduce yields andconstrain production.

Chaya production typically took place aroundthe farmers’ houses, homegardens, or agriculturalplots, and varied by region and level of access toirrigation. In Petén, where rainfall is comparablyhigher than in Chiquimula, all interviewees report-ed having access to water year-round and a meanchaya production of 5 bundles/week during the year(Fig. 5). These producers stated that they mainlyused chaya to make and sell tamales; and to a lesserextent for home consumption (cooked with scram-bled eggs or stews). In Chiquimula, half of theproducers interviewed had access to irrigation andmaintained a mean production of 20 bundles/weekthroughout the year, of which they sold half in localmarkets. By contrast, households with more limitedaccess to water gathered 3–5 bundles/week, whichthey used for consumption, mostly in soups andpinol (toasted maize flour mixed with water). Inboth sites, farmers also shared some of their chayawithin their social networks and used it to feed theiranimals. All the families in Petén reported produc-ing the Estrella variety because of its higher produc-tivity, better taste, and greater softness when cookedcompared to Mansa. Conversely, in Chiquimula,the predominant variety produced out of customwas Mansa, although some chaya Estrella plantswere observed during our field work.

Most producers in Petén (80%) and Chiquimula(67%) stated that chaya is among the most impor-tant leafy vegetables they produced. However, 75%of them prefer to consume chipilín and/or blacknightshade, mostly out of habit. The production ofthese other vegetables is similar to chaya duringwinter, whereas in summer, only chaya can beharvested, since it has lower water requirements.According to 33% of the respondents inChiquimula and 80% in Petén, increasingly peoplein their communities, especially younger genera-tions, are opposed to eating or selling chaya becauseit is perceived as “food of the poor.” This phrase wasalso associated by respondents to other leafy vegeta-bles (e.g., amaranth leaves, chipilín, and blacknightshade). Furthermore, a few respondents statedthat some people do not consume chaya becausethey believe it is poisonous. Lastly, some


interviewees in Chiquimula felt that the recipes usedfor chaya were not very attractive or well appreciatedby children.

RESEARCH AND INTERVENTIONS

We identified and interviewed 21 organizationsthat work with chaya in 17 of the 22 departments inGuatemala (ESM, Appendix 7). Efforts of theseinstitutions focus on research activities (nutritional,chemical, botanical, and agronomic), raising aware-ness of chaya’s benefits, promotion of its production(establishment of home, school, and/or communi-ties gardens), and consumption (workshops, rec-ipes, and school lunches). Of these, for the last fiveyears a couple of institutions from the private sector(e.g., universities and small businesses) and donoragencies have been assisting small-scale activitiesregarding marketing, processing, and increasing de-mand for chaya. Some of these activities includedevelopment of recipes, sharing food samples inmarkets, and disseminating information throughvideos and flyers. However, most of these organiza-tions work independently.

Discussion

Considering the perspectives of producers, ven-dors, and consumers, this study has pointed to lackof demand as a primary factor restraining chayamarketing in the focal sites. Low demand is relatedto low awareness of the crop in Guatemala City, andconsumer perceptions in Petén and the Dry Corri-dor. Highest levels of cultivation and consumption

of chaya occur in the center of origin in the Yucatanpeninsula (Mexico and Petén) and in this region, allactors interviewed knew about the crop (Ross-Ibarra2003). By contrast, few vendors and consumersknew about chaya in Guatemala City, which issituated at the altitudinal limit for its cultivation,where it may have never featured strongly in localculinary traditions (Caceres et al. 2015). An inter-mediate awareness was found in the Dry Corridor,which is consistent with lower levels of cultivationin this region compared to the Yucatan peninsula(Azurdia 2016).Although consumers knew about chaya in Petén

and the Dry Corridor, this did not translate tomarket demand because the crop was available inhomegardens and was perceived by some as “food ofthe poor.” This perception of chaya is rooted in alegacy of discrimination against indigenous peoplesin Guatemala, and other factors that contribute toshifting food culture away from traditional crops,such as urbanization, expanding markets, changingsocio-economic conditions, and environmental deg-radation (Cristancho and Vining 2009; Ford et al.2017). Experts interviewed highlighted that whilepeople still have access to native plants, the cultureof consuming them is slowing disappearing andreaching levels of complete extinction in some re-gions of Guatemala. Similar views of “food of thepoor” have restrained demand for nutritious tradi-tional crops in other parts of the world (e.g., quinoa:Andrews 2017; African leafy vegetables: Masekoet al. 2017). However, this impression was notfound in the study sites in Mexico, where chayawas instead reported to be a source of pride, and itsstrong connection with indigenous culture

31 2

64 5

1

11

1

22

2

1

11

1

3

23

911

10

3

53

4

20 19 20

5

0

5

10

15

20

Winter Summer Mean Winter Summer Mean Winter &Summer

No irriga�on Access to irriga�on No irriga�on

CHIQUIMULA PETEN

Bund

les/

wee

k

Tamales w/chaya for saleat local markets

Fresh chaya sale

Animal feed (chickens &pigs)

Shared w/social networks(rela�ves & friends)

Home consump�on

TOTAL

Fig. 5. Weekly mean production and uses of chaya, by season, access to irrigation, and site


determined its very survival and popularity. Morewidespread use of chaya in Mexico as compared toGuatemala was also highlighted by Cifuentes et al.(2010), while the precise reasons for this differencemerits additional investigation.

Our results suggest that consumers in Guatemalamay not recognize chaya as a vegetable for regularconsumption but as a medicinal crop, which, it wasnoted, could be limiting its demand. More con-sumers in Petén and the Dry Corridor were moti-vated to use chaya for its medicinal values than forits nutritional values. The medicinal effects of chayawere also primary features promoted by the process-ing industry. The use of chaya as medicine can besimilar to its consumption as a vegetable (e.g., eatingboiled leaves), but the leaves or other parts (e.g.,roots, sap) may also be consumed as teas, infusions,or shakes, or applied externally (Ross-Ibarra andMolina-Cruz 2002). Emphasis on the medicinalrole of chaya made by consumers in this studycontrast with observations by Ross-Ibarra andMolina-Cruz (2002) in Mexico, where the use ofchaya as food was more prominent. Furthermore,observations by some respondents that chaya ispoisonous also hinder the demand for this crop asa vegetable and highlight a lack of awareness aboutprocessing methods that render this crop safe forconsumption.

A more habitual use and preference for blacknightshade and chipilín over chaya were noted ininterviews across the sites. Like chaya, these cropshave also been used since pre-Colombian times inGuatemala (Azurdia 2016; Cagnato 2018).Chipilín is likely native to Mesoamerica (Azurdia2016), while black nightshades S. americanum andS. nigrescens are wide-ranging species of theAmericas (Knapp et al. 2019). The reason con-sumers favor these crops over chaya is not clear fromthe interviews, since they were also regarded as foodof the poor, both are used as medicine, and blacknightshade can also be toxic, needing to be boiledfor safe consumption (Caceres and Cruz 2019;Jagatheeswari et al. 2013;Morton 1994). The wideraltitudinal ranges of chipilín and black nightshadecould explain why these crops are used more oftenin Guatemala City, since chaya can only grow inlowlands (i.e., up to 1500 masl; Caceres et al.2015). These species are also generally more avail-able and accessible as compared to chaya becausethey grow spontaneously in cultivated fields andhave faster production of edible leaves (Azurdia2016; Caceres et al. 2015; Mera-Ovando et al.2011).

Agronomic constraints did not stand out as amajor limiting factor for chaya. Producers describedits cultivation to be easy, requiring few inputs andgenerating a harvest even under challenging climateconditions, which agrees with observations by otherauthors (NRC 1979; Peregrine 1983; Ross-Ibarraand Molina-Cruz 2002). Although chaya is tolerantto drought, our results suggest that water availabilityis a limitation for producers without irrigation in theDry Corridor, thus restraining commercial produc-tion to the rainy season. Nevertheless, commercial-ization constraints seem to be a more critical bottle-neck for market integration of chaya. The few chayavendors that were encountered in the markets facedhigh transaction costs that prevented them fromvisiting markets frequently and selecting more prof-itable ones, a situation due to the fact that they areliving in remote areas, distant from each other, andoperating individually. This situation affects numer-ous crops grown in remote areas, where the trans-action costs of bringing the products to market canbe unrealistic (Gruère et al. 2008; Van Looy et al.2008). Perishability did not stand out in the inter-views as a constraint for marketing chaya, but otherauthors have determined it to be a key factor limit-ing wider supply and marketability—a conditionthat can be overcome by dehydrating the leaves(Caceres et al. 2015).

As this study focused only on three sites in Gua-temala, it is possible that chaya is marketed to agreater extent in other parts of the country and,while we aimed to be thorough with our surveys,some important actors may have been missed. Focalmarkets were also only surveyed once, which couldmean that seasonal fluctuations in the number ofvendors and prices were not documented. On theother hand, actors interviewed reported that pricesand quantities of chaya sold vary only minimallyduring the year. With these methodological limita-tions in mind, we are confident based on the liter-ature review and interviews with experts that ourresults provide an accurate picture of current levelsof chaya marketing in the target sites and also reflectthe general case of chaya marketing acrossGuatemala.

Conclusion

This study revealed that consumption andmarketavailability of chaya in the focal sites is irregular andinsubstantial, confirming observations by Azurdia(2016) and Caceres et al. (2015). The value chain


of chaya was found to be short and composedprimarily of production, basic processing (if any),marketing (insignificant), and consumption (de-creasing). A limited presence of chaya in restaurantsand other retail points was also documented. As isfound for many neglected and underutilized speciesaround the world (Padulosi et al. 2015, 2019),bottlenecks were detected across the value chain,which hinder integration of chaya in markets. Lackof demand stood out as the primary limiting factorfor chaya marketing, while commercialization con-straints such as high transaction costs, weak valuechain organization, and poor profitability are othercritical bottlenecks.Strengthening market integration of chaya can be

strategic to enable its benefits to reach the fast-growing urban population of Guatemala, for whichagricultural value chains play a fundamental role inmaking food available (Lowitt et al. 2015). Becauseof its nutritious leaves and easy cultivation underlow input conditions, chaya could play an impor-tant role in sustainably enhancing vegetable supplyin Guatemala, a country where the majority of itscitizens (80%) currently do not meet the recom-mended daily vegetable intake (Afshin et al. 2019).The lower price of chaya compared to other leafyvegetables presents an opportunity for low-incomeconsumers to affordably increase their vegetableconsumption (Drewnowski 2010). At half the priceof spinach in Chiquimula, chaya provides eighttimes more vitamin C, four times more calcium,and two times more protein.This research has provided a better under-

standing of the chaya value chain in Guatemala,which can guide sustainable development of thiscrop. The presence of companies marketingchaya as nutraceutical products, and the successof the chaya-specialized restaurant serving tour-ists in Petén, suggest that there are more profit-able markets that could be accessed by chayaproducers with improved organization and mar-keting strategies. Involving the gastronomy sec-tor could play a strategic role in raising aware-ness about chaya and help to better portray thiscrop as a key component of Guatemala’s ancientfood culture (“Mayan spinach”) and its value asa highly nutritious and modern “superfood.”Lastly, it is vital to encourage the establishmentof collaborative alliances among different orga-nizations that work with chaya, as a key move toavoid duplication of efforts and foster synergy instrategic activities.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank all the vendors, con-

sumers, producers, and experts who participated inthis study. Special thanks to Rolando Cifuentes andSilvana Maselli. This research was carried out in theframework of the project “Linking Agro biodiversityValue Chains Climate Adaptation and Nutrition:Empowering the Poor to Manage Risk,” withfunding from the European Commission and theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development(Grant 2000000978) and the CGIAR ResearchProgrammes on Agriculture for Nutrition andHealth and Climate Change, Agriculture and FoodSecurity.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Crea-tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International Li-cense, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, dis-tribution and reproduction in any medium or for-mat, as long as you give appropriate credit to theoriginal author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons licence, and indicate ifchanges were made. The images or other third partymaterial in this article are included in the article'sCreative Commons licence, unless indicated other-wise in a credit line to the material. If material is notincluded in the article's Creative Commons licenceand your intended use is not permitted by statutoryregulation or exceeds the permitted use, you willneed to obtain permission directly from the copy-right holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Literature CitedAfshin, A., P. J. Sur, K. A. Fay, L. Cornaby, G.

Ferrara, J. S. Salama, E. C. Mullany et al. 2019.Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries,1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the GlobalBurden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet 393:1958–1972.

Andrews, D. 2017. Race, status, and biodiversity:The social climbing of quinoa. Culture, Agricul-ture, Food and Environment 39(1): 15–24.

Azurdia, C. 2016. Plantas MesoamericanasSubutilizadas en la Alimentación Humana. Elcaso de Guatemala: Una revisión del pasadohacia una solución actual. Documento técnico:11. Guatemala: CONAP-USAC-DGI.

Baldermann, S., L. Blagojević, K. Frede, R.Klopsch, S. Neugart, A. Neumann, B. Ngweneet al. 2016. Are neglected plants the food for the


future? Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 35(2):106–119.

Bandula, A., C. Jayaweera, A. De Silva, P. Oreiley,A. Karunarathne, and S. H. P. Malkanthi. 2016.Role of underutilized crop value chains in ruralfood and income security in Sri Lanka. ProcediaFood Science 6: 267–270.

Booth, S., R. Bressani, and T. Johns. 1992. Nutri-ent content of selected indigenous leafy vegeta-bles consumed by the Kekchi people of AltaVerapaz, Guatemala. Journal of Food Composi-tion and Analysis 5(1): 25–34.

Caceres A. and S. M Cruz. 2019. Detection andvalidation of native plants traditionally used asmedicine in Guatemala. Current TraditionalMedicine 5(1): 5–30.

Caceres A., M. Cosenza, A. López, M. Mérida, andS. Cruz. 2015. Manual de Hierbas y GranosNativos como una Opción Agrícola, Nutricionaly Comerc ia l en Guatemala . ProyectoFODECYT 05-2013. Guatemala.

Cagnato, C. 2018. Shedding light on the night-shades (Solanaceae) used by the ancient Maya:A r ev i ew o f ex i s t ing da t a , and newarchaeobotanical (macro-and microbotanical)evidence from archeological sites in Guatemala.Economic Botany 72(2): 180–195.

Cifuentes, R., E. Poll, R. Bressani, and S. Yurrita.2010. Caracterización botánica, molecular,agronómica y química de los cultivares de Chaya(Cnidoscolus aconitifolius) de Guatemala. RevistaUniversidad del Valle de Guatemala 21: 34–49.

Cristancho, S. and J. Vining. 2009. Perceived inter-generational differences in the transmission oftraditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in twoindigenous groups from Colombia and Guate-mala. Culture and Psychology 15(2): 229–254.

Drewnowski, A. 2010. The Nutrient Rich FoodsIndex helps to identify healthy, affordable foods.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91(4):1095S–1101S.

FAO. 2018. World food and agriculture-StatisticalPocketbook 2018. Rome: FAO.

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2017.The state of food security and nutrition in theworld 2017. Building Resilience for Peace andFood Security. Rome: FAO.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2016. Foodlabeling: Revision of the nutrition and supple-ment facts labels. Federal Register 81: DocketFDA–2012–N–1210.

Ferraz, C. A., A. P. Oliveira, C. Souza-Araújo, L. F.da Silva-Oliveira, L. Picot, L. Araújo-Rolim, P. J.

Rolim-Neto et al. 2018. Phytochemical andpharmacological aspects of Cnidoscolus pohl spe-cies: A systematic review. Phytomedicine 50:137–147.

Ferris, S. 2012. A guide to Rapid Market Appraisal(RMA) for agricultural products. Cali, Colom-bia: CIAT, CRS and Helvetas.

Ford, N. D., R. Martorell, M. Ramirez-Zea, and A.D. Stein. 2017. The nutrition transition in ruralGuatemala: 12-year changes in diet of adults.FASEB Journal 31: 147–3.

González-Laredo, R., M. F. De La Hoya, M.Quintero-Ramos, and J. Karchesy. 2003. Flavo-noid and cyanogenic contents of chaya (spinachtree). Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 58(3):1–8.

Grant, P. 2015. State of theWorld’s Minorities andIndigenous Peoples 2015: Events of 2014, Focuson Cities. London: MRG.

Gruère, G. P., A. Giuliani, and M. Smale. 2008.Marketing underutilized plant species for thebenefit of the poor: A conceptual framework.In: Agrobiodiversity conservation and economicdevelopment, eds. A. Kontoleon, U. Pasqual,and M. Smale, 73–87. Abingdon: Routledge.

Holtzman, J. S. 2003. Rapid appraisals of commod-ity sub-sectors. Bethesda: Abt Associates, Inc.

Hunter, D., T. Borelli, D. M. Beltrame, C. N.Oliveira, L. Coradin, V. W. Wasike, L. Wasilwaet al. 2019. The potential of neglected andunderutilized species for improving diets andnutrition. Planta: 1–21.

Hyde, K. F. 2000. Recognizing deductive process inqualitative research. Qualitative Market Re-search. International Journal 3(2): 82–89.

IICA (Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación pa-ra la agricultura). 2015. Diagnóstico del marcopolítico, institucional y programático de laagricultura familiar en Guatemala. Informe deconsultoría:30. Guatemala.

INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). 2004. IVCenso Nacional Agropecuario 2003. Guatemala

———. 2011. Mapas de pobreza Rural en Guate-mala 2011. Guatemala: Unidad de Pobreza,Género y Equidad del Banco Mundial.Latinoamérica y el Caribe.

———. 2014. Encuesta Nacional de Condicionesde Vida 2013. Guatemala.

Jagatheeswari, D., T. Bharathi, and H. SheikJahabar Ali. 2013. Black nightshade (Solanumnigrum L.)–An updated overview. InternationalJournal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Ar-chive 4(2): 288–295.


Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris. 2000. A handbookfor value chain research. University of Sussex,Institute of Development Studies (113).

Knapp, S., G. E. Barboza, L. Bohs, and T. Särkinen.2019. A revision of the Morelloid Clade ofSolanum L. (Solanaceae) in North and CentralAmerica and the Caribbean. PhytoKeys 123: 1–144.

Kumar, A., M. Or-Rashid, O. Alzahal, and B. W.Mcbride. 2011. Fatty acid profile of chaya(Cnidoscolus aconitifolius) leaves and fodder. In-dian Journal of Animal Sciences 81(8): 95–100.

Kuti, J. O. and E. S. Torres. 1996. Potential nutri-tional and health benefits of tree spinach. Prog-ress in New Crops 13(5): 516–520.

Leung, W. T. W. and M. Flores. 1961. Foodcomposition table for use in Latin America.Bethesda: INCAP and ICNND.

Lowitt, K., G. M. Hickey, W. Ganpat, and L.Phillip. 2015. Linking communities of practicewith value chain development in smallholderfarming systems. World Development 74:363–373.

MAGA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería yAlimentación). 2015. Plan Operativo Anual2016 y Multianual 2016–2018. Guatemala.

———. 2016. Informe Situación del frijol: Junio,2016. Guatemala: Dirección de Planeamiento.

Maseko, I., T. Mabhaudhi, S. Tesfay, H. Araya, M.Fezzehazion, and C. Plooy. 2017. African leafyvegetables: A review of status, production andutilization in South Africa. Sustainability 10(1):16.

Mera-Ovando, L. M., D. Castro-Lara, and R. Bye-Boettler. 2011. Especies vegetales pocovaloradas: Una alternativa para la seguridadalimentaria. México: UNAM – SNICS -SINAREFI.

Molina-Cruz, A. and R.Cifuentes. 2001.Evaluación de cuatro selecciones de chaya(Cnidoscolus aconitifolius; Euphorbiaceae) y dosniveles de defoliación en cuatro regiones de Gua-temala, y aceptabilidad de sus hojas y cogollos enhumanos. Proyecto FODECYT 45–99. Guate-mala: SENACYT-CONCYT.

Molina-Cruz, A., L. Curley, and R. Bressani. 1997.Redescubriendo el valor nutritivo de las hojas dechaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius; Euphorbiaceae).Universidad del Valle de Guatemala 3: 1–4.

Morton, J. F. 1994. Pito (Erythrina berteroana) andchipilín (Crotalaria longirostrata), (Fabaceae),two soporific vegetables of Central America.Economic Botany 48(2): 130–138.

MSPAS (Ministerio de Salud Pública y AsistenciaSocial), INE, and ICF International. 2017. VIEncuesta Nacional de Salud Materno Infantil2014–2015. Guatemala: SEGEPLAN.

Narciso, R., D. Estrada, P. Escobar, and M. Reyes.2013. Caracterización estadística: República deGuatemala 2012. Guatemala: INE.

Neufeld, L., S. Hernández, and A. Fernández.2006. Hacia la erradicación de la desnutricióninfantil en Centroamérica y RepúblicaDominicana. Desnutrición crónica enCentroamérica e inventario de intervencionesnutricionales. Instituto Nacional de SaludPública 2: 1–96.

NRC (National Research Council). 1979. Tropicallegumes: Resources for the future. Report of anAd Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee onTechnology Innovation, Board on Science andTechnology for International Development,Commission on International Relations. Vol.25.Washington, D.C.: TheNational AcademiesPress.

Oladeinde, F. O., A. M. Kinyua, A. A. Laditan, R.Michelin, J. L. Bryant, F. Denaro, J. M.Makinde et al. 2007. Effect of Cnidoscolusaconitifolius leaf extract on the blood glucoseand insulin levels of inbred type 2 diabetic mice.Cellular and Molecular Biology 53(3): 34–41.

Padulosi, S., B. Mal, O. King, and E. Gotor. 2015.Minor millets as a central element for sustainablyenhanced incomes, empowerment, and nutri-tion in rural India. Sustainability 7(7): 8904–8933.

Padulosi, S., D. M. Cawthorn, G. Meldrum, R.Flore, A. Halloran, and F. Mattei. 2019.Leveraging neglected and underutilized plant,fungi, and animal species for more nutritionsensitive and sustainable food systems. ReferenceModule in Food Science, Elsevier.

Peregrine, W. T. H. 1983. Chaya (Cnidoscolusaconitifolius)—A potential new vegetable cropfor Brunei. International Journal of Pest Man-agement 29(1): 39–41.

Porres, V. and R. Cifuentes. 2014. La chaya unaplanta muy nutritiva. Proyecto USDA-FFPr10.Guatemala: CEAA-Universidad del Valle deGuatemala.

Ross-Ibarra, J. 2003. Origen y domesticación de lachaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius Mill IM Johnst):La espinaca Maya. Estudios Mexicanos 19(2):287–302.

Ross-Ibarra, J. and A. Molina-Cruz. 2002. Theethnobotany of chaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius


ssp. aconitifolius Breckon): A nutritious Mayavegetable. Economic Botany 56(4): 350–365.

SEGEPLAN (Secretaria de Planificación yProgramación). 2002. Estrategia de reducciónde la pobreza: El camino de la paz. Guatemala:Ed. Mercaprint.

———. 2011a. Plan de Desarrollo Departamentalde Chiquimula 2011–2025. Guatemala:CODEDE.

———. 2011b. Plan de Desarrollo Departamentalde Zacapa. 2011–2025. Guatemala: CODEDE.

———. 2013. Diagnóstico Territorial de Petén2032. Guatemala: SPOT.

U.N. 2017.World Population Prospects: The 2017Revision. New York: DESA, PopulationDivision.

Van Looy, T., G. O. Carrero, E. Mathijs, and E.Tollens. 2008. Underutilized agroforestry foodproducts in Amazonas (Venezuela): A marketchain analysis. Agroforestry Systems 74(2):127–141.


value chain analysis of chaya (mayan spinach) in guatemala · (segeplan 2013). petén was selected...

Documents