Browsing by Author "Mothapo, Palesa N."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Moringa oleifera in South Africa : a review on its production, growing conditions and consumption as a food source
    (ASSAf, 2021-03-29) Mashamaite, Chuene V.; Pieterse, Petrus J.; Mothapo, Palesa N.; Phiri, Ethel E.
    Moringa oleifera (moringa) trees excel mainly in tropical and sub-tropical regions and are known to thrive in a wide range of soil types. The recent rise in moringa production in various agro-ecological zones of South Africa could be attributed to its multiple benefits, including nutritional and medicinal properties. Since its introduction as a cultivated crop, there has been a growing interest from farmers, researchers and government on various aspects of the tree such as its morphology, chemistry, growing conditions, production, processing and utilisation. We reviewed the work done on moringa within the South African context in terms of production, growing conditions and cultivation practices. The involvement of government departments on moringa-oriented activities and its consumption as food were also reviewed. In addition, gaps were outlined on its utilisation that need to be addressed, and recommendations provided on what could be done to ensure successful production of moringa in South Africa.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    We object to bad science : poor research practices should be discouraged
    (ASSAf, 2020-07-10) Mothapo, Palesa N.; Phiri, Ethel E.; Maduna, Tando L.; Malgas, Rhoda; Richards, Rose; Sylvester, Taime T.; Nsikani, Mlungele; Boonzaaier-Davids, Melissa K.; Moshobane, Moleseng C.
    On 8 June 2020, we, a diverse group of African emerging researchers, published a response to the commentary titled ‘Why are black South African students less likely to consider studying biological sciences?’ (1)published in the South Africa Journal of Science (SAJS). There aremounting arguments, in both print and social media, regarding themerits of the Nattrass (2020) commentary, particularly around itsstrong racial undertones as well as poor and unethical researchpractices. Nattrass’ commentary has been intensely divisive, managingto engender stereotypes, anger, and disappointment. Conflictingarguments have emerged, which involve responses by otheracademics, politicians, and the public, but much of the furore has beenstrongly biased towards and along racial lines, with very little attentiondirected at the flawed nature of the research.