Transcript PowerPoint presentation on the cowpea project for

Pest control
for the storage of cowpea by
small scale farmers in SSA
towards participation in
action-research
The project
• Cowpea (Black-eye bean)
– Traditional - widespread
– Beans, leaves, fodder
– Adapted – drought, poor soil
• Storage on farm
• Pest damage
• Adapted solution
–
–
–
–
Effective
Safe
Affordable
Acceptable
• Organisations
– DfID
– NRI, MOFA, SARI, NGOs,
Farmers unions…
• Duration
• Research to
Action-research &
Participatory
research
Location
SSA
Ghana
Northern region
Rainy season:
July - September
Dry season
Dry season:
November - May
Tamale market
Cowpea with damage
Cowpea and bruchid
Callosobruchus
maculatus
Surveys
• Damage on stored cowpea
• Farmers coping strategy
• Control methods
On-farm surveys
• Northern Ghana
• Farmers’ stores
• Surveys
–
–
–
–
monthly assessments
dry season
% damage
2 years
Surveys
100
40
75
30
50
20
25
10
0
0
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Number of farmers affected
% damage
Damage on stored cowpea in the Northern Region
during the storage season 96-97
Surveys
Damage on stored cowpea in the Northern Region
during the storage season 97-98: 131 farmers
100
75
50
25
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Surveys
Farmers stop storage – variation of damage
(131 farmers)
100
75
50
25
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
On-farm trials
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Surveys: control methods
used on cowpea
Region
Mean %
damage
Number
of
farmers
Cypermethrin / sun dried
NR
66.2
1
Phosphine / Cypermethrin
NR
60.1
1
Cypermethrin
NR
45.3
8
Sumicombi (Fenitrothion +
Fenvalerate)
NR
44.5
4
sun dried
NR
40.5
1
not treated
NR
36.2
9
Cypermethrin / Sumicombi
NR
36.0
2
Napthalene
NR
23.4
2
Phosphine
NR
17.4
5
Mix with ash, no heat:
heated over fire later
UER
7.8
1
Mix with ash
UER
7.4
2
Heat over fire and mix ash
UER
6.2
31
Heat over fire and mix ash
and orange peel
UER
3.5
1
Treatment
Region
Mean %
damage
Number of
farmers
-
NR
6.0
12
-
UER
4.5
1
Actellic
2% dust
NR
16.7
1
(Pirimiphos methyl)
25% emulsifiable concentrate
NR
9.1
1
Dry materials
Mixed with wood ash
UER
3.4
2
mixed
Mixed with ash and kul-enka
UER
2.1
1
Kimkim mixed with seed
UER
0.9
2
Water based
Immerse in warm water
UER
5.7
1
ash
Immerse in ash in warm water
UER
1.4
1
Steamed ash in water, pored over bambara, dried
UER
1.3
3
Immerse in warm water, dry, mix in ash
UER
0.6
3
Dawadawa seed boiled in water, poured over grain
UER
10.7
3
Dawadawa seed boiled in water, poured over
grain, coat with ash
UER
0.1
1
Dawadawa seed and kimkim boiled in water,
poured over grain
UER
3.2
1
Dipped in boiled kimkim water
NR
2.5
12
Immerse in kimkim boiled water
UER
6.4
5
Immerse in kimkim and neem leaves boiled water
UER
26.5
1
Immerse in kimkim boiled water, dry, mix with ash
UER
1.2
2
Immerse in kimkim boiled water, dry,
UER
0.6
5
Soak in shea butter waste water
NR
2.0
6
Immerse in water in which shea butter dissolved
UER
1.6
2
Added orange peel to water with neem
UER
0.0
1
Type of treatment
Treatment
Not treated
dawadawa
kimkim
shea butter
neem & orange peel
On-station trials
Test of control methods
• From surveys:
–
–
–
–
–
Ash
Chilli
Shea nut butter
Shea nut residue
Plant extracts
• From literature:
– Hermetic storage
– Solarisation
Solarisation
80
70
60
57.3
50
40
30
cowpea 1-2cm
bambara 1-2cm
ambient
0
11:16
cowpea 5cm
bambara 5cm
20
10
0
11:46
12:16
12:46
13:16
Time of day
13:46
14:16
14:46
Temperature (degrees C)
Threshold (degrees C)
90
On-farm trials
On-farm test of control methods
• Selected from onstation results
• Set-up after harvest
• Monthly assessment
of damage during
dry season
• Control: no
treatment
– 20 farmers
– 20 kg
– bag
Palaga
Chilli
Ash
Control
Kim-kim
Shea nut
Solarisation
+ Shea nut
Solarisation
Hermetic
Percentage damage
1999 trial
Average damage increase after 2 months of
storage (with SEM)
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
2000 trial
Percentage damage
100 %
90 %
Control
80 %
70 %
Hermetic
60 %
Palaga
50 %
Shea butter
40 %
Solarisation
30 %
20 %
Solar. in pots
10 %
Solar. Paddy ash
0%
Solar. Shea butter
Paddy ash
Solar. Monthly
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Farmers trials
Results
v. good
20
good
10
OK
0
not good
-10
April
100
May
80
60
June
40
20
0
Control
-20
Solar.
+ ash
Control
Solar.
Monthly
Solar.
+ ash
Solar.
monthly
Solar.
+ shea
Solar.
+ shea
Would farmers use or recommend the treatment?
Germination tests
100%
3
2.5
80%
2
60%
1.5
40%
7
8
7
10
20%
1
0.5
0%
0
Control
Solar.
+ ash
Solar.
Monthly
Solar. +
shea
Rank of germination test
among criteria
Percentage seeds
germinating (with number of
farmers testing)
Number of respondents
30
Percentage damage
On-farm trials 2001. Average damage (with SEM) at
the end of the storage period
Farmers' perceptions of the treatment used
30
20
yes
no
10
0
-10
-20
Control
Solar.
+ ash
Solar.
Monthly
Solar.
+ shea
Extension
Two locations
Uganda
Conclusions
• Viable solution?
– Cost
– Scaling up
– Follow up
• Learning process
– Collaborative work - decentralisation
– From academic research to farmers
participatory research…