No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND This paper documents farmer perceptions and management practices for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiderda J.E. Smith), providing a baseline for the development of sustainable pest management strategies. RESULTS 91% of farmers correctly identified fall armyworm, and reported it as the most important maize pest during 2016/2017 cropping season, affecting nearly half of cultivated area. Estimated maize yield loss during the season, attributed to fall armyworm was 28%. A majority of farmers (60%) used pesticides for fall armyworm control, along with other cultural/physical practices – hand picking and crushing egg masses/caterpillars (36%), and application of ash/sand in the funnel (19%). Farmers used various pesticide active ingredients, and protective measures were inadequate; >50% of farmers did not use any protective measures while spraying. Significantly more male than female farmers used pesticides (P = 0.05), and the reverse was true for cultural practices. Significant maize yield differences (P = 0.001) were observed by gender, attributed to differences in utilization of production inputs/practices. At least 77% of farmers received and shared agricultural advice, which can be optimized to spread information on fall armyworm management options. CONCLUSION Increased use of pesticides to manage fall armyworm poses health and environmental risks, besides the high cost for farmers and governments. Research into cultural and indigenous practices used by farmers will offer opportunities for alternative and sustainable management practices. Research efforts should pay attention to gender differences in access to resources and inputs. Tackling fall armyworm at the farm level, and averting yield losses will require integrated messaging addressing other production risks. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

No abstract

Background: Although Kenya has a relatively high number of registered biopesticide products, little is known about biopesticide use by smallholders. This paper documents farmers' current use and perception of chemical pesticides and biopesticides, their willingness to pay for biopesticides, and the key challenges to biopesticide uptake. Results: A survey found that chemical pesticides are used widely by smallholders despite awareness of the risks to human health and the environment. Almost half of respondents showed awareness of biopesticides, but current use in the survey localities was low (10%). Key reasons for the low use of biopesticides by smallholders in this study are: perceptions of effectiveness, primarily speed of action and spectrum of activity, availability and affordability. Smallholders who used biopesticides cited effectiveness, recommendation by advisory services and perception of safety as key reasons for their choice. Although farmers viewed both pesticides and biopesticides as costly, they invested in the former due to their perceived effectiveness. Average willingness to pay, above current chemical pesticide expenditures per cropping season was 9.6% (US$5.7). Willingness to pay differed significantly between counties, and was higher among farmers with more education or greater awareness of the health risks associated with pesticide use. Conclusion: This study confirms the low use of biopesticide products in the survey areas, alongside high use of conventional chemical pesticides. In order to promote greater uptake of biopesticides, addressing farmers' awareness and their perceptions of effectiveness is important, as well as increasing the knowledge of those providing advice and ensuring registered products are available locally at competitive prices.