The numerous projects on the preservation of maize in Benin have unfortunately yielded very little result. In spite of all the efforts made to extend the control technologies developed, very few farmers adopt them because most of them are hardly ever developed or evaluated under local farming conditions. This goes to show that enough consideration has not been given to farmers' attitude, skills, knowledge and practices, and the technologies proposed are not sufficiently adapted to the socio-economic conditions of the farmers.

Since 1995, the GTZ (German Technical Co-operation) and IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture), in collaboration with the Faculty of Agronomic Sciences and the National Plant Protection Service developed a collaborative approach to the development of technologies for the integrated control of maize. The general objective of the approach is to come up with sustainable integrated maize protection technologies that will be acceptable to the farmers.

Results and Discussions

Mono Zone

A review session with the farmers after the first storage season led to the preparation a mixture of Pyrimiphos Methyl EC (50 cc) + Deltamethrin EC (30 cc) in 3.5 l. of water per ton of maize in husk as a substitute for the cotton chemical used to protect maize stock. Investigations revealed that the different granaries in a concession have clearly defined functions. Thus, stocks for consumption are different from stocks for sale, and double purpose stocks that serve the two purposes. The experiments in the second year show that untreated stores were emptied more quickly because they are meant for consumption, but it must also be noted that the 20% loss level after 165 days in storage also contributed to the quick unloading of the stores. Only 165 days after storage, over 90% of stores were already empty (Fig 1). According to the farmers, the life span of stocks meant for food consumption did not exceed 3 months while that of Figure I shows that at the end of 4 months in storage, 50% of stores were not yet de-stocked.

The application of local products after observing such principles as timely harvesting, sorting of cobs, and sanitised stores has prolonged the life span of the stocks. As shown in Figure 1, over 40% of stores subjected to local treatment were not de-stocked before 225 days in storage. The stores treated with Pyrimiphos Methyl EC + Deltamethrin EC were unloaded more slowly. Most of the stores were unloaded after 7 months when prices were at their best in the market. This can be explained by the fact that stocked products are, after all said and done, meant for sale. The loss level recorded in stores treated with local products and Pyrimiphos Methyl EC and Deltamethrin is very low (less than 5%) (Figure 2). Note that although the losses made in granaries treated with chemical products were a bit higher, these stores were unloaded more slowly than those treated with local products.

Fig.1.

CoProportion of unloaded grain stores over time in the three treatments (southern zone).

The different investigations carried out in the villages backed by the above observations show that the unloading of stores by farmers is determined by several factors such as consumption, damage level, financial needs and sale at a time when the prices are high in the market.

Borgou Zone

Figure 3 confirms the effectiveness of Sofagrain (binary insecticide containing Pyrimiphos Methyl and Deltamethrin powder) on maize husks obtained in the first year of storage. The low loss level in the other treatments makes the plan to resort to the use local products more practicable if chemical products are not available, but this has a shorter time lapse (5 months). The loss trend in the treatments: dried and ground Cailcédrat bark (Khaya senegalensis (Desv.) A. Juss) Melicae, and the insect repellent (not yet identified) shows that these treatments have limits depending on such factors as the existence of parasitic pressure of about 1.75 Prostephanus truncatus and an average of 0.75 Sitophilus zeamais per cob in the pioneer granaries after 8 months in storage. Figure 4 shows that dehusked maize seems to suffer less damage when treated with the local product (the concoction made from Cailcédrat bark). The type of storage space can to a certain extent help resolve the problem posed by the time lag between cotton and maize harvest. The farmer can then stock his maize just after harvesting without bothering to dehusk, an activity which according to the farmers is time consuming.

Fig.2.

Development of losses in the three treatments (southern zone).

Alternatives for the protection of maize

In view of the different results obtained during the two storage seasons, discussions with the farmers during the review session led to the alternative described in tables 1 and 2 depending on the zone.

Thorough implementation of one of the alternatives offers such obvious advantages as:

Fig.3.

Development of losses of dehusked maize in the three treatments (northern zone).

Fig.4.

Development of losses of maize stored as cobs with husks on in the three treatments (northern zone).

Conclusion and Prospects

The development of a collaborative approach for the integrated control of maize enables both farmers and Researchers to:

The collaborative approach creates opportunity to publicise new information or confirm the advantages offered by the research for extension. The method applies to a limited geographic zone. The results can only be extended if the problems identified in the preliminary inquiry stage and the socio-economic realities of the zones are identical to those of the zones where the technologies were developed. The extension strategy is expected to intervene on two levels:

Dissemination of information on achievements by APVs and NGOs

APVs are the versatile extension Officers in the civil service involved in the rural development from the grass root. They are in direct contact with the population. APVs are trained on the subject to be extended and the way the message should be transmitted. This involves:

The Collaborative Technology Development Programme acts as a bridge between Scientists and Farmers. It seeks for a balance between indigenous and scientific technology, as well as that of other development projects.

References