Back to Home Page of CD3WD Project or Back to list of CD3WD Publications

GO TO 'PREVIOUS PAGE' GO TO 'TABLE OF CONTENTS' GO TO 'NEXT PAGE'

EVALUATION OF SOME (PRELIMINARY) RESULTS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTICIPATORY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR THE PROTECTION OF POST-HARVEST MAIZE IN THE RURAL AREAS OF BENIN

M. Camara1 & A. Bell2

1

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Benin

2

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH,
German Technical Co-operation, Eschborn, Germany

Introduction

With the appearance of the Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in East and West Africa, the maize stock of small scale farmers in particular suffered considerable damage and recorded astronomical losses as a result of its activities and that of other pests. As soon as this trend was noticed, a lot of effort was made and continue to be made to reduce the losses caused by these pests, some of which are as high as between 30% and 40% in the six (6) months of maize storage. Among all the control strategies envisaged, one deserves special attention. This is the biological control system through the introduction of the histerid Teretriosoma nigrescens Lewis (Coleoptera Histeridae), a natural enemy of the Larger Grain Borer.

In view of this, the GTZ (German Technical Co-operation) and partners, including the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Benin station, and the Faculty of Agronomic Sciences (FSA) of the University of Benin, since the beginning of 1995, initiated a Participatory Post-harvest Technology Development Programme (PTD) based on the integrated control of the Larger Grain Borer, P. truncatus and other pests associated with granaries in the rural areas of Benin. To this end, a team made up of Researchers and Field Officers got actively involved with the target group (maize farmers) to determine the problems and come up with measures and technologies that will effectively protect post-harvest maize. The progress made at different stages of the project led to the preparation of different reports that are available at the division for the "Integrated control of the Larger Grain Borer and other granary pests in rural areas". Since the beginning of the project (1995), the PTD team has been working in two regions of Benin: the Mono region in the south-west, and the Borgou region in the North.

This paper presents a brief evaluation of some of the results of PTD activities with three (3) groups of farmers in the Mono region. The first group includes farmers working in collaboration with the PTD team on the use of the methods and measures drawn up and jointly adopted, which is why they are referred to as "PTD-Experiment Farmers". The second group of farmers is also assisted by the same team in carrying out their post-harvest measures, but did not apply the PTD experiments, which is why they are called the "Non-PTD Experiment Farmers". Finally, the last group represents farmers who are not being monitored directly, but only operate within the zone covered by the radio transmitting the practices adopted by the first two groups of farmers mentioned above. It must be noted that apart from discussing directly with the farmers, the PTD field team also gives demonstrations to the farming community and transmits radio programmes to inform the target groups on good protection and management methods for maize stocks.

In all, eighteen (18) farmers were consulted for this evaluation enquiries, ten (10) of whom are PTD-Farmers (Experimental and Non-Experimental), and eight Non-PTD Farmers. In order to reduce the damage caused by the maize stock pests, a set of basic measures were considered useful and necessary. These measures start with the choice of maize seed that will guarantee amongst others, healthy maize cobs at maturity. The harvest itself should be timely, i.e. after the physiological maturity of the maize, and not too late, in order to avoid infestation of the maize right from the farm. Thus, the cobs gathered should be carefully sorted in order to separate the healthy cobs that will be stored from those that are already infested or dried up. To these measures must be added sanitary and adequate granary structures. Finally comes, if necessary, the treatment of the maize with the appropriate local or synthetic products as well as regular inspection (at least once a month) of the stocks.

This evaluation covers the extent of damage, the volume of maize gained, the type of post-harvest system used and the cost of treatment applied by all the three groups of farmers referred to above, when compared with the period before PTD activities and the current situation (1996/1997).

Results and Discussion

Damage

The damage is estimated by the farmers themselves right through the storage period (8 -12 months) and calculated on the basis of a ton of maize. As shown in Fig 1, there was a general reduction in damage in all the three groups. At the beginning of PTD activities, about three years ago, damage rate in all the farming groups put together was on the average above 30%. Today, the damage rate among the PTD farmers is fixed at well below 10% while it was still as high as 30% with the Non-PTD farmers. The current level of damages with Non-PTD farmers corresponds perfectly to that of PTD-Experiment farmers before the activities of the project.

Fig.1.



Comparison of the estimates of maize stock damage (%) rate by the different groups of farmers in the Mono region before the PDT activities and in the 1996/1997 season (PTD-E = experimental PTD-farmers, PTD Non-E = non-experimental PTD-farmers, Non-PTD = non-PTD farmers). GRAPH2.3_A.GIF (9 KB)

 

Fig.2.



Comparison of the quantity of the maize stock gain of the different groups of farmers in the Mono region before the PTD activities and in the 1996/97 season (PTD-E = experimental PTD-farmers, PTD Non-E = non-experimental PTD-farmers, Non-PTD = non-PTD farmers).
GRAPH2.3_B.GIF (8 KB)

Volume of Maize Gain

The gains recorded on these data make it obvious as shown in figure 2, that the PTD-Farmers managed to gain between 300 and 600 kg on each 1000 kg of maize, while Non-PTD Farmers only recorded about 100 kg per ton.

This difference is due mainly to the application of certain basic measures to ensure the effective protection of the maize: harvesting at the right time, sorting of cobs, clean granaries and appropriate treatment of maize stock.

Treatment of maize stores

Among all the protection measures adopted above by the PTD Farmers, the treatment of maize stock is not only most delicate, but the procedure also often involves costs that may erode the monetary gain.

Type of treatment

Table 1 shows the type of treatment given to maize stock by the different groups of farmers. Before the beginning of PTD activities, the farmers of all the groups used almost all the insecticides meant for the treatment of cotton on maize stock. These insecticides, popularly known as "cotton insecticides", are used in different doses, and sometimes with other local products, such as Neem leaves [Azadirachta indica Juss. (Meliaceae)] or wood ash.

Tab. 1:

Comparison of the type of treatment in maize stores by farmers in the Mono region in the 1996/97 season and before the beginning of the PTD activities (PTD-E = experimental PTD-farmers, PTD Non-E = non-experimental PTD-farmers, Non-PTD = non-PTD farmers; Ac+C = Actellic EC + Decis, CI = cotton insecticides, A = ash, CI+A = cotton insecticides plus ash, Neem = neem leaves, Salt = kitchen salt, Nothing = no treatment).


PTD-E

PTD Non-E

Non-PTD

Treatment

at present

before

at present

before

at present

before


Ac+D
CI
A
CI+A
Neem
Salt
Nothing

80
-
-
-
20

-
-

-
100
-
-
-
-
-

40
-
-
20
20
20
-

-
40
-
-
60
-
-

-
100
-
-
-
-
-

-
87
-
-
-
-
13


Two years after, almost 80% of PTD-Experiment Farmers were already using the chemical insecticides recommended for the treatment of maize cobs in husks, including " Pirimiphos Methyl" and Deltamehtrin" in EC. With this group of farmers, the use of "cotton insecticides" is at 0%. As for the Non PTD-

Experiment Farmers, only one farmer out of five is still using "cotton insecticides", either "Pirimiphos Methyl" and "Deltamethrin" in EC, or simply local products such as kitchen salt solution or Neem leaves. But Non-PTD farmers still use all the "cotton insecticides".

Cost of Maize treatment

Figure 4 gives an idea of the costs of the different treatments, especially as regards the use of chemical insecticides in the different Farmer groups. These costs are calculated on a ton of maize. Non-PDT Farmers currently spend about twice more (around 4,400 F CFA for the treatment of one ton of maize) on "cotton insecticides" than the PTD-Experiment Farmers (roughly 2,400 F CFA) who use the appropriate recommended products. The low cost of the treatment by Non-PTD Farmers can be attributed particularly to the use of local products such as Neem leaves.

Fig.4.



Comparison of cost of treatment of maize stores of the different groups of farmers in the Mono region before the PTD activities and in the 1996/97 season (PTD-E = experimental PTD-farmers, PTD Non-E = non-experimental PTD-farmers, Non-PTD = non-PTD farmers).
GRAPH2.3_C.GIF (8 KB)

Conclusions

Although these data only give a vague idea, going by the few farmers already consulted, it is obvious that the preservation of Maize by PTD Farmers has improved since the beginning of the activities of the project. Considering the fact that apart from the differences presented here, Non-PTD Farmers are often forced to buy maize before the new harvest because of damage and loss through pests, and worse still, at high costs (the gap bridging period), this can only further increase the difference between their expenses and that of PTD Farmers.

One may also conclude that treatment with the "cotton insecticides" is not only more expensive, but has also been proved to be less effective when compared to treatment with appropriate preservation products. Thus, the reduction of the use of "cotton insecticides" not only offers an economic advantage, but also contributes to the production of quality products, as these "cotton insecticides" are not meant for the treatment of food products like maize.

 

GO TO 'PREVIOUS PAGE' GO TO 'TABLE OF CONTENTS' GO TO 'NEXT PAGE' GO TO 'TOP OF THE DOCUMENT'