ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Kenya, rice (Oryza sativa L.) is mainly produced under irrigation by small-scale farmers. Mwea irrigation scheme (MIS) in Kirinyaga County accounts for 80-88% of rice production. Here, rice is the main source of livelihood and a source of revenue generation for the county. However, a recently established invasive freshwater snail, Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck) (family: Ampullariidae), a species of apple snail, presents a serious threat to rice production. RESULTS: Household surveys, focus group discussions and key informant interviews highlight apple snail as a serious problem in MIS. Households that observed at least a moderate level of infestation (>20% of cultivated area) experienced significant reductions in rice yield (~14%) and net rice income (~60%). Farmers reported increased use of chemical pesticides for management of apple snail. In addition, the cost of hired labor for physical removal of egg masses and snails is resulting in substantial negative effects on net income. Farmer age, area of land owned, responsibility for decision-making, receipt of extension advice, training, and membership of a farmer organization, were all statistically significant variables to explain farmers awareness of the need for area-wide apple snail management. CONCLUSION: Strategies to limit the spread of apple snail are urgently needed. A Multi-Institutional Technical Team (MITT) has been established to spearhead management efforts and consolidate advice to farmers on how to manage apple snail. However, without action to mitigate spread, the consequences could be disastrous for rice production and food security in Kenya, and for other rice growing regions across Africa. © 2023 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
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. © 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
