INTERNATIONAL JOURNALOF PESTMANAGEMENT, 2002, 48(4) 315±325

Ten years after the arrivalin of Larger Grain Borer: Farmers’ responses and adoption of IPMstrategies

(Keywords: Prostephanus truncatus ,subsistence farmer,food security, Coleoptera,pest, insecticide)

S. ADDO{,L.A.BIRKINSHAW { andR. J.HODGES* {

{Post-Harvest ManagementDivision,Ministry ofFoodand Agricult ure,Ho, Ghana {NaturalResourc esInstitute,Universi tyofGreenwi ch, CentralAvenue ,ChathamMaritime,Kent,ME4 4TB

Abstract. Small-scale on-farmstorage of maize in Africa is changing, losses in on-farmmaize storage.. .in particularthose due to the in partdue to shifts in thethreat from insect pests. Aquestionnaire LGB...’(Boxall andCompton 1996; Compton, 1997). survey of242 households in fourclosely situateddistricts in theVolta Regionof Ghana, where Prostephanus truncatus (Horn)(Coleoptera: Researchinto the pest in Ghanahas continued and it has Bostrichidae) arrived tenyears ago,was used toshow howmaize becomeclear that attack shows very considerableyear to year storagepractices have changedover thelast five years. The survey variationin severity (Hodgesand Birkinshaw, 1999) unlike other included asking farmersabout changing use ofcontact insecticides in storagepests such as weevils ( Sitophilus spp)which appearto maize storagein orderto guide research andfuture recommendations. presenta relatively constantthreat. Such variation has the Wefound high uptake of recommendations developed by aproject for reducing LargerGrain Borer damage.Farmers arebeing pro-active in potentialto interfere with the uptake of storage improvements preventingextensive damagefrom this pestby replacing thewood of againstLGB since thosefarmers not adopting them will oftenbe theirstorage structures, increasing inspection ofmaize in theirstores, seento be as successful as thosewho do. Many existing andincreasing theiruse ofgrain protectants. There were differences in storagepractices arerelatively incompatiblewith the control of post-harvest practices according todistrict, ethnic groupand gender. this pest.In the , maize is oftenstored on the cob Grain protectants(traditional methods or commercially available products) wereused by45%of farmers. Cost was themost often cited stacked ona woodenplatform, known as anEwe barn (figure constraint tothe use ofrecommended commercial products.Farmers 1a)or in aninverted cone (figure 1b). Cobs are then withdrawn reportedthat their three most important sources ofinformation on maize as neededfor food, sale, seed and other functions. The most storagewere the agricultural extension services, radioprogrammes and common initial responseto reduce the LGB damagein theVolta local networks offriends, family andfellow farmers. Regionwas toremove maize fromthe store early andsell, therebyreducing food security andincome, since maize prices increaseas thestorage season progresses (Magrath et al. 1. Introduction 1996).The LGB TC projectworked with farmers to developeight Itis nowjust overtwenty years since thebeetle Prostepha- controloptions as follows: nustruncatus (Coleoptera:Bostrichidae), commonly referredto . Storagehygiene as theLarger Grain Borer or LGB, was firstdetected in maize . Changingor smoking storageplatform woods or treating andcassava storagesystems in Africa(Dunstan and Magazini, withlindane insecticide orengine oil 1981).The initial devastationcaused by this exotic intruderto the . Selectingmaize varieties withgood husk cover forstorage grainstocks ofsmall-scale farmingcommunities elicited con- . Timely harvest siderableefforts to develop ways oflimiting its impact.Farming . Treatingmaize in husk withActellic Super 1 dilute dust communities, in-countryagricultural support systems, anddonor- (permethrin+ pirimiphos-methyl) fundedresearch and development, have played important roles. . Shellingand then treating the maize grainwith Actellic However,the external support (from outside Africa) against the Super1 dilute dust pesthas dwindled in recentyears as some controloptions have . Shellingat a thresholdof infestation determined by beenidentified and promoted (Golob, 1991; Giles et al., 1995; externalexamination of the store Boxall andCompton, 1996; Borgemeister et al., 1997). . Traditionalmethods of insect control. TheVolta Region of Ghana has been a focusof arelatively Dissemination ofthese control options by theLGB TC largeeffort to combatLGB damage.The beetle initially entered projectwas undertakenusing a widevariety ofinnovative Ghanafrom Togo in 1989and the Volta Region, situated just techniques.These included training extension staff, traders, and across theTogolese border, may still bethe worst LGB-affected farmersand the projection of written print-based materials, areain Ghana(Dick et al.,1989).From 1993 to 1996 the UK plays, radiobroadcasts, T-shirts and car stickers, adecision tree governmentfunded a technical co-operation(TC) project with andnewspaper articles. theGhanaian Ministry ofFood and Agriculture with the aim to, Weundertook a questionnairesurvey todetermine the `.. .developappropriate and acceptable techniques to minimise extentto which storagepractices havechanged in theyears

*To whomcorrespondence should beaddressed. Tel. 01634883780, Fax. 01634883567; e-mail: [email protected]

International Journal ofPest Management ISSN0967-0874 print/ISSN1366-5863 online # 2002 Taylor &Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI:10.1080/09670870210151670 316 S.Addoet al. since theLGB Project,record the extent of adoption of project 2. Methods recommendationsand identify which informationroutes are currentlyimportant and what the farmers think of them. The Astratifiedsample offarmers was interviewedby fourstaff of choice ofquestionnaire survey follows,and builds on,similar thePost-harvest Development Division ofthe Ministry ofFood successful studies ofearlierLGB control projects in EastAfrica andAgriculture based in Ho,Volta Region. Villages were (Golob1991; Golob et al.,1998).During the survey wehave selectedfrom four Districts torepresent the main maize takenspecial interestin establishingwhich methodsof producingareas in theVolta Region that either produce a lot disseminating informationimpact moston farmers. This is ofmaize forsale orhavethis grainas theirmain staple. Surveys becauseour own current research project is thedevelopment of wereundertaken between April and June, 2000, and a totalof animproved method of treating farm stores with insecticide 242maize farmersinterviewed (figure 2). Ten respondents were which,in duecourse, will needto be promoted. The treatment interviewedin mostvillages. ofmaize withformulations of contact insecticides is an Thesurvey was basedaround a questionnaire(see effective,fast-acting control option for farmers (Dales and Appendix1) that was developedin collaborationwith the Golob,1997). Safety, cost, availability issues andthe detri- survey team.The questionnaire included questions about mentaleffect on biological controlagents, are all issues raised storagepractices as well as questionsabout the respondents by increases in theuse of such chemicals. Farmersare asked themselves,particularly their sex, ethnicity,age and educa- hereabout their changing use of contact insecticides in maize tionalbackground. These were included as itseemed storage(including naturally derived products such as botani- probablethat such factorscould affect either the uptake of cals) toguide our research and future recommendations in this extensionmessages and/orresponsiveness toparticular controversialarea. disseminationpathways. The questionnaire was thentested in Hodzoand Kodzobi on 27 and 28 March 2000. More revisions werethen made following suggestions made by the survey team. Thesurvey teamselected respondents by walking through eachvillage looking forsigns ofmaize storage.They then attemptedto locate those responsible for maize storagein that household.They encouraged women to speak forthe house- holdeven if they were not in chargeof the barn and the personresponsible was notavailable. Sampling was not entirelyrandomised, since occasionally, theteam came across householdswhere nobody was available toparticipate. Within theseconstraints the survey teamincluded a rangeof respondents,both men and women, producing various quantitiesof maize. Afterinitial analysis ofthe survey data, werevisited some ofthe survey villages togain farmers’ opinionson the likely explanationsfor some ofour results. In orderto establish whetherrespondents could distinguish differentstorage pests, dead specimens ofLGB, Sitophilus zeamais and Triboliumcastaneum werepresented to farmers in Petridishes. Werepossible live insects takenfrom farmers’ barnswere also used. Theraw data were entered into an Access 7.0database. Differenceswere compared statistically usingchi-squared ( w2) testson the numbers of respondents in eachcategory.

Figure1. Two common structures for the storage of maize cobs in the Volta Regionof Ghana, a) an Ewe-style barn under construction, which has an thatchedroof added at theend and b) an inverted cone. Figure2. Numbers of menand women interviewed in each of thefour Districts. Tenyears after the arrival of LGB 317

3. Results was significantvariation among Districts (Ho65%, 53%, Jasikan 25%, 53%) with fewer respondents in Jasikan 3.1.Interviewees reportingchanges ( w2 =9.56,3 d.f.,p 50.025).The two most Overall,there was amalebias in oursample, 62% men mentionedproblems were rising insect infestationand difficulties comparedto 38%women (figure 2). The sex ratiosampled also in obtainingbarn construction materials. These were mentioned variedby District. Anapproximatelyequal sex ratiowas sampled significantly morefrequently than the third and fourth mentioned in Hoand Kpando, and the most male-biased sample was from problems,lack ofbarn builders and rodent damage (figure 4). Hohoe. Therewere differences between the Districts. InHo, the issue of Themost prominent ethnic group in oursample was Ewe barnmaterials was citedmore than increasing insect damage. (83%),the next most frequent was Buemwho were only foundin theJasikan sample andcomprised twothirds of this sample. 3.5.Insects reported in stores Themajority (85%)of our sample weremiddle aged,with just seven maleadolescents and 29 Elders. Those classed as Almost all farmersquestioned had Sitophilus spp.in their adolescentswere generally under 20, middle-aged, 20 ± 50,and storesand were able to recognise it when shown live samples Eldersgenerally older than 50. bythesurvey team(figure 5). In contrast, approximately 15% of Primaryeducation lasts forabout six years,middle educa- respondentsdid not recognise LGB and only upto 50% of tionfor about four years andsecondary education from 5 ±7 respondentsin anyone District reportedthat they had had LGB years (althoughthis system is currentlybeing revised). The in theirstores in thepast year. majority ofour sample hadfinished their formal education after middle school.More women than men (even though overall the 3.6.Changes in storage practice sample is malebiased) had received no formal education, and only threeof thirty-one respondents who had attended second- Overhalf of respondents reported at least one change in aryeducation or university werefemale. The overall level of theirstorage practice in all Districts. Althoughthere was no formaleducation received by oursample populationis likely to significantdifference between the numbers of men and women beless thanaverage since itis drawnfrom those not skilled in reportingthat there had been at least one change in storage anothertrade, i.e. those who have remained on-farm and not problem,there was, however, a significantdifference between takenup jobs elsewhere. Thenumber of people depending on maize fortheir livelihood (ameasure of household size) rangedfrom one to 23,but the modal value was six.

3.2.Maize uses

Thethree most frequently mentioned uses ofmaize werefor family food,sale andseed. When ranked, food for family was ratedas themost important use. The mean amount of maize allocatedfor sale, by thosewho were selling andwho were preparedto give usanestimate of the amount sold, was around 400± 500kg.This is approximatelytwice as much as thatcited forfamily food.This may howeverbe an underestimatesince the survey teamfelt that many peoplewould not mention small quantitiesof maize thatthey had sold andthe figure only Figure3. Frequency of householdsharvesting major and minor maize or local representsthe relatively large-scalesellers. andimproved varieties. Bars divided by storageperiod.

3.3.Maize variety and decision to store

Localmaize varieties weregrown and stored by thevast majority ofhouseholds in oursurvey. Respondentsin HoDistrict mostly grewand stored in only oneseason (called themajor season).Most farmers in theother Districts grewand stored maize in twoseasons (called themajor and minor seasons) (figure 3). Thelength of timeat leastsome ofthemaize was keptin storeis also shownin figure3. Thereis nosuggestionfrom our data that improvedvarieties (generallymore susceptible todamage during storage)were disposed of earlierthan local varieties.

3.4.Changes in storage problems Figure4. Change in storage problems cited in different Districts. Overall, consideringall Districts together: Insect infestation vs. barnconstruction 2 2 Withinthe past five years,about half of our respondents said materials w = 1.42, p40.5(n.s.);Insect infestion vs. barnbuilders w = 17.8, thatthey had experienced changes in storageproblems. There p50.001;Barn construction materials vs. barnbuilders w2 = 10.04, p50.005. 318 S.Addoet al. menand women reporting that they had changed their storage platformsand then, if it is movedduring the storage season, it is practice (w2 =6.17,1 d.f.,p 50.025).Of the women, 55% mostcommonly threshedand bagged (figure 8). Maize storedas reportedthat there had been a changewhereas 74% of men cobs in aroomor in invertedcones (figure1 b)was less often reporteda change. treatedthan in theother store types. This differencein the Farmersreported that the most common changein chanceof different store types being treated at harvest was practicewas ashifttowards increased inspection of their significant( w2 =9.68,3.d.f., p 50.025).In cases wheremaize barnsand action taken when insect infestationsreached a certainlevel. Somepossible preventativeactions were also beingtaken against insect damage.For example, some but notmany farmerswere shelling andselling early,some were sun-dryingmore frequently and some werereplacing barn woodmore often, particularly in HoDistrict. Just overa quarterof respondents in all Districts, reportedthat they have recentlybegun shelling maize whenit becomes infested (figure 6).

3.7.Storage structures currently used

Therange and frequency of storage structures used by the farmerswe interviewed in eachDistrict areshown in figure7. Therewas nosignificant difference in thestructures used for 2 majorand minor maize crops atharvest (total: w =0.39,3.d.f., Figure7. Use of different storage structures in different Districts. N.B. Each p40.90;treated: w2 =2.66,3.d.f., p 40.25)or if the maize was farmercan mention more than one type of storage structure. movedlater (total: w2 =1.71,2.d.f., p 40.90;treated: w2 = 0, p40.99).We have therefore limited ouranalysis tothe major harvest.Maize is mostcommonly storedon the cob on raised

Figure5. Which insects do you find in your store? Data shown for LGB and Sitophilus spp.only (by far the most frequentlymentioned).

Figure8. Store types used by households for the major season maize at harvestand then later if themaize is moved. The portion of those stores that Figure6. Change in storage practice by District. havebeen treated with a protectantof any type are shaded. Tenyears after the arrival of LGB 319 was movedinto different storage structures later in theseason, beengrouped together in figure11 under the heading, `no need only grainmoved into sacks was treated. fortreatment’ (No damage, small quantityof maize, orusemaize quickly). This newheading then becomes the third most cited reasonfor not using commercial insecticides. Someof the 3.8.Use of protectants constraintscited are consequences of shelling andstoring in Grainprotectants were used by only 45%of respondents, sacks, which is oftenthe preferred way ofstoring treated maize. this includes botanicalsand ash as well as commercial Forexample rodents were cited because they damage the synthetic products.There was noevidence that those selling sacks, andspace was mentionedbecause grain in sacks is theirmaize weremore likely totreat since only 48%of those easierto steal than grain in otherstorage structures. This whosaid theyhad maize forsale usedprotectants. There were obliges farmersto keepthe sacks in theirhouses where space is also remarkablyfew differences in useof protectants between limited. householdsstoring different total quantities of maize overthe Commercial insecticides appearto be readily available to year(figure 9), with perhaps some trendfor those storing very thosewith the money to buy them. Availability was mentioned littleto be less likely totreat their maize. Therewas also a only rarelyas aconstraintthat prevented their use. When those trendfor respondents who had had fewer years offormal whohad used commercial insecticides recentlywere ques- educationto report that their household did not use protectants tioned,over 95% said thatthese protectants were, `very easy to (figure10). obtain’.The survey teamnoticed that most farmers felt that all Costwas themost frequently mentioned constraint to the protectantswork. Certainly, very fewpeople cited inefficacy asa useof commercial insecticide andwas citedby approximately constraintto use of commercial insecticides. 40± 50%of respondents in all Districts andsignificantly more Theuse of various categoriesof insecticides by District thanthe next most cited constraint (health hazard) ( w2 = 30.0, is givenin figure12. We have classed camphor,Commando 1d.f., p50.001)(figure 11). Three of the constraints cited have (recommendedfor public healthuse), Gammalin 20(recom- mendedfor cocoa crops),DDT andunknown chemicals as, `inappropriatechemicals’. This will bean overestimation of themisuse ofchemicals since some ofthe `unknown chemicals’ andDDT (sometimes usedas ageneralname forinsecticide) citationsmay in factbe use of registered grainprotectants. The registered grain protectants mentioned wereActellic (pirimiphos-methyl),Actellic Super(pirimiphos- methyl andpermethrin) and Sumicombi (fenvalerateand fenitrothion). Inapproximately half the cases ofuse of botanicals, neem was specifically named;in theother half no name was given.It canbe seen from figure 12 that there is aconsiderable differencein thechoice ofprotectants used between Districts. Therewas noreporteduse of botanicalsas grainprotectants in Jasikan (althoughit could be argued that smoking is auseof Figure9. Is thereany difference in the use of protectants (any) between botanicalsand this was mentionedunder, `changes in storage householdsstoring different amounts of maize? practice’).Respondents in Jasikan weremost likely tocite the

Figure10. Is thereany difference in the use of protectants (any) reported by respondersof different levels of formal education? Significant difference Figure11. Citation rate of constraints to the use of commercialchemical grain betweeneducation classes in likelihood that respondents use protectants protectantsgiven in different Districts. Cost cited significantly more than next 2 2 (w =8.57,3d.f., p 50.05). mostcited constraint (health hazard) ( w =30.0,1d.f., p 50.001). 320 S.Addoet al. useof registered grain protectants and least likely tosay that highregard. The respondents often valued the chance to ask theyused inappropriate chemicals comparedto the other questionsand observe practical demonstrationsof techniques Districts. thatthey may haveonly heardabout on the radio. Therewas some division in opinionof the value of the informationcoming fromthe radio. On the positive side itwas felt 3.9.Storage decisions and information networks tobeup-to-date, regular and from reliable experts. On the other Storagedecisions werereported to be taken more often by handsome feltthese experts had little practical experienceand menthan women, although not exclusively so (figure13). It is sometimes gaveadvice thatwas impractical (toocostly). common formembers of the same householdto own separate Friends,family andfellow farmers were accessible, andmostly barnsand take sole responsibility fordecisions involving that regardedas havinggood practical experience,although some barn. said theirinformation was sometimes unreliable.There are Menand women cited the same topthree sources of programssuch as,`Radio gbledela’ (The radio farmer) specifi- information,extension services, radio/TV,andfriends, family cally dealingwith agricultural issues. Oneparticular strength of andfellow farmers (figure 14). There is aslight tendencyfor thesetransmissions is thatthey are often repeated in many womento cite extensionservices less often,and friends, family differentlanguages (Ewe, Akan, Hausa, Ga, Nzema or andfellow farmers more than men. We obtained very similar Dagbani). citationrates for the different sources ofinformation in the differentDistricts. However,when we explicitly asked aboutthe 4. Discussion frequencyof contact with extension services therewere some differences,with respondents in Jasikan reportingthe most visits Farmersspoke mostoften about increased insect infestation fromextension officers. as arecentchange in storageproblems, but LGB was hardly Fromthe comments wereceivedabout the various sources evermentioned explicitly. Whenasked howmuch thearrival of ofinformation, it is clearthat the extension services areheld in LGBhadcontributed to the higher levels ofinsect infestation, farmersgave mixed reports,some saying thatLGB is a particularproblem, others reporting that other species arealso increasingin number.Variation between farmers in their experienceof LGB problems was expecteddue to the sporadic natureof the pest (Hodges and Birkinshaw, 1999). Thesurvey shows some distinctive differencesbetween the Districts despitethe fact that they are quite closely located.In onecase thedifference possibly relatesto ethnicity; there was also anapparent difference between the sexes. InHo, most farmersstored for one season only, elsewhere there were generallytwo storage seasons. Ho was changingits barn materialsmore frequently and had significantly greaterproblems findingbarn construction materials. In Jasikan, therewas much loweruse of botanical protecants of grain stocks thanat the otherthree locations. This may bea reflectionof the predominancein theJasikan areaof a differentethnic group, theBuem. In Ghana, it is knownthat the prevalence of plant

Figure12. Types of protectantsused in different Districts as reported by our surveysample.

Figure14. Sources of information cited by men and women. Comparison of therelative frequency of extension officers, radio/ TVandfriends/ family/fellow farmersbetween men and women revealed no significantdifference ( w2 = 3.82, Figure13. Who makes store management decisions? 2.d.f., p40.10). Tenyears after the arrival of LGB 321 materialsusage for stock protectionvaries accordingto ethnic Secondly,they seem touse the least durable material, palm andcultural differences in indigenousknowledge (Cobbinah et fronds,to make theirbarn platforms (other Districts use al.,1999; Belmain and Stevenson, 2001). The sex ofrespondent planks orbamboo). appearsalso tohavehad some influenceon technology uptake Somefarmers reported an increase in theuse of since menwere significantly morelikely tohave changed their insecticides, presumablyto combat the increased threat of storagepractice than women. This may representa truesex insect damage,although this mightinstead be related to differencein thelikelihood ofadopting changes. Alternatively, changesin theavailability andcost ofinsecticides, butwe do this may bea misleading resultarising fromquestioning women nothave information on this. Greater use of insecticide whowere not directly responsiblefor store management increases theirpotential health risk, particularlybecause decisions andpossibly notaware of changes made by the inappropriatechemicals werein frequentuse. Increased menthey represented. smoking ofmaize was citedmost often in Jasikan. This is Theclear message from this survey is thatfarmers have possibly areflectionof the high humidity ofthis regionwhere changedtheir storage practice to include some ofthe smoking may beparticularly useful for drying the commodity. recommendationspromoted by theLGB TC projectin theVolta Respondentsreported a relatively highusage of appropriate Region.The dissemination pathwaysadopted by thatproject storagegrain protectants in this District suggestingthat weresuccessful. Respondentsquestioned in Hoand Kpando, smoking per se is nota sufficientresponse to the threat of onaverage, cited more changes than the other two Districts. In insect damage.In fact, earlier survey workon traditional Hoand Kpando, maize is importantboth as foodand a sourceof storagemethods had shown that the worst infestations of income andtherefore farmers might be more likely togive a LGBwereassociated with smoked storesand some farmers detaileddescription of their situation. In addition, a higher evenstopped smoking theirstores in thebelief that it citationrate of changes in practicemight have resulted from encouragedLGB (Boxall andCompton, 1996). particularlyhigh LGB incidence in theseDistricts in thepast. In Forthe dissemination of information within villages, the contrast,in Jasikan, thelower rate of problem citing may well agriculturalextension services andradio would appear to bethe reflectthe relatively lowimportance of maize as astaplefor main trustedroutes although fellow farmers and family also have thesepeople. animportantrole. Boxall andCompton (1996) cited traders as a Many farmershave adopted the strategy of increased very importantsource of stock protectioninformation, but this inspectionand then action, if a significantinfestation is detected. was notreflected in oursurvey. This may beaconsequenceof Itwould be interestingto knowhow early farmersare detecting theselection ofour survey villages, which werenot major trading insect infestationsand at what point they feel action should be centres. taken.In theearly 1990s, Tanzania farmers were reported to be Weare currently developing methods that could reduce the similarly reluctantto takea prophylacticapproach to LGBcontrol amountof insecticide tobe used per treatment of maize cob (Golob,1991). However, this may havechanged as a1997 barnsyet still give acceptableprotection. Such treatment survey in EastAfrica, including Tanzania,reported that farmers wouldbe less expensive andshould therefore widen access to weremore likely toshell andoften treat their grain as soonas stock protectionfor those farmers who are currently con- convenientafter drying, whether or not insect infestationhad strainedby cost.This approachis seenas particularlyrelevant beendetected (Golob et al.,1998).Similarly, asurvey offarmers in view ofthe fact that nearly half of all respondentsin all in threeDistricts ofKenya, more than ten years afterthe first Districts mentionedcost as themost important constraint to recordof LGB in thecountry, showed that among farmers theuse of insecticide. Theextension services areclearly producinga lotof maize forsale ordependingheavily onmaize assisting some farmerswith insecticide treatmentswhile others fortheir food security, therewas ahighrate of adoption of a appearnot to have access togood information or support. If prophylactic,`shell andtreat’ recommendation (Farrell et al., newapproaches to stock treatmentsare introduced the 1996). dissemination ofthe methods and provision ofclear informa- Farmersreported that increasing difficulty in obtaining tionon safe treatment will beneeded. The best option would barnconstruction materials is dueto increases in therural appearto be a campaignon the radio followed up by the populationand thus the amount of land being farmed. extensionservice explainingand demonstrating the new Increasingreplacement of barn wood (one of the changes methodto key farmingfamilies; themethods identified by in storagepractice) was notexplicitly givenas themain respondentsas mosteffective and the key approachesused reasonwhy barnmaterials are now harder to find. Certainly, by theearlier LGB project. ithas been proposed that store wood is animportant harboragefor LGB (Kossou1992) but another reason given by respondentsfor increased replacement of barn materials Acknowledgements was anincrease in theadditional use of barns as storage space forhousehold items oras kitchenareas. These raise Wewould like tothankHilarious Penni,Monica Awuku,and theimportance of barns, and dictate that they are built to a Felix Motteof the Post-Harvest Management Division ofthe higherstandard. Increase in barnwood replacement was Ministry ofFood and Agriculture, for their assistance through- mentionedmost often by farmersin HoDistrict. Therewould out.This publicationis anoutput from a researchproject funded seem tobe two reasons for this. First, farmers in Hodo not by theUnited Kingdom Department for International Develop- producemuch minorseason maize andso haveto store their ment(DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. The views majorharvest for a longtime; it is thereforeespecially expressedare not necessarily thoseof DFID.R7486 `Crop Post importantto have a goodstrong barn to last theseason. HarvestResearch Programme’. 322 S.Addoet al.

References

BELMAIN S.R. andSTEVENSON P.2001.Ethnobotanicals in Ghana: reviving FARRELL, G., HILL,M. G., NANG’AYO, F.L.O.andSTABRAWA, A., 1996.A andmodernising age-old farmer practice. Pesticide Outlook12 (6) 209 ± reviewof investigationsto improvepest management of storedmaize in 256. smallholderfarms in Kenya. IntegratedPest ManagementReviews, 1, BORGEMEISTER, C., BELL, A., MU È CK, O.andZWEIGERT, M.(eds.), 1997. 251 ± 263. Frombiological control to asystems approachin the post-harvest sector ± GILES, P., HILL,G., NANG’AYO, F., FARRELL, G., STABRAWA, A.and storedproduct protection of on-farmmaize in sub-Saharan Africa. WEKESA, P., 1995.Entomological and socio-economic investigations for Internationalinstitute of Tropical Agriculture, Cotonou, Benin/ Deutsche thedevelopment of integratedpest management strategies against Gesellschaftfu ÈrTechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Hanover Prostephanustruncatus. UK/KenyaLarger Grain Borer Research Project, University,Germany. KARI/ NaturalResources Institute, ChathamMaritime, Kent, ME44TB, BOXALL, R.A.andCOMPTON, J.A.F., 1996.Ghana Larger Grain Borer UK. Typewrittenpp. 271. projectfinal technical report. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham GOLOB, P., 1991.Evaluation of thecampaign to controlLarger Grain Borer, Maritime,Kent, ME44TB, UK. Prostephanustruncatus, inwestern Tanzania. FAOPlantProtection COBBINAH, J.R., MOSS, C., GOLOB, P.andBELMAIN, S.R., 1999. Bulletin, 39, 65 ± 71. Conductingethnobotanical surveys: an example from Ghana on plants GOLOB, P., MARSLAND, N.,NYAMBO, B., MUTAMBUKI, K., MOSHY, A., usedfor theprotection of storedcereals and pulses . NRIBulletinNo. 77, KASALILE, E.C.,BIRKINSHAW, L.A., andDAY, R., 1998.Coping NaturalResources Institute, Chatham,UK. pp.15 ISBN 0859545024 strategiesadopted by farmers against the larger grain borer in east Africa. COMPTON J.A.F.andOFOSU, A., 1994.Ghana Larger Grain Borer Project In: StoredProduct Protection, Proceedings of the7th International Working sixthquarterly Report. April ± June1994. Ghana Ministry of Foodand Conferenceon Stored-Product Protection, 14 ±19October 1998, Beijing, Agriculture,Ho, Ghana/ Overseas Development Agency, UK. China.Vol 2: 1772± 1781. COMPTON, J.A.F., 1997.How to makepost-harvest research serve the needs HODGES, R.J. andBIRKINSHAW, L.A., 1999.Risk warning to farmers of of thefarmer: theexample of maizestorage in Ghana. In GASGA LargerGrain Borer infestation and reduced pesticide treatment in farm executiveseminar 9 Grainquality . . . fromthe inside out, 16September maizestores. Finaltechnical report, R6684, pp 1 ±84,Natural Resources 1997,ACIAR, Canberra,Australia. Institute, ChathamMaritime, Central Ave., Chatham,Kent, ME44TB, UK. DALES, M.J.andGOLOB, P., 1997.The protection of maizeagainst KOSSOU D.K., 1992.Susceptibility of woodfor constructingtraditional Prostephanustruncatus (Horn),using insecticide sprays in Tanzania . granariesto infestationby Prostephanustruncatus (Horn)(Coleoptera: InternationalJournal of Pest Management, 43, 39 ± 43. Bostrichidae). InsectScience and its Application, 13, 435 ± 439. DICK, K.A., REES, D.P., LAY, K.K.andOFOSU, A., 1989.Occurrence of the MAGRATH, P.A., COMPTON, J.A.F., MOTTE, F.F., andAWUKU, M.1996. LargerGrain Borer Prostephanustruncatus (Horn),in Ghana. FAO Plant Copingwith a newstorage insect pest: theimpact of theLarger Grain ProtectionBulletin , 37, 132. Borerin Eastern Ghana. Natural Resources Institute, ChathamMaritime, DUNSTAN, W.R.andMAGAZINI, I.A., 1981.Outbreaks and new records. Kent, ME44TB, UK.Typewrittenreport, pp 25. Tanzania.The larger grain borer on storedproducts. FAO PlantProtection Bulletin, 29, 80 ± 81.

Appendix 1

FARMERMAIZE STORAGE QUESTIONNAIRE

1. GENERAL (a)Date:...... (b)Region: ...... (c)District: ...... (d)Village: ......

2. RESPONDENT/HOUSEHOLDINFORMATION (a) Sex M F (b) Age AdolescentMiddle age Elder (c)Ethnic group Ewe AkanKotokoli Buem Other (d)Education noneprimary middle secondary/ univ (e)How manydependent on household maize? ......

3. HOUSEHOLDMAIZE PRODUCTION/ STORAGE Don’tworry about major vs minorharvest, simply fill in largestarea at any one time. (a)Area farmed + ...... (b)Area farmed with maize ......

MAJOR MINOR c) Whendo you cultivate maize?I =Improved,L =local I L I L d)Which season doyou storeyour maize?I, L. I L I L

Howlong do you store(months) 53, 3-5, 45? Tenyears after the arrival of LGB 323

f)Harvest/ later g) Store type (same store type h)Major(kg)* i) Howmany stores? j) Minor(kg)* k) Howmany stores? can bein morethan one row Raised platform Room sacks Room cobs Invertedcone Other......

*Circle maize thatis sometimestreated (with ANY protectant)

4. MAIZEUSES Whatis thehousehold maize usedfor?

(a) Tick (b) Ranking (c) Approximatequantity 1=mostimportant (Kg) Foodfor family Sale forcash Foodfor those other than immediate family Feedfor animals Seed Paymentto hired labour Other Other

5. STORAGEPROBLEMS (a)Have your storage problems changed over the years? yes / no/ new(I haven’thad this responsibility for long) (b)What are the changes?

Harderto get construction material Harderto find people skilled in barnconstruction LargerGrain Borer Increased insect infestation

(c)Have you changed your storage practice in response to this? ( yes/ no) ...... (d)What have you been doing differently?

Tick (e)Comment (useful/ not useful, how has this beenadapted to your particular situation?) Betterstore hygiene Replacing barnwood more often Using insecticide moreoften Inspectingthe barn more often Shelling infested Sun drying moreoften Other...... 324 S.Addoet al.

6. INSECTPESTS OF STOREDMAIZE Which insects haveyou ever found in yourmaize stores?

(a) (b) (c) (d) (Y=yes Ihave this) Howimportant? Explain your answerto column (c) (N=noI don’thave this) VI(very important) (?=Idon’tknow whatthis is) I(important) NI(notimportant) Sitophilus species (weevils) LGB Other(please specify ifpossible)

7. VARIATIONIN INSECTDAMAGE BETWEEN YEARS Doyou remember which years werebad for damage from insects? 3±higherthan normal damage, 2 ±normallevel ofdamage, 1 ±less thannormal damage, 0 ±can’tremember/ can’tbe sure of insect type

(a) (b)Year beforelast year 97/98(c) Lastyear 98/99 (d)This year 99/00 Totalinsect damage (use this ifunsure) Sitophilus damage LGB damage

8. USEOFPROTECTANTS (a)Are anyprotectants ( local orpurchased) used? Yes No (b)Who decides whether or not protectants should be used in the household maize stores? Idowoman farmer man farmer man and woman for separate FLSOther...... (c)What are the main things that might prevent you from using commercial chemical protectants? timeknowledge doesn’t work cost health hazard space rodentsother (please state) ...... (d)Protectant used (e.g. Actellic, other insecticide, wood ash, plant materials) ...... (e)Formulation (e.g. dust, EC, leaves,dip, other -please state) (f) Approximatelyhow many years out of five do you use this? (g)When applied during storage? asstore is loaded after a settime time depends on damage timedepends on access to protectant time depends on other (h)Monetary cost of protectant (cedis) (i) Othermonetary cost (j) Availabilityof protectant (ignoring cost) veryeasy to obtain sometimes hard to obtain very difficult to obtain

9. ACCESSTO INFORMATION (a)How doyou find out about new storage ideas? Rank importance (1 = mostimportant)

Rank Radio/TV Friends/ Family/Fellow farmers Village specialists NGO’s Develop myown Extension officers Other(specify)

(b)Comment on ranking of sources of info ...... Tenyears after the arrival of LGB 325

(c)How muchdirect contact do you have with the agricultural extension services? NeverHardly ever Less than once a year 1±5timesa yearMore than 5 timesa year (b)Would you like to be asked to be involved in any future work we aredoing? If yes,what is your name......