IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v6y2016i3p38-d76153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmer’s Knowledge and Perceptions on Rice Insect Pests and Their Management in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Alibu

    (National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Namulonge, P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda)

  • Michael H. Otim

    (National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Namulonge, P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda)

  • Stella E. A. Okello

    (National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Namulonge, P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda)

  • Jimmy Lamo

    (National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Namulonge, P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda)

  • Moses Ekobu

    (National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Namulonge, P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda)

  • Godfrey Asea

    (National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Namulonge, P.O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda)

Abstract

Rice is a new crop in Uganda, but has quickly grown in importance. Between 2000 and 2010, total area under rice cultivation in the country grew by 94% from 140,000 ha. Changes in the agro ecosystem due to expansion in rice area may have altered the pest status of rice insect pests. However, far too little attention has been paid to assessing the prevalence and importance of rice insect-pests in Uganda. In this study, we interviewed 240 lowland-rice farming households from eight districts within the north, east and central regions of Uganda about their perceived insect-pest problems and control measures employed, if any. A semi-structured questionnaire was used. The farmers ranked rice insect pests as the most important biotic constraint in rice production, with stem borers and the African rice gall midge (AfRGM) perceived to be the 1st and 2nd most detrimental insect pests, respectively. In spite of this, only 36% of the respondents could positively identify symptoms of AfRGM damage on rice plants, while 64% were familiar with stem borer damage. Over 60% of interviewed farmers expressed confidence in the effectiveness of insecticides for controlling rice insect pests. Cultural control measures were not popular among the farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Alibu & Michael H. Otim & Stella E. A. Okello & Jimmy Lamo & Moses Ekobu & Godfrey Asea, 2016. "Farmer’s Knowledge and Perceptions on Rice Insect Pests and Their Management in Uganda," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-10, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:6:y:2016:i:3:p:38-:d:76153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/6/3/38/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/6/3/38/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pingali, Prabhu L. & Gerpacio, Roberta V., 1997. "Living with reduced insecticide use for tropical rice in Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-118, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bonaventure January & Gration M. Rwegasira & Tadele Tefera, 2018. "Farmers’ Perceptions of Rice Production Constraints and Stem Borers Management Practices in Tanzania," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(6), pages 1-57, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pankaj Kumar Yadav & Shaurav Sharma & Amrit Sharma, 2021. "Management Trends of Rice Insect Pests In South Asia: A Review," Reviews in Food and Agriculture (RFNA), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 46-53, April.
    2. Tripp, Robert, 2001. "Can biotechnology reach the poor? The adequacy of information and seed delivery," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 249-264, June.
    3. Mockshell, Jonathan & Kamanda, Josey Ondieki, 2017. "Beyond the agroecological and sustainable agricultural intensification debate: is blended sustainability the way forward?," IDOS Discussion Papers 16/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:6:y:2016:i:3:p:38-:d:76153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.