Project
Economic Evaluation of Field Management Practices of Podding Pests of Cowpeas on Bruchid Carryover in Storage
Details
Project Code:
Not Available
Start Date:
1999
End Date:
2004
CRSP Phase:
Phase 2
Budget:
Not Available
Countries:
Uganda
Participants
Lead University:
Ohio State University
Other Partners:
B. Mugonola, V. Kasenge, and W. Ekere (Makerere University); D.B Taylor (Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University); A. Agona (Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute); H. Opolot, S. Kyamanywa and E. Adipala (Makerere
University)
Principal Investigator(s):
B. Mugonola, V. Kasenge, and W. Ekere (Makerere University); D.B Taylor (Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University); A. Agona (Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute); H. Opolot, S. Kyamanywa and E. Adipala (Makerere
University)
Co-Principal Investigator(s):
B. Mugonola, V. Kasenge, and W. Ekere (Makerere University); D.B Taylor (Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University); A. Agona (Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute); H. Opolot, S. Kyamanywa and E. Adipala (Makerere
University)
Overview
An economic evaluation of some selected botanicals and synthetic insecticides against pod sucker, pod borer, pod fly, and bruchid damage on cowpeas was done. Data used in the analysis were obtained from experiments of biological scientists conducted in the districts of Kumi and Pallisa in eastern Uganda. The economic evaluation was done using partial budgeting, marginal analysis and sensitivity analysis. Results from the analysis indicated that integrating synthetics and botanical formulations and manipulating the spray regimes were far more effective in prolonging the shelf life of cowpeas than using either synthetics or botanical formulations alone.
Objectives
Post podding pests of cowpeas, besides leading to low yields, also continue to cause post-harvest losses, especially during storage. Cowpea is a very susceptible crop both in the field and during storage, therefore management options that reduce both field and storage pests would not only increase yields, but also ensure that farmers have the choice to store their harvest in anticipation of a better price or for food security purposes. The study specifically was guided by the following objectives: · To quantify the costs associated with each treatment and the corresponding gross field benefits that accrue · To identify the most economically promising treatments to recommend to farmers.
Outcomes
Coming soon
