Managing pests of stored maize in Kenya, Malawi and … Table of contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 2....

JUNE 2008

The MDG CentreE A S T & S O U T H E R N A F R I C A

Submitted To:

The MDG CentreEast and Southern AfricaBox 30677-00100Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 7224485Fax: +254 20 7224490

By:

CABI AfricaUN Avenue, ICRAF ComplexBox 633-00621Nairobi, KenyaTel.: +254 20 7224450Fax: +254 20 7122150Email: [email protected]

Managing pests of stored maize in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania

Prepared by:

Noah Anthony Phiri

Gordon Otieno

This study was

funded by the

MDG Centre East

& Southern Africa


3

Table of contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

2. INTRODUCTION 10

3. GENERAL FLOW OF MAIZE FROM THE PRODUCER 11

3.1 STAGES WHERE MAIZE IS STORED 11

3.1.1 Home/household 11

3.1.2 Community Grain banks/Community Cereal banks 11

3.1.3 School storage facilities 12

3.1.4 Vendors and maize traders 12

3.1.5 The Cereal Boards – the National Food Reserve Agency (Malawi) and the Cereals and Produce Board (Kenya), Agriculture Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) (Malawi) 12

4. MAJOR PESTS AND THEIR RELATED LOSSES 15

4.1 MAJOR PESTS 15

4.1.1 Larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus (Horn)) 15

4.1.2 Maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) 15

4.1.3 Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier)) 15

4.1.4 Lesser grain weevil (Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus)) 15

4.1.5 Aflatoxin contamination (Aspergillus flavus Link) 16

4.2 LOSSES CAUSED BY MAJOR PESTS 16

4.2.1 Losses from literature 16

4.2.2 Maize storage losses to pests – information from maize experts and agriculture staff 17

Larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus (Horn))

1. Maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky)

2. Lesser grain weevil (Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus))

3. Angoumois grain moth (Sitotraga cerealella (Olivier))



Maize storage losses as experienced by farmers

5. OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CURRENT STRATEGIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF PESTS 20

5.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 20

5.1.1 Early maize harvesting and drying 20

5.2 INSECTICIDES RECOMMENDED FOR TREATING MAIZE FOR STORAGE: 21

5.2.1 Kenya 21

5.2.2 Malawi 22

5.2.3 Tanzania 24

5.3 MAIZE STORAGE STRUCTURES 24

5.3.1 Bags 24

5.3.2 Stores 25

5.3.3 Traditional Granaries 25

4

5.3.4 Improved granaries/cribs 25

5.3.5 Small Metal silos/drums 26

5.3.6 Community metal silos 26

5.3.7 Community Grain Stores 26

5.3.8 Costs of the different storage structures (where available) 26

A summary of costs of different storage structures are presented in Table 11. 27

6. KNOWLEDGE GAPS: DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN EXPERTS, FARMERS AND MILLENNIUM VILLAGES 28

6.1 MAIZE VARIETIES AND STORAGE PESTS 28

6.2 MAIZE HARVESTING PROCESSES 30

6.3 PRE-STORAGE STRUCTURES 31

6.4 STORAGE STRUCTURES 32

6.4.1 Use of bags (sacks) 32

6.4.2 Traditional cribs/granaries 32

6.4.3 Improved granaries 32

6.4.4 Small Metal silos/Drums 33

6.4.5 Summary of storage structures in the different Millennium Villages 33

6.5 TREATMENT OF GRAIN BY FARMERS 34

7. ANALYSIS 37

7.1 IMPORTANCE OF MAIZE STORAGE IN MALAWI, TANZANIA AND KENYA 37

7.2 IMPORTANCE OF STORAGE PESTS IN THE MILLENNIUM VILLAGES 38

7.3 MAIZE LOSS TO STORAGE PESTS AND THE CORRESPONDING MONETARY LOSS IN THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES 39

7.4 FACTORS INFLUENCING MAIZE LOSSES TO STORAGE PESTS AT EACH LEVEL OF MAIZE STORAGE 39

7.4.1 Factors influencing losses at household level 39

8. RECOMMENDATIONS 48

8.1 SHORT TERM RECOMMENDATIONS 48

8.1.1 Short term recommendations for Millennium Village Project in Malawi 48

8.1.2 Short term recommendation for Millennium Villages in Tanzania 50

8.1.3 Short term recommendations for Millennium Villages in Kenya 53

8.1.4 Summary of recommendations (all countries) 55

8.2 LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MALAWI, KENYA AND TANZANIA 56

9 REFERENCES 60

ANNEXES 61

5

List of figures

Fig. 1. A large scale community grain bank at Mwandama Millennium Village 11

Fig. 2. Maize being fumigated in a mass storage facility at ADMARC Depot in Limbe, Malawi 12

Fig. 3. The flow of maize in Kenya 13

Fig. 4. The flow of maize in Malawi 14

Fig. 5. Drying cribs – (a) Recommended but need to be thatched to prevent spoilage of maize from rain water); (b) a different variation of a drying crib 20

Fig. 6. Non mudded (a) and mudded (b) granaries (right) 25

Fig.7. Improved granaries/cribs (cemented types) 25

Fig. 8. Small scale metal silos - standard (left), and collapsible (right) 26

Fig. 9. Community metal silos 26

Fig. 10. Some large scale storage buildings (left = brick type, and right = one constructed from iron sheets) which can be used for community grain storage 26

Fig.11. Stoked maize before harvesting; a common practice in Inonelwa Millennium Village, Tabora, Tanzania. 30

Fig. 12. A non thatched drying crib 32

Fig.13. A version of a drying crib which was constructed under a tobacco shade in Gumulira Village (left), and a drying structure constructed by a farmer in Mbola Millennium Research Village (right) 32

Fig. 14. Super grain bag (left) and a Hessian bag (right) 32

Fig. 15. (a) Traditional granaries in Malawi (first two) and (b) inside a house in Tanzania (far right) 32

Fig. 16. An improved granary 32

Fig. 17. A type of a two hundred l litre drum being used for storing maize in Kenya 33

Fig. 18. A traditional non-mudded granary in Malawi 39

Fig. 19. Soft (left) and hard (right) grain hybrids grown in Mwandama Research Village 40

Fig. 20. Insecticide treated maize seed reduced to flour (left) by Larger grain borer (being shown to farmers in the middle), and a comparison of the destroyed seed with the non infested seed (far right) 41

Fig. 21. Milled maize reduced to flour by Larger grain borer and Maize weevil 42

6

List of tables

Table 1a. Larger grain borer (prostephanus truncatus (horn)) 16

Table 1b. Maize weevil (sitophilus zeamais motschulsky) and lesser grain weevil (sitophilus oryzae (linnaeus)) 16

Table 1c. Angoumois grain moth (sitotraga cerealella (olivier)) 16

Table 1d. The maize flour beetle (tribolium sp) 17

Table 1e. Aflatoxin contamination 17

Table 2. Maize losses to pests as given by maize experts and agriculture staff in malawi 17

Table 4. Maize losses to pests as given by maize experts and agriculture staff in kenya 18

Table 3. Maize losses to pests as given by maize experts and agriculture staff in tanzania 18

Table 5. Maize losses in storage due to storage pests as per the farmers’ experiences with losses from storage insect pests. 19

Table 6. Additional information for tanzania on maize losses in storage due to storage pests as per the farmers’ experiences with losses from storage insect pests 19

Table 7a. Storage insecticides recommended by the national maize storage experts in kenya 21

Table 7b. Storage insecticides being sold by farm choice agro-vet, kisumu 21

Table 7c. Storage insecticides being sold by mwanga agro-vet, kisumu 22

Table 8a. Storage insecticides recommended by the national maize storage experts in malawi 22

Table 8b. Storage insecticides being sold by farmers world in blantyre 23

Table 8c. Storage insecticides being sold by chemicals and marketing in lilongwe 23

Table 8d. Other storage products being sold by chemicals and marketing in lilongwe 24

Table 9. Storage insecticides recommended by the national maize storage experts in tanzania 24

Table 10. Summary of recommendations regarding use of bags in all the three countries 25

Table 11. Costs of different storage structures 26

Table 12. A list of varieties grown by farmers in the different millennium villages and their preferred varieties and reasons for preference 28

Table13. Summary of maize harvesting practices 30

Table 14. Number and proportion of farmers using the different storage structures in the respective millennium villages 33

Table 15. Number and proportion of farmers using the different maize treatment insecticides in the respective millennium villages 35

Table 16. Amount of money farmers would save if they treated their maize with insecticides and store in the different millennium villages – assuming losses would be negligible if the maize is properly treated and stored 37

Table 17. Relative importance of storage pests in the different millennium villages 38

Table 18. Monetary loss to storage pests at national level in malawi, tanzania and kenya 39

Table 19. Short term recommendations for all millennium villages in malawi 48

Table 20. Specific short term recommendations for mwandama and nambande millennium villages in zomba 50

Table 21. Short term recommendations for all millennium villages in tanzania 51

Table 22. Short term recommendations for mbola millennium research village 52

Table 23. Short term recommendations for millennium villages in kenya 53

Table 24. Short term recommendation for the sauri millennium research village 55

Table 25. Summary of recommendations for malawi, kenya and tanzania 55

Table 26. Long term recommendations for malawi, kenya and tanzania 56

Table 27. Long term recommendations specific to malawi only 59

7

Abbreviations

% Percentage

ADMARC Agriculture Development Marketing Corporation

AI Active Ingredient

DE Diatomaceous Earths

EC Emulsifiable concentrate

FFS Farmer Field School

GBB Greater Grain Borer

ha Hectare

KSh Kenyan Shillings

LGB Larger Grain Borer

MC Moisture Content

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MDGC Millennium Development Goal Centre

MK Malawi Kwacha

MT Metric Tonnes

MV Millennium Village

MVs Millennium Villages

MVP Millennium Village Project

NCPB National Cereals and Produce Board

NFRA National Food Reserve Agency

sp. Species

spp. Species (plural)

TN Teretrius nigrescens

TOT Training of Trainers

TPRI Tropical Pesticide Research Institute

TSh Tanzanian Shilling

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

8

1. Executive SummaryThe Millennium Villages Project (MVP) is the product of a partnership between the Earth Institute at Columbia University, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Millennium Promise, to help African communities lift themselves out of poverty. The project aims to establish rigorous proof of concept for implementing the practical interventions needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in rural Africa over a five year time frame. Millennium Villages are units of 1,000 households, reaching roughly 5,000 people. The Millennium Development Goals Centre for East and Southern Africa has been supporting implementation of the MVP in countries of East and Southern Africa, through which inputs are provided to increase farmers’ food security. The support to farmers living in Millennium Villages (MVs) has resulted in huge increases in production to the magnitude of more than 12 times than that of the national maize production levels. However, these huge leaps in maize productivity came with challenges which led to substantial maize losses to storage pests each year, especially since farmers did not seem to adequately prepare for storing extra maize grain. It is in view of the aforementioned that the MDGC’s East and Southern Africa Regional Office approached CABI Africa to carry out a study in order to document the status of the maize loss in storage due to pests and make recommendations for alleviating losses.

The study was carried out in Malawi’s Mwandama and Gumulira Clusters, Tanzania’s Mbola Cluster, and Kenya’s Sauri Cluster from end of April to mid June 2008. The study was conducted through farmer focus group discussions, assessments of storage structures and pest status in selected households, and discussions with key informants in all the three participating countries. A maize chain analysis and assessment of maize storage losses along the chain was conducted but mainly carried out in Malawi and Kenya due to low rainfall in Tanzania and subsequent reduction in maize productivity.

Maize losses occur primarily at the following sites: 1. Household

2. Receiving and storage sites for payback maize

3. Community Cereal/Grain Storage facilities, and

4. Schools which are used as temporary storage facilities for MVP payback maize some of which is for the school feeding programme.

Maize losses due to pests and LGB: As for pests, the Larger grain borer (LGB) causes the highest maize storage losses followed by the Maize weevil, Maize flour beetle and Angoumois grain moth. According to national maize experts, maize losses due to storage pests range from 30% – 60% in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya, much of which is attributed to the presence of LGB and these figures far exceed what is currently recorded in the literature. Maize losses experienced by farmers are variable, but farmers in all countries of the study confirmed experiencing losses even if they used inorganic or organic storage insecticides and all confirmed that losses can be up to 100% if maize is not protected with insecticides before storing.

Key factors influencing maize losses due to storage pests: Improper harvesting methods which result in overexposing maize to storage pests in the field•

Varietal susceptibility•

Inappropriate use of storage structures and improper application of insecticides •

Under dosing of insecticides and improper timing for applying insecticides leading to maize loss from pre-•treatment infestation of pests

Use of expired and adulterated insecticides•

Treating maize with insecticides at incorrect moisture content (MC) levels•

Short effectiveness of insecticides - some are only effective in protecting treated maize from pest infestation in •storage for only three months

Storing untreated maize for long periods such as the maize in the maize payback receiving centres•

Lack of experience in storing maize by school teachers and administrators who are often responsible for •caring for the MVP maize

Lack of adequate storage facilities at Community Cereal/Grain Banks •

9

National maize storage experts in all three countries recommended the following:Early harvesting•

Use of new or treated bags for storage and store hygiene •

Treating maize with insecticides•

Use of botanicals and diatomaceous earths (DEs) •

Use of modern structures such as improved granaries and mini silos•

Frequent inspection of maize while in storage and re-drying and retreating if infested•

Discrepancies between national recommendations and farmers actions: Despite these national level recommendations, the study revealed that many farmers are not using all or any of the above recommendations. For example, apart from farmers in two MVs in Mwandama Cluster, Malawi, very few farmers are using inorganic or modern insecticides; farmers are still using traditional granaries, even those living close to modern granaries that were built for demonstration. The closest structure resembling silos was the 200 litre drums, which were found in Kenyan MVP, but used by very few farmers in Kenya. Farmers suggested a number of reasons as to why they have not adopted national storage recommendations and/or more modern storage management technologies such as limited financial resources and lack of awareness of the recommendations.

It is apparent that maize storage is a crucial component of ensuring greater food security and should be included in efforts by national governments, development partners such as MVP, FAO, the World Bank, the African Development Bank, bi-lateral donors and other development partners, especially in countries where such efforts have yielded substantial returns in maize or other food crop productivity. Due to lack of awareness and proper technologies, farmers end up selling their maize soon after harvest, only to buy it back from the same people at more that twice the price they sold the maize for just a few months after harvest, resulting in a continual poverty trap. If efforts to increase food security included storage, and farmers were able to store their maize properly, they would save between US$10 to US$20 per bag of maize needed for household consumption throughout the year. These may appear like small savings, but an analysis of family sizes in rural Sub-Saharan Africa and the corresponding maize required to feed such big families, these translate into huge savings per family. Furthermore, storage pests, in particular LGB and in combination with other pests such as Maize weevils cause substantial losses at national levels, which translates, approximately, to between US$ 150 and $300 Million, money which could be used to provide other essential in-country services.

In order to address these factors a range of country specific short term recommendations have been presented, a summary table of recommendations can be found below. The short term recommendations can be implemented immediately in order to start alleviating losses from storage pests. Long term recommendations are also included in the report, but will need to be implemented through a longer term project of between three and five years in order to sustainably manage storage pests.

Summary of short term recommendations:

RECOMMENDATIONS MALAWI KENYA TANZANIA

1. The MVP to facilitate availability of insecticides to farmers ✓ ✓ ✓2. Training of agriculture staff and farmers in proper maize storage systems ✓ ✓ ✓3. Use of maize cribs – the period of drying maize in the cribs should be

shortened to a maximum of 4 weeks ✓4. Awareness creation in maize harvesting and handling, storage pests,

insecticide rates and proper use ✓ ✓ ✓5. Payback maize in receiving centres and the maize in Cereal/Grain Banks

should be fumigated before treating with contact insecticides ✓ ✓ ✓6. Diatomaceous Earths (DEs) should be tried at a pilot level in Millennium

Research Villages ✓ ✓7. An inventory of farmers who use ash of different types should be

developed, and they should be supported and followed up to make sure their maize is safe from storage pests

✓ ✓

10

8. Institute LGB reporting system ✓ ✓ ✓9. Farmers using wild tubers and other botanicals should be followed up,

and the effectiveness of the botanicals verified ✓ ✓10. Carry out campaigns for spraying houses and storage structures

against LGB in the Zomba MVs where there are high populations of LGB ✓11. Introduce dipping of maize in water before milling at all maize mills

in MVP to drown storage pests as part of an integrated storage pest management

✓ ✓ ✓

12. MVP to devise a way of measuring maize quantities for treating with insecticides e.g. develop a measuring container with 10 kg capacity which could be used to measure 50 kg (5 containers equals 50 kg in Malawi) or 90 kg (9 containers equal 90 kg in Kenya and Tanzania)

✓ ✓ ✓

13. Where not available maize stores should be built for storing maize at each MV ✓ ✓ ✓

1. IntroductionMaize is a staple food for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania it is mainly produced by resource poor farmers. With the withdrawal of input subsidies in African countries, the production of maize has been adversely affected as well as other smallholder crops that depend on inorganic fertilizer. As result, many African countries have become food-insecure since most smallholder farmers cannot afford to buy inputs. However, a number of countries, such as Malawi, have worked with development partners and international NGOs to overcome this problem by providing targeted free inputs to the poorest of the poor.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Centre has been supporting implementation of the Millennium Villages Project (MVP) in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya by providing inputs to increase farmers’ food security. Most resource poor farmers in the Millennium Villages (MV) live on less than a dollar per day, but the provision of agricultural inputs has led to “revolutionary” leaps in maize production. At a national level in Malawi for example, a targeted input programme provided free seed and fertilisers to 70% of all smallholder farmers nearly trebling maize yields (maize production increased from 1.2 MT in 2004 to 5.6 MT in 2007 in Malawi). These dramatic increases in yield have required farmers to put large quantities of maize in storage for use throughout the year but the increase in maize production and subsequent storing has created new challenges, in particular the protection of stored maize from storage pests. There is a risk that much of the production gains will be lost through inadequate or inappropriate storage of maize.

A six week study was carried out in Millennium Villages in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya to assess the extent of maize damage due to storage pests as well as other challenges related to the storage of maize. Millennium Villages are grouped into Millennium Research Villages (MRV) and Scaling up Villages (SuMV), the two are also referred to as MV1 and MV2, respectively. The objective of MRV is to establish the evidence base for implementing proven and practical interventions needed to achieve, or set the path to achieving the MDGs over a five year time frame. On the other hand, SuMVs’ aim is to replicate the interventions that have been proven effective in the MRV. This study covered both the MRVs and SuMVs in each country and discussions were held with farmers from the MVs. In Malawi two discussion groups were held in Mwandama Cluster; one in the Mwandama MRV, and another at Nambande SuMV, both in Zomba District. In addition, one discussion group was held at Gumulira MRV, a more recently established MV in Mchinji District. In Tanzania, discussions were held in Mbola Cluster, specifically at Mbola MRV, and Inonelwa SuMV, with a brief visit to Migumgumelo in Msimba Cluster (SuMV) in Tabola, while in Kenya, the discussions were held in Sauri Cluster, specifically with Sauri MRV, and with farmer representatives from Anyiko, Nyamninia, Jina, Nyawara, Nyandiwa, Gongo, Ramula, Uranga, and Lihanda SuMVs. Apart from Sauri, the rest of the clusters were met in three venues, Gem Hall, Yala Guesthouse, and Bar-Kalare all in Siaya District. In all the MVs in the three countries, selected households were visited to assess their storage facilities and the storage pest status and to discuss their maize storage challenges and opportunities. Key informant discussions were held with government national maize storage experts, maize marketing institutions, storage insecticide providers, and government officials in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya.

This report outlines key activities which were carried out during the consultancy, the findings, analysis and recommendations. However, discussions were mainly held with farmers who are being supported by MVP, but findings can be applied to the rest of the countries. The report outlines/includes the following:

11

Major pests and estimated maize losses due to storage pests •

Losses according to national key informants as well as farmers•

Recommendations from national maize experts are presented in relation to what farmers are actually doing •and any knowledge gaps and/or discrepancies are discussed

Analyses of possible factors that are influencing maize losses to storage pests in all three countries as well as •MV specific factors

A set of short term country specific recommendations as well as some MV specific recommendations that can •be implemented immediately to help alleviate or reduce further losses to maize in storage

Long term recommendations, however, these form the basis for a long term project aimed at addressing •maize storage pests at national and village levels and will involve more stakeholders in addition to MVPs

3. General flow of maize from the producerThe movement of maize throughout Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya takes several routes and consists of various stages, each posing a potential risk for maize to be lost or damaged due to storage pests. In addition to pest challenges, maize growers who do not have adequate storage facilities sell their surplus maize to those equipped with such facilities and in doing so incur additional costs when purchasing maize at a later stage. Thus the importance of analysing maize storage and storage facilities at the farm level is essential. The movement of maize analysed in this study is unique considering the consultancy targeted Millennium Project areas, which are quite different from other maize producing areas and the normal movement of maize. And this will become particularly clear in the case of Malawi and Kenya where the study includes the main maize marketing institutions.

Since maize harvests in Tanzania were quite low this past season, the study mainly concentrates on Kenya and Malawi however Tanzania will have much higher yields this season enabling farmers to harvest, and pay back maize. The flow of maize in Kenya and Malawi is presented in Figs. 1 and 2 below.

3.1 Stages where maize is stored

3.1.1 Home/household

Participating farmers of the MVP contributed two bags of maize in Malawi and Kenya, 50kg and 90kg bags respectively, while Tanzania is expected to contribute a similar amount this coming year. This contribution is approximately 7% of the maize these farmers produce annually leaving approximately 90% to be stored and sold. This proportion appears low due to smallholder farmer’s maize production levels, but maize productivity in the Millennium Villages has increased from almost nothing to an average 6.5 tonnes per ha, which is far above the national average of 1.5 tonnes in Malawi for example. Such increased production brings new challenges to farmers and how maize is stored, which will be discussed in greater detail in section 6.

3.1.2 Community Grain banks/Community Cereal banks

In Malawi and Kenya, substantial maize is received through the MVP pay back scheme; however, Kenya has progressed and some farmers in the Millennium Villages have “weaned off” the scheme and have started buying their own inputs as well as jointly forming Cereal Banks. In Kenya, farmers contribute 90kg bags therefore maize contributions are higher than that of Malawi or Tanzania. The Cereal Banks purchase maize, store it and then sell it at a higher price but Cereal Banks in Kenya, such as the Marenyo Community Cereal Bank, face serious challenges when it comes to storing their maize and lack adequate storage facilities. The Marenyo Community Cereal Bank and other cereal banks have to store their maize at the Cereals and Produce Board storage facilities in Yala at a cost of KSh 5 per 90 kg bag per month and have to pay additional fees for fumigation.

Fig. 1. A large scale community grain bank at Mwandama Millennium Village

12

In Mwandama Malawi, Community Grain Banks are taking a different approach and the MVP is currently constructing a large storage facility (Fig. 1), which will substantially reduce the problem of maize storage at the community level. The facility is hopefully large enough for neighbouring Millennium Villages to use the space to store their contributed maize and in fact farmers in nearby Nambande MV already requested, during the study, the use of the facility.

3.1.3 School storage facilities

Due to lack of adequate storage facilities, a number of schools are used to store maize (mainly untreated) supplied by the community contribution programme. Approximately 2,000 90kg bags of maize are stored across a number of schools with individual schools storing up to 300 bags each. Some of the maize stored at the schools will be used for the school feeding component of the MVP but the maize is not used immediately by the schools, it is stored at the school by teachers who are not trained in maize storage until the MVP is ready to move it to the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB). As a result, this interim or “transit” storage arrangement, often lasting for more than two months, lacks proper care and monitoring and leaves maize susceptible to damage. In some cases, maize harvested in September is still being kept at the school awaiting transportation to the NCPB. Once the maize is received at the NCPB, the MVP allocates maize to the school feeding program and delivers the school feeding portion back to the schools where it often sits for another 3 months or full school term. Both before and after the maize reaches the NCPB, it is kept at the school by those who lack experience in storing maize and in some cases, the schools resort to storing maize in the classrooms, often on the floor, which results in the maize being exposed to a number of storage pests. Furthermore, in many schools maize is stored for the whole community in addition to the maize stored for the school feeding programme and since they do not treat maize, the losses are potentially very high. For example, at the time of writing this report, pay back maize was still being stored at Muhanda and Luri Primary Schools, from the September 2007 harvests, and it is suffering huge storage losses.

3.1.4 Vendors and maize traders

Due to time limitations, the study did not include the vendors, hence not much information in the case of possible quantities of maize stored by this group or stage, even though substantial amount of maize is sold to this group, for example most farmers indicated that they sold more than 50% of their harvested maize, in some cases up to as high as 70%.

3.1.5 The Cereal Boards – the National Food Reserve Agency (Malawi) and the Cereals and Produce Board (Kenya), Agriculture Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) (Malawi)

Even though a substantial amount of maize is stored by these organisations, they are very capable of protecting it from storage pests. In both Malawi and Kenya, they offer maize treating services to smallholder farmers and in Kenya, for a reasonable fee, they offer maize storing and treating services. An example of a fumigated stalk of maize at the ADMARC depot in Malawi is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Maize being fumigated in a mass storage facility at ADMARC Depot in Limbe, Malawi

13

Movement of Maize from the Farm under Millennium Village Arrangement in Kenya

Fig. 3. The flow of maize in Kenya

14

Movement of Maize from the Farm under Millennium Village Arrangement in Malawi

Fig. 4. The flow of maize in Malawi

15

4. Major Pests and their related losses

4.1 Major pestsOne of the main causes of food insecurity in Africa is the high prevalence of storage pests and although maize is an excellent food source for humans, it is also an excellent food source, and an ideal breeding site for storage pests. Pests can be defined as those organisms that cause damage resulting in economic loss to maize and other plants be it in the field or in storage (Haines, 1991). Below are a number of storage pests which were encountered or are present in Malawi, Kenya and Tanzania.

4.1.1 Larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus (Horn))

The Larger grain borer (LGB), which is sometimes referred to as the Greater Grain Borer (GGB), and given names like “scannia”, and “Osama” is the single most serious pest of stored maize and dried cassava roots (chips), and will attack maize in the field just before harvest. The primary host is maize, in particular maize on the cob both before and after harvest. Larger grain borer also bores into non-food substances such as wood, bamboo, and even plastic, which poses a challenge to controlling the pest.

Infestations in maize may start on the mature crop in the field, i.e. when moisture content is at or below 18%. Weight losses of up to 40% have been recorded from maize cobs stored for 6 months (Giles and Leon, 1975). In Tanzania, losses of up to 34% have been observed after 3 months storage of maize on the farm, with an average loss of 8.7% (Hodges et al., 1983). Larger grain borer is a much more damaging pest than other storage insects including Rice weevil, Maize weevil and Angoumois grain moth, under similar conditions. Losses caused by LGB in dried cassava roots can be very high; the dried roots are readily reduced to dust by boring adults and a loss of 70% has been recorded after only 4 months of farm storage (Hodges et al., 1985). Larger grain borer is present in West, East and Southern Africa.

4.1.2 Maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky)

Maize weevil, also called greater grain weevil is the most common pest of stored maize in most African countries. Maize weevil prefers maize, but has also been reported as a pest of cassava, rice, sorghum, and wheat. Minor hosts include taro, soybean, common beans, wheat, adzuki bean and cowpea.

Maize weevil causes substantial losses in maize or sorghum. Attack may start in the mature crop when the moisture content of the grain has fallen to 18-20%. Subsequent infestations in store result from the transfer of infested grain into store or from the pest flying into storage facilities, probably attracted by the odour of the stored grain. Re-use of sacks borrowed from neighbours or traders is a source of Maize weevil. In stored maize heavy infestations may cause weight losses of as much as 30-40%, although losses are commonly 4-5%. The Maize weevil is found in all warm and tropical parts of the world. In Africa it occurs in all sub-regions.

4.1.3 Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier))

The grain moth is a pest of various stored products. Grains affected are maize, oats, barley, rice, pearl millet, rye, sorghum, and wheat. However, the grain moth is often found alongside other pests, with which it may act synergistically. The complex with other storage pests resulted in grain losses of up to 90% in Malawi in varieties of soft grains (Schulten, 1975). In Malawi infestation was found to be caused by a combination of Angoumois grain moth, Maize weevil, and Rice weevil. However, in Zimbabwe, losses in storage were mainly caused by Angoumois grain moth and Maize weevil with losses of 70% in untreated maize.

Angoumois grain moth is found in all sub-Saharan regions of Africa.

4.1.4 Lesser grain weevil (Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus))

The Lesser grain weevil, which is also called the Rice weevil, is an important pest of stored maize, rice, cassava, sorghum, and wheat. It also infests pearl millet, barley, lentil, millets, peas, rye, broad bean, and cowpea.

The Lesser grain weevil is regarded as one of the most destructive primary pests of stored cereals, its voracious feeding on whole grains results in weight loss, fungal growth, and quality loss through an increase in free fatty acids. Its invasion may cause grain heating and may facilitate the establishment of fungal colonies, secondary insect pests, and mites. In maize or sorghum, attack by the Lesser grain weevil may start in the mature crop when the moisture content of the grain has fallen to 18-20%. Subsequent infestations in storage result from the transfer of infested grain into the stores or from the pest flying into storage facilities. In stored maize heavy infestations by the Lesser grain weevil may cause weight losses of up to 30-40%. The Lesser grain weevil, like the maize weevil, is found in all warm and tropical parts of the world, and may also be found in temperate climates.

16

4.1.5 Aflatoxin contamination (Aspergillus flavus Link)

Aflatoxin contamination results from storage rots in maize, groundnut and rice, caused by Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, closely related fungi that contaminate seeds and plant debris of many crops in the field and in storage. Aspergillus flavus produces aflatoxin B1 and B2, whereas A. parasiticus produces G1, G2, and M1. Aflatoxins have been associated with various diseases in livestock, domestic animals and humans throughout the world. The occurrence of aflatoxins is influenced by certain environmental factors; hence the extent of contamination will vary with geographic location, agricultural and agronomic practices, and the susceptibility of commodities to fungal invasion during pre-harvest, storage, and/or processing periods. Aflatoxins have received greater attention than other mycotoxins because of their potent carcinogenic effect in animals and their acute toxicological effects in humans. Aflatoxin contamination also results in export losses since aflatoxin contaminated produce are rejected by importing countries, as has occurred with groundnuts from Malawi.

4.2 Losses caused by major pestsIn most cases, different types of storage pests group together making it virtually impossible to accurately apportion losses from one specific pest to another. Losses are therefore grouped according to information found in the literature (Tables 1a-e), and according to information collected throughout the fieldwork component of the consultancy in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania. These particular losses are grouped according to information from agricultural experts in each respective country (Tables 2-4) and farmers’ own experience (Tables 5 and 6). Farmers’ experiences were collected during discussions in farmer groups at each MV focus group meeting.

4.2.1 Losses from literature

Even though most losses caused by storage pests are difficult to separate, the below are some of the documented losses for different storage pests (Tables 1a-e). These can be compared to actual losses which are experienced and reported by farmers (Tables 5 and 6).

Table 1a. Larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus (Horn))

LOSS SOURCE OF INFORMATION

1. Up to 40% recorded in Nicaragua from maize cobs stored on the farm for 6 months

1. Giles and Leon, 1975

2. In Tanzania, up to 34% losses have been observed after 3 months storage on the farm, with an average loss of 8.7%

2. Hodges et al., 1983

3. In the early days after the arrival of P. truncatus in East Africa, countries with the pest found their maize exports banned. For example in 1987-88, it is estimated that Tanzania lost US$634,000 in export earning. This situation improved following efforts to upgrade phytosanitary procedures in the region but such procedures, involving fumigation, have their own continuing costs

3. Boxall, 2002

Table 1b. Maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) and Lesser grain weevil (Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus))


Heavy infestations of Sitophilus spp. may cause weight losses of as much as 30-40%, although losses are commonly 4-5%.

Arbogast and Throne, 1997

Table 1c. Angoumois grain moth (Sitotraga cerealella (Olivier))


1. Up to 30% 1. Singh and benazet, 1975

2. In Tanzania, a complex of pests was responsible for dry weight loss of 31.8% for maize cobs and 7.85% for grains after 9 months of storage

2. Henckes, 1992

3. After 8 months, damage to untreated grain and grain treated with malathion, pirimiphos-methyl and methacrifos was 76, 36, 17 and 10%, respectively, and the weight losses estimated were approximately 13, 6, 4 and 2%.

3. Giga et al. (1991)

17

Table 1d. The Maize flour beetle (Tribolium sp)


1. They cause extensive damage to grains already damaged as a result of handling during harvest, holed grains, and those damaged by other pests

1. Atanasov, 1977; white, 1982

2. In Nigeria, weight losses of 29.5 and 39.2% were reported in 4.5 months for dried yam chips that had already been in storage for 6 months

2. Adesuyi, 1980

Table 1e. Aflatoxin contamination


1. The incidence of Aflatocin in America in 1976 was 44% for maize from the south-east, and 2.5% for maize from the mid-west

1. Stoloff, 1976

2. During 1977 and 1980, losses to individuals, firms and public expenditures due to aflatoxin contamination of maize in the South-Eastern USA amounted to approximately US$ 200 million and US$ 238 million, respectively

2. Nichols, 1983

3. In Malawi, export losses due to aflatoxins ranged from K 0.16 million in 1988/89 to K 1.58 million in 1985/86 with a mean of K 0.943 million. The export losses in groundnut as a percentage of the trade balance ranged from 0.01% in 1988/89 to 1.77% in 1981/82

3. Babu et al., 1994.

4.2.2 Maize storage losses to pests – information from maize experts and agriculture staff

Losses are also presented as per the experience of national maize storage experts (Table 2).

4.2.2.1 Malawi

Table 2. Maize losses to pests as given by maize experts and agriculture staff in Malawi

PEST LOSS SOURCE OF INFORMATION


1. Up to 40% if maize is treated

2. 80 to 100% if maize is not treated

3. Up to 45% - but no proper estimates done

4. Over 40% nationally

5. In 2007 national loss was at 60%, but losses of up to 100% were experienced

1. Extension personnel in Millennium Villages in Zomba, Malawi

2. Extension personnel in Millennium Villages in Zomba, Malawi

3. The Director of Crops, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

4. Crop Storage Research Officer, Bvumbwe Agriculture Research Station (now transferred to Chitedze R. S.), Malawi – 2005 survey results (unpublished)

5. Deputy Pesticide Registrar, formally a Crop Storage Scientist



3. Angoumois grain moth (Sitotraga cerealella (Olivier))

4. The maize flour beetle (Tribolium spp.)

Losses from LGB seem to mask losses from the other pests, which according to the government officials are far lower than those of LGB

Rats Up to 20% at national level Crop Storage Research Officer, Bvumbwe Agriculture Research Station (now transferred to Chitedze R. S.), Malawi – 2005 survey results (unpublished)

18

4.2.2.2 Tanzania

Table 3. Maize losses to pests as given by maize experts and agriculture staff in Tanzania



1. 30-40% (national) but need to update according to the source

2. 30% (in Tabora)

3. Up to 60% in areas of high LGB infestation

1. Assistant Director, Post – Harvest Management Services, National Food Security Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives

2. District Plant Protection Officer and District Agriculture and Livestock Officer, Tabora District, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives

3. The Principal Research Officer, Post Harvest Entomologist, Tropical Pesticide Research Institute, Arusha, Tanzania



3. Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier))

4. The Maize grain beetle (Tribolium spp.)

Losses from LGB seem to mask losses from the other pests, which according to the government officials are far lower than those of LGB

4.2.2.3 Kenya

Table 4. Maize losses to pests as given by maize experts and agriculture staff in Kenya



1. Up to 100% if maize is not treated

2. Up to 30% if produce is not stored for a long time

3. about 30% from all storage pests

4. 20 to 25% when treated; and 100% when untreated the first 3 to 4 months

1. The Crop Storage Scientist, Kenya Agriculture Research Institute, National Agriculture Research Laboratories, Nairobi, Kenya

2. Provincial Agriculture Officer, Kisumu, Kenya

3. The District Agriculture Officer, Siaya District, Kenya

4. The Agriculture Coordinator, MVP, Kisumu, Kenya



3. Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier))

4. The Maize grain beetle (Tribolium spp.)

The rest of the pests cause up to 20% if stored for 6 months, and 30% if LGB is present – figures from experiments (2002 to 2003), but detailed loss studies are needed

The Crop Storage Scientist, Kenya Agriculture Research Institute, National Agriculture Research Laboratories, Nairobi, Kenya

19

Maize storage losses as experienced by farmers

Farmer’s quantified maize losses in relation to 10 bags of maize, whether they were treated or untreated and length of time stored i.e. 3, 6, and 12 months. In Kenya where a larger proportion of farmers were using ash from different sources, the exercise included loss to ash treated maize as well. The exercise was done in groups ranging from three to six at each site. Results are presented as percent of 10 bags, but were originally given in terms of a fraction of a bag or whole bags. In Tabora, Tanzania, a group of farmers included what they have been experiencing in relation to two different varietal types, local and hybrids, and in relation to treating maize with modern insecticides, ash and not treating the maize. Results are presented in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5. Maize losses in storage due to storage pests as per the farmers’ experiences with losses from storage insect pests.

COUNTRY MILLENNIUM VILLAGE

PERIOD OF STORING 10 BAGS (MONTHS)

PROPORTION OF MAIZETHAT COULD BE LOST DURING STORAGE (% OF 10 BAGS)

COMMENTS

Treated Untreated

Malawi Mwandama 3 months 2.0 38.0

6 months 7.0 54.0

12 months 32.0 100.0

Nambande 3 months 12.0 26.0

6 months 28.0 61.0

12 months 54.0 97.0

Tanzania Inonelwa 3 months 3.3 17.3

6 months 11.7 36.7

12 months 20.0 83.3

Mbola 3 months 3.8 17.3

6 months 11.3 36.7

12 months 23.8 83.3

Kenya Nyawara, Nyandiwa, and Gongo (at Gem Hall)

3 months 0.3 (0) 16.3 Figures in brackets under treated represent loss if maize was treated with ash

6 months 5.1 (4.4) 47.2

12 months 10.3 (16.0) 77.8

Table 6. Additional information for Tanzania on Maize losses in storage due to storage pests as per the farmers’ experiences with losses from storage insect pests.

Millennium Village in Tanzania

Period of storage (months)

% (Out Of Ten Bags) loss if maize if Treated with if Untreated (% Loss Out Of Ten Bags)Ash Actellic

Local maize Hybrid maize



Migungumelo 3 0 30 0 30 30 60

Tabora 6 20 60 20 60 70 100

Tanzania 12 100 100 100 100 100 100

20

5. Official recommendations and current strategies for management of pestsRecommendations and management strategies formed an integrated approach to the management of storage pests in all the three countries, Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania. The recommendations and management strategies included:

5.1 General recommendations and management strategies Early maize harvesting (at physiological maturity) to limit field infestation•

Use of new bags or spraying bags with Actellic 50EC to kill LGB and other storage pests and their eggs•

Store hygiene, i.e. getting rid of old maize before storing the new maize in the stores, and spraying the walls of •maize stores with Actellic 50EC

Treating maize with storage insecticides. There was a small variation in types and rates among the three •countries, but most of the insecticides were common. Method of mixing was also similar. These will be outlined below

Use of botanicals – only Tanzania had a list of recommended botanicals•

Use of diatomaceous earth (DE) – DEs only form part of the control strategy in Tanzania. They were not •mentioned in Malawi and Kenya although DEs are available in Kenya

Proper storage structures •

Frequent inspection of the grain, re-drying and re-treating if infested •

Use of biological control - involves use of live natural enemies or antagonists of the pest, for example •Teretrius nigrescens (TN) used for the control of LGB as part of an integrated control strategy.

These recommendations and management strategies will be presented in detail below.

5.1.1 Early maize harvesting and drying

5.1.1.1 Harvesting

Maize should be harvested at physiological maturity to limit infestation by storage pests in the field. If maize is infested in the field, it is difficult to control pests in storage because the eggs and the insect pests are already buried inside the grain and cannot be killed by all dust insecticides, which act on contact. Only fumigants can control such infestations.

5.1.1.2 Drying Techniques

Maize should be properly dried to 13% moisture content (MC) in order for dust insecticides to work properly. Even though farmers do not have moisture metres, they can determine if maize is dry by biting it (if hard then it is dry) or using the salt test. This works by putting maize grains in a bottle, adding table salt and closing the lid tightly on the bottle. If the maize is fully dry, the salt will remain free flowing, however, if the maize is not dry, then the salt will absorb moisture and stick to the wall of the bottle.

5.1.1.3 Drying Cribs

In Malawi, after harvesting maize at physiological maturity, the use of drying cribs (Fig.5a and b) was recommended for drying maize. However, this method was not emphasised in Tanzania and Kenya. Proper drying on plastic, tent material, mats and smeared drying grounds were also mentioned. Cribs come in different variations, but the one in Fig. 5(a), is the one currently recommended in Malawi.

Fig. 5. Drying cribs – (a) Recommended but need to be thatched to prevent spoilage of maize from rain water); (b) a different variation of a drying crib

21

5.1.1.4 Maize treatment for storing

Government officials in all three countries recommended that chemical based insecticides must be: 1) thoroughly mixed and 2) applied to properly dried maize under shaded conditions. Rates of mixing the maize are presented below (Tables 7a to 9). Information on available insecticides and management strategies were also collected from pesticide dealers.

5.2 Insecticides recommended for treating maize for storage:

5.2.1 Kenya

5.2.1.1 From Maize Storage Research Team

Table 7a. Storage insecticides recommended by the national maize storage experts in Kenya

INSECTICIDE RATE AND METHOD OF APPLICATION

COMMENTS

Actellic Super 50g mixed with 90kg of maize No infestation for 6 months if treated properly, e.g. though mixing of dried maize under shade

Spintor Dust 50g mixed with 90kg of maize Complaints from farmers of infestation even after 1-2 months

Scanner Super 50g mixed with 90kg of maize

Malpa Dust 50g mixed with 90kg of maize

5.2.1.2 From Agro dealers

Table 7b. Storage insecticides being sold by Farm Choice Agro-Vet, Kisumu


PRICE (KSH)

COMMENTS

Actellic Super Dust 50g mixed with 90kg of maize

500 per Kg •Appliedafterevery3months.

•Tobeappliedbeforekernelsareinternallyinfested

Spintor Dust 50g mixed with 90kg of maize

1200 per Kg

•Appliedevery6monthsofstorage


Scanner Super 50g mixed with 90kg of maize

370 per kg •Appliedafterevery3months

• Canbeappliedwhenthereisseriousinternalkernel infestation

Gastoxin (store fumigant) 1 tablet per tonne of maize

•Fumiganttobeusedinthemaizestore

•Repeatdoseafter3monthsofstorage

•Storeshouldbeairtight,awayfrommainhouse

22

Table 7c. Storage insecticides being sold by Mwanga agro-Vet, Kisumu


PRICE (KSH) COMMENTS

Actellic Super 50g mixed with 90kg of maize

•200gfortreatingonly4 bags selling at KSh130

•500gisgoingatKSh240

•1kgsellsatKSh340

•Reappliedafter1monthofstorage

Sumi combi 50g mixed with 90kg of maize

•Reappliedafter1monthofstorage


Super Grain Dust

50g mixed with 90kg of maize

•370perkg

•WholesalepriceatJuanco Chemicals is KSh275 (Juanco Chemicals are the source of the insecticide)

•Reapplied6monthsofstorage

•AdvicefromJuancoChemicals

grain should not be used until after 2-3 •months from time of treating the maize

effective for over 6 months•

•scoutandretreatifinfested

Actellic Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC)

•Mostlyusedtodisinfectstoragebags,storesand at times sprayed direct to maize

5.2.2 Malawi

5.2.2.1 From research experts and the Pesticide Control Board

Table 8a. Storage insecticides recommended by the national maize storage experts in Malawi

NSECTICIDE RATE AND METHOD OF APPLICATION

COMMENTS

Actellic Super Dust 25g for 50 kg of maize To be thoroughly mixed with shelled maize

Actellic Super EC 25 ml in 10 l of water for spraying 10 to 20 bags of 50 kg each

Super Guard Dust 25g for 50 kg of maize To be thoroughly mixed with shelled maize

Super Guard EC 25 ml in 10 l of water for spraying 10 to 20 bags of 50 kg each

Shumba Super Dust 25 g for 50 kg of maize To be thoroughly mixed with shelled maize

Chikala Super Dust 25 g for 50 kg of maize To be thoroughly mixed with shelled maize

Novartellic EC 25 ml in 10 l of water for spraying 10 to 20 bags of 50 kg each

Spintor Dust 75 g for 50 kg maize To be thoroughly mixed with shelled maize

Delta Force Dust 25 g for 50 kg of maize To be thoroughly mixed with shelled maize

Fumigant (Fostoxin) For fumigating maize in mudded granaries, metal bins and silos, and cemented granaries

23

5.2.2.2 From Agro dealers

Table 8b. Storage insecticides being sold by Farmers World in Blantyre

INSECTICIDE COMMON NAME RATE AND METHOD OF APPLICATION

PRICE (MALAWI KWACHA)

COMMENTS

Target Actellic Supper

Pirimiphos mythyl + Pemithrin

25 g per 50 kg maize or beans or pigeon peas

K182 per 200g (US$1.28 per 200g)

To be properly mixed with shelled maize

Spintor Dust 37.5g per 50kg of maize

K410 per 300g To be properly mixed with shelled maize

Noveltellic Super EC

20 ml to 1 l of water to 500 kg of maize

Or 40 ml to 2 litres of water to spray 1 tonne of maize

K2800 per l •Sprayingwithapropersprayershouldbe done under shade

•Nodryinginthesun(onlyundershade) after spraying

•Provides6-9monthofprotectiontomaize against all storage pests

Shumba Dust 25 g per 50 kg maize or beans or pigeon peas. This translates to 200g for 8 bags (50kg)

K320 per 200 g •Tobeproperlymixedwithshelledmaize

•Ratedasthebestbythecompany

Table 8c. Storage insecticides being sold by Chemicals and Marketing in Lilongwe


PRICE (MALAWI KWACHA)

COMMENTS

Super Guard Dust


25 g per 50 kg maize or beans or pigeon peas

K305 per 200g wholesale price

K355 per 200g retail price

Super Guard EC


200ml for 10 tonnes of maize

K1330 per 200ml wholesale price

K1600 per 200ml retail price

Fumaphose, Quickphose, Phostoxin

Aluminium Phosphite

6 tablets for 1 tonne of maize under tarpaulin

K1900 for 330 tablets wholesale price

K2295 for 330 tablets retail price

•CancontroleggsandlarvaeofLGBespecially when maize is infested in the field

•Fumigant

•Verytoxic

•Thecompanyisnotsureregardinggovernment policy whether small-scale farmers can use it

•Allowedtousebygraintradersandlarge scale producers who can use trained applicators

•Noresidualprotection

24

Table 8d. Other storage products being sold by Chemicals and Marketing in Lilongwe

PRODUCT ESTIMATED PRICE PHOTO DESCRIPTION

Super Grain Bag US$3 per bag •Aspecialbagforstoring50kgmaizeandis capable of suffocating any storage pests during storage – no need for treating the maize

•TheeffectivenesshasnotbeentestedinMalawi, but it is being introduced into the country and was originally tested by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) for storing rice

Cocoon US$3000 for 300 t •Notsureoftheprice

•Canbeusedforlargescalestorage

•Workslikesupergrainbag

5.2.3 Tanzania

5.2.3.1 From national research (TPRI) and government maize storage experts

Table 9. Storage insecticides recommended by the national maize storage experts in Tanzania


COMMENTS

Actellic Super Dust Pirimiphos Methyl 1.6% + Permethrin 0.3%

100g per 90kg LGB , maize weevils, storage moths, red Flour Beetle, Bean Bruchid

Shumba Super Dust Deltamethrin 0.13% + Fenitrothion 1.0%


Actellic EC Primiphos – methyl and Permethrin

For treating the stores only

Super Grain Dust Bifenthrin 100g per 90kg LGB , maize weevils, storage moths, red Flour Beetle, Bean Bruchid

Stocal Super Dust Pirimiphos Methyl 1.6% + Permethrin 0.3%


Nafaka Super Dust Fenitrothion 1.7% + Permethrin 0.3%

50g per 90kg maize LGB , maize weevils, storage moths, red Flour Beetle, Bean Bruchid

Sprintol Dust Pyrethrin 0.1% 100/90kg LGB , maize weevils, storage moths, red Flour Beetle, Bean Bruchid

Diatomaceous Earth (DE)

Silica 250g per 90kg maize

5.3 Maize storage structures

5.3.1 Bags

Bags or sacks are generally the most common method of storing maize and in Malawi; bags have a capacity of 50 kg while in Kenya and Tanzania bags have a capacity of 90 kg. Synthetic poly bags are currently the most popular while gunny bags are both rare and more expensive. The following is a summary of recommendations regarding the use of bags or sacks in order to reduce the amount of storage pests (Table 10):

25

Table 10. Summary of recommendations regarding use of bags in all the three countries

COUNTRY RECOMMENDATION ON BAGS GENERAL FOR ALL

Kenya Use new bags, and spray in and outside the used bags with Actellic Super EC

Store maize filled bags on a raised platform e.g. made of wood or poles, and should be kept away from the wall

Tanzania Spray used bags with Actellic Super

Malawi Boil the used sacks in hot water and dry properly before re-use

5.3.2 Stores

Brick constructed stores are also used for storing bags of maize and are ideal for fumigating maize since they are situated far from the household but stores are uncommon since they are costly and susceptible to break-ins and theft. Bricks can be removed from the stores giving thieves easy access to the stored maize. Stores were observed in Tanzania and Kenya, but none were observed in Malawi. The use of the storage facilities will be discussed further under the “what farmers are actually doing” section below.

5.3.3 Traditional Granaries

Granaries are normally made of sticks and are common storage structures in most African countries. Stores should be: 1) smeared with mud inside and out in order to prevent damage from LGB, 2) covered with a roof in order to keep rain water off and 3) built well off the ground with rat guards attached to the poles supporting the platform (Figs. 6a and b). Granaries are normally built outside the house but due to security concerns, many are built inside the house as was in some homes in the Millennium Villages in Tanzania and Kenya.

5.3.4 Improved granaries/cribs

Improved granaries or cribs are a major improvement over the traditional granaries. The platform is made of a brick structure, and cement is used for plastering inside and outside, instead of mud, giving the twig/stick woven structure (some improved granaries are made from brick) increased durability (Fig 7). The improved structure also has a door for removing maize grain and a better ventilation system due to the insertion of a plastic pipe and an improved granary can also support fumigation of grains under supervision of trained personnel. Even though improved granaries were recommended in Malawi adoption is almost zero and none were observed in Kenya or Tanzania. One granary was constructed at Mwandama Millennium Research Village, and one was seen in rural Lilongwe built under the Sasakawa 2000 project.

Fig. 6. Non mudded (a) and mudded (b) granaries (right)

Fig.7. Improved granaries/cribs (cemented types)

26

5.3.5 Small Metal silos/drums

Small metal silos are ideal for storing maize at smallholder farmer level (Fig. 8). Small silos have different capacities, the lowest holding 5 bags, and can be sealed after loading thus suffocating any insect pests in the grain. Silos can also be kept inside the house, which can mitigate theft. The following recommendations apply when using metal silos:

Off the Ground• - keep silos off the ground and away from the wall

Dried Before Stored• - maize should be dried and tested before stored

Kept away from the Roof• - to avoid overheating of grain

Stored for 2 Months• - maize should be stored for a minimum of 2 months

• Remove and Reseal - maize should be removed quickly, and the silo re-sealed to prevent excess air getting in when removing part of the maize

• Remove from Outlet - grain should be removed from the outlet section only – not the top in order to create a vacuum

Examples of small metal silos are those developed by the Tropical Pesticide Research Institute (TPRI) in Arusha, Tanzania are presented in Fig. 8.

5.3.6 Community metal silos

Large silos (Fig. 9) are ideal for community storage because of their capacity, ranging from 500kg to 1800kg, to store larger amounts of grain. Large silos work on the same principle as the small metal silos; both are made from flat metal sheets, and should be air tight and shaded in order to prevent overheating of the grain and sudden temperature fluctuation. National scale silos are not discussed because they are beyond the scope of this study – the study targeted small scale farmers and community maize storage in order to help farmers save their maize from storage pests.

5.3.7 Community Grain Stores

Community grain stores (Fig. 10) are large storage buildings with the capacity for fumigating and storing tonnes of maize as such as those used by grain marketing organizations. Examples of brick and iron sheeted community grain stores are shown in Fig. 10.

5.3.8 Costs of the different storage structures (where available)

A summary of costs of different storage structures are presented in Table 11.

Fig. 10. Some large scale storage buildings (left = brick type, and right = one constructed from iron sheets) which can be used for community grain storage

Fig. 9. Community metal silos

Fig. 8. Small scale metal silos - standard (left), and collapsible (right)

27

Table 11. Costs of different storage structures

STORAGE STRUCTURE COST

Bags •US$0.65forsyntheticpolybags

•US$1.6forjutebags

Stores •Notknown

Traditional Granaries •AboutUS$10

Improved granaries/cribs •US$250for2tonnecapacity

•US$500fora5tonnecapacity

Small Metal silos •US$110

Community metal silos •US$250for0.5tonnecapacity

•US$400for1.8tonnecapacity

Community Grain Stores •Costnotknown

28

6. Knowledge Gaps: Discrepancies between Experts, Farmers and Millennium VillagesThis section presents what farmers are doing in the field in relation to the production and storage of maize and will reveal the knowledge gaps between: 1) experts/officials and farmers, 2) different Millennium Villages and 3) sources of information on storage technologies. This section starts with the varieties farmers are planting to their preferred and actual maize storage facilities.

6.1 Maize varieties and storage pestsA large number of maize varieties, whose seed is mainly provided by MVP staff, are being grown in the Millennium Villages in Malawi, Tanzania, and Kenya but participating farmers, after growing the varieties, would like a stronger say in the varieties provided by the MVP. In Malawi for example, farmers did not want to grow variety DK8073 since it was getting infested by storage pests right in the field.

Maize varieties fall into two categories: 1) hybrids (mostly dent types) and 2) local (open pollinated) which are flint. In discussion with farmers, many stated that some of the hybrids, particularly the more flint types which are poundable, are also more tolerant to storage pests. It was also found that “local” varieties are more tolerant than hybrids and in some cases farmers sold most of their harvests from hybrid growing, but kept the “local” maize.

The range of varieties grown by the visited Millennium Villages is presented in the Table 11 below. Some preference of the different maize types given and reasons for their preference are also given in the Table 12.

Table 12. A list of varieties grown by farmers in the different Millennium Villages and their preferred varieties and reasons for preference

MILLENNIUM VILLAGES (VILLAGES MET)

VARIETIES GROWN IN MILLENNIUM VILLAGES

VARIETIES PREFERRED

COMMENTS

Mwandama Research Village, Zomba Malawi

•SC627(Hybrid)

•SC403(Hybrid)

•SC407(Hybrid)

SC627 •Toleranttostoragepests

•Poundable

Nambande Millennium Village, Zomba, Malawi

•DK8033(Hybrid)

•DK8051(Hybrid)

•DK8031(Hybrid)

•DK8073(Hybrid)

•Pan67(Hybrid)

•Local

1. DK 8073

2. Pan 67

3. Local

DK 8073

Gumulira Research Village, Mchinji, Malawi

•DK8033(Hybrid)

•DK8031(Hybrid)

•Local

•DK8033(Hybrid) It is not affected by weevils in the field

Inonelwa Millennium Village, Ibiri Cluster, Tabora, Tanzania

•Pannar

•DK

•SeedCo

•Ukiriguru

•Ironga

•Katumani

•Katumbiri–Local

•Kiluna

•Shituka

•QualityProteinMaize

DK (hybrid) •Duetohighyields

•Windresistant

•Goodtaste

•Earlymaturing

29

Mbola Research Village, Tabora, Tanzania

•Katumbiri

•Pannar

•DK

•SeedCo

•Ukiriguru

•Ironga

•Katumani

•Katumbiri–Local

•Kilima

•Kaguha

•Yanga–Yellowmaize

•Gembe-RedMaize

•Shituka

•QualityProteinMaize

•Kilima(OPV)–grown by 12 out of 32 people

•Ituka–grownby7out of 32 people

•Katumbiri(Local)-early maturing grown by 30 out of 32 people

•Ukiriguru–grownby 2 out of 32 people

•DK–grownbyall32 farmers

•Panner–grownby6 out of 32 people

•Reasonsincludeavailabilityofseed

•Highyielding

•Earlymaturing

•Droughtresistant

•Easiertomill

•Littleflourproducesbig“Ugali”

Nyawara, Nyandiwa, and Gongo (at Gem Hall), Siaya, Kenya

Western 403, 502 and 505

Duma

Pannar

Pioneer

Local white

Local yellow

Local spotted

Kenya Seed 513

Western 502, and 505

•Western403–15outof27peopleindicated it was more tolerant to storage pests

•505-7outof27peopleindicateditismore tolerant

•Hybrid614–all6peoplewhogrewitbefore stated that it is more tolerant

•505issweetwhenroasted,doublecobber– high yielding

Ramula, Uranga, and Lihanda (at Bar-Kalare), Siaya, Kenya

Western 403, 502, and 505

Duma

DK Monsanto

Pannar

Nyamula – local yellow

Local white

Pioneer

Maseno double cobber

Western seeds 403 and 502

•Theygivebigcobs,highyield,matureearly

•403doesnotroteasily

•502isnoteatenbymonkeys,anditistolerant to striga

•403istoleranttostoragepests

30

Sauri Western 403, 502, and 505

Duma

Monsanto

Ababari – local

Local yellow

Local white

Pioneer

Western 505

Ababari, Duma, and local yellow

Western 505:

•Itistoleranttostoragepestsamongthehybrids, but only for a month

•Hasenclosedcob

•Bigcob

•Sparklingwhilecolour

•Highyielding

•Windresistant

Local Yellow maize is most tolerant

Ababari is second most tolerant

6.2 Maize harvesting processesHarvesting processes include direct harvesting in farm, by shelling and removing the cob only while leaving the maize sheath on the maize plant which would be cut later, cutting the maize plants and stooking (Fig.11) them so that the cobs are removed at a later date (after some drying of the maize in the field). Even though this is a common practice in Tanzania, farmers confirmed presence of storage pests on maize while still stooked in the field. Common maize harvesting practices have been summarised (Table 13).

Table13 . Summary of maize harvesting practices

MILLENNIUM VILLAGE HARVESTING METHOD REMARKS

Mwandama Research Village, Zomba, Malawi

Stooking and Direct harvesting

The maize is stooked in the field after cutting the stems near the ground level, and direct harvesting is carried out by removing the inside cob (without the sheath) from a maize plant. The remaining maize plant is removed later. The stooked maize is harvested the same day to avoid theft and damage by termites


Maize is shelled the same day it is harvested from the garden

Direct harvesting of the cob – dehusked and carried home for drying for at least two weeks on the floor, mat, plastic papers. Some farmers stook just to make sure all the maize is harvested, and remove the cobs right away – same day.


Stooking Temporary stooking, just to make sure all the maize is harvested. Cobs are removed the same day without husks


•Stooking(63%)

•Shellsdirectanddriesat home (37%)

Maize stays in the field after stooking for two months before shelling it. By the end of the two months the maize is dry.

Those who shell direct from the maize plant in the field dry the maize at home.


•Stooking(47%)

•Directharvesting(53%)

Stooking takes one to two months in the field

Fig.11. Stoked maize before harvesting – a common practice in Inonelwa Millennium Village, Tabora, Tanzania

31

Nyawara, Nyandiwa, and Gongo (at Gem Hall)

Cut and stook (35 out of 40)

Direct farm harvesting (5 out of 40)

When the stovers have turned brownish, they are cut and stoked for 1week on the farm then transported home. Cobs are removed, dehusked then dried at home until the kernels begin to separate from each other then hand shelled. The shelled grains are then dried further for another 1week and dryness is confirmed by hand tossing the grains and when they make a ringing metallic sound then they are dry for treatment and storage.

For direct harvesting the farmers wait until the cobs begin to droop downwards as a sign of being dry then harvest by dehusking, take home, dry for 1week. Maize are then sorted according to size and presence/absence of pests on them. Big grains shelled by hand while smaller ones are shelled by beating the cobs in a bag with stick.

Anyiko, Nyamninia, and Jina.(at Yala Guest House)

Cut and stook

Cut and carry home(1)

Cut and dehusk at home(21)

Direct harvest(3)

Stooking for 2-3 days, dehusk and carry home. Cobs dried for 2-3 days, shelled then dried further for 4 days.

After reaching physiological maturity, the stovers ate cut, transported home, dehusked and cobs laid in rakes within the house where they dry for 4-5 days. Sorts according to size and presence of pests on cobs. Shell then dries for 3-4 days; keep in the open for 2 days before storing.

Dehusk while the stover is left standing,dry the cob for 4 days at home,sort the cobs according to their grades and size.

Ramula, Uranga, and Lihanda (at Bar-Kalare)

Cut and stook Cut halfway, stooked at home for 1-2 weeks, dehusked and dry for 1week.Hand shelled then dry for4days to 1week depending on the sun intensity. Treated then stored.

Sauri Direct harvesting

Cuts and stooks

Stooking and Direct harvesting

Cobs detached from the stovers, dehusk then transported home where they are dried till the kernels begin to separate from each other. Shelled and dried for 1week, treated then stored.

The cut stovers are stooked in the farm for 1week, cobs dried for 2-3 days, shelled and dried further for about 1week.

If a farmer has enough labour then harvests directly other will always stook.The drying period is normally 3-4 days if there is enough sunshine otherwise it rakes 1½-2weeks in chilly weather for both cobbed and shelled maize.

6.3 Pre-storage structuresThe most common pre-storage structures are drying cribs (Fig. 12), which come in a variety of shapes and sizes. They are mainly used for drying maize and are particularly common in the tropics where temperatures are high during the harvesting periods. Drying cribs are designed to let air in and facilitate drying of maize before shelling, which on average takes up to two moths. Maize is kept in the drying cribs on the cob with husks removed.

In spite of the importance of drying cribs, they were rare among farmers visited throughout the study other than a few villages in Malawi such as Mwandama and Nambande where a number of households had built drying cribs. Interestingly, drying cribs were rare among the farmers visited in Gumulira. The farmers’ explanation was that their maize was eaten by goats while drying in the cribs but this was due to the way the cribs were constructed. Fig. 13 below shows a drying crib constructed under a tobacco drying shed, which limits the height of the crib exposing it to grazing goats.

In Tanzania one farmer in Mbola constructed his own maize drying structure which is a hybrid model between cribs and platforms (Fig13).

32

6.4 Storage structures

6.4.1 Use of bags (sacks)

Bags are the most common maize storage facility in all Millennium Villages in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya and they are preferred over all other storage structures because maize in bags can be stored inside the house making them less susceptible to theft. Some farmers in Inonelwa, Ibiri Cluster, Tabora, Tanzania, used stores which are built near the main house. The most common bags in all Millennium Villages were synthetic, and in Kenya farmers preferred jute bags (Fig. 14, right) which may not be punctured and damaged by LGB unlike synthetic bags.

An Agro dealer in Malawi, Chemicals and Marketing, introduced “Super Grain Bags” (Fig. 14, left) which apparently can suffocate pests in storage but whether or not the bag can be punctured by LGB has yet to be determined

6.4.2 Traditional cribs/granaries

Traditional granaries, residing outside the house, are very common in the Millennium Villages in Malawi (Fig. 15a). In Tanzania, granaries were often found inside the house as a way to prevent theft (Fig. 15b). Common storage structures were fist bags followed by woven baskets then drums, which were mainly found in Kenya.

6.4.3 Improved granaries

Improved granaries have a capacity of up to 5 tonnes and are ideal for storing large quantities of maize; especially by medium scale farmers and/or close family members (Fig. 16 ). In the Millennium Villages of Malawi, a number of farmers were able to harvest more than 2 tonnes of maize, and could therefore easily utilise the smaller versions of the improved granaries. Even though improved granaries were constructed in Mwandama in Malawi they have yet to be fully embraced because farmers stated they were too expensive to construct. But farmers have expressed interest in building improved granaries if the MVP contributes cement and the farmers all other building materials. No improved granaries were built in the Millennium Villages of Kenya and Tanzania.

Fig. 15. (a) Traditional granaries in Malawi (first two) and (b) inside a house in Tanzania (far right)

Fig. 14. Super grain bag (left) and a Hessian bag (right)

Fig. 12. A non thatched drying crib Fig.13. A version of a drying crib which was constructed under a tobacco shade in Gumulira Village (left), and a drying structure constructed by a farmer in Mbola Millennium Research Village (right)

Fig. 16. An improved granary

33

6.4.4 Small Metal silos/Drums

Small Metal silos which carry about half a tonne of maize, though ideal for storing maize even without treating with insecticides are not used in all the Millennium Villages in the three countries visited. They are however available at the TPRI in Arusha, Tanzania, and the team at the institute indicated that they are used in Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania. The small metal silos were introduced in Kenya, but were not adopted. Interestingly, two farmers, a lady in Nyandiwa Millennium Village, and a man in Sauri MRV are using drums for storing their maize (Fig. 17). They both claimed they store maize for as long as two years. No large scale community metal silos are being used in the MVs. The community metal silos were launched this year in Malawi.

6.4.5 Summary of storage structures in the different Millennium Villages

Below (Table 14) is a summary of storage structures being used in the MVs which were visited in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya. Of particularly interest is the fact that most people use synthetic bags.

Table 14. Number and proportion of farmers using the different storage structures in the respective Millennium Villages


COMMON MAIZE STORAGE STRUCTURES

N0. USING EACH STORAGE STRUCTURE

TOTAL NO. FARMERS WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING

PERCENT (%) USING EACH TYPE OF STORAGE STRUCTURE

COMMENTS

Malawi Mwandama Synthetic bags

27 27 100

Traditional granary

8 27 30 Treating with tobacco stems or tephrosia leaves

Gumulira Synthetic bags

45 45 100

Traditional granary

45 45 100

Nambande Synthetic bags

34 43 80

Traditional granary

39 43 90

Platform 6 43 14

Pot 4 43 9

Tanzania

Inonelwa Synthetic bags

19 19 100

Granary 1 19 5

Tree bark1 1 19 5 Kept in the house

Mbola Synthetic bags

31 31 100


Drums 6 43 14

Fig. 17. A type of a two hundred litre drum being used for storing maize in Kenya

34

Synthetic bags

30 43 70

Traditional granary

1 43 2.3 Kept in the house

Clay pots 1 43 2.3


Synthetic bags

28 39 71.8

Metallic drums 3 39 7.9

Woven baskets

1 39 2.6


Drums 4 12 33

Synthetic bags

7 12 58

Traditional granary

1 12 8

Sauri Synthetic bags

8 13 62

Drums 2 13 15

Granary 1 13 8

Pot 1 13 8

Note:

1 A type of a tree bark maize storing structure kept inside the house (left), and the type of tree the bark is taken from (second and far left)

6.5 Treatment of grain by farmersTreating maize grain with insecticides is a crucial method for controlling storage pests and fortunately, all the farmers who attended study discussions in Mwandama, Nambande and Mbola MV’s said they were using insecticides. But this was not the case in all villages where the proportion was much lower and in Gumulira for example, insecticide use was as low as 21%. Apart from Gumulira, most villages used traditional methods such as ash and wild plants rather than insecticides (Table15).

35

Table 15. Number and proportion of farmers using the different maize treatment insecticides in the respective Millennium Villages


INSECTICIDE USED

NUMBER OF PEOPLE USING EACH INSECTICIDE

NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS USING EACH INSECTICIDE OR TREATMENT (%)

REMARKS

Malawi Mwandama Modern insecticides (e.g. Actellic super)

27 27 100 The farmers indicated that they all use insecticides even though it might not be the right doses

Nambande Modern insecticides (

45 45 100 The farmers indicated that they all use insecticides even though it might not be the right doses


Modern insecticides

9 43 21 79% did not use any insecticides, giving financial shortage as one of the reasons. They instead mill their maize (to remove the seed coat) and store

Tanzania Inonelwa Modern insecticides

16 18 89

Traditional insecticides

2 18 11

Mbola Actellic super dust

10 32 31

Actellic E C 3 32 9

Local remedies (e.g. a local wild tuber (Mavumangizo)) – see photograph under comments

32 32 100

Fumigant tablets

2 32 6


Actellic super dust

12 43 27.9

Scanar super dust

1 43 2.3

Ash 26 43 60.5

36


Actellic super dust

8 39 20.5

Cow dung ash 11 39 28.2

Bean plant ash 2 39 5.1

Maize cob + Cow dung ash

2 39 85.1

Tephrosia candida

1 39 2.6

Not treating 15 39 38.5


Actellic Super Dust – using sachet, one for 4 bags costing Ksh120

3 12 25

Ash – one big cup for one bag of maize

8 12 66.7

Sauri Insecticides 5 13 38.5

Ash 7 13 56.8

Ash + Insecticide

2 13 15.4

37

7. ANALYSIS

7.1 Importance of maize storage in Malawi, Tanzania and KenyaMaize is harvested once a year in Tanzania and Malawi and even though Kenya has a bimodal rainfall system; maize produced during the minor rainfall season is insignificant. With harvesting mainly occurring once a year, large quantities of maize need to be stored in order to meet the maize demand throughout the year. Most farmers however, are unable to store all of their subsistence maize due to lack of storage facilities and fear of losing their maize to storage pests therefore they sell most of their maize only to have to buy back the maize at a later date and at a much higher price than they sold it for. In most cases the price differential between the selling and buying prices could easily offset storage costs, particularly if they were to use insecticides and treated or new bags (Table 16).

Table 16. Amount of money farmers would save if they treated their maize with insecticides and store in the different Millennium Villages – assuming losses would be negligible if the maize is properly treated and stored


MAIZE BUYING PRICE (ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER HARVEST)

(PRICE PER BAG)

A

MAIZE SELLING PRICE AT HARVEST

(PRICE PER BAG)

B

PRICE DIFFERENTIAL

(PRICE PER BAG)

(A-B)

COST OF INSECTICIDES PLUS LABOUR FOR TREATING ONE BAG

C

COST OF A NEW EMPTY BAG

D

MONEY SAVED PER BAG IF THEY STORED THEIR MAIZE

[(A-B)–(C+D)]

Malawi Mwandama K2,250 K500 K1,750 K91 K70 K1,589

Nambande K2,250 K500 K1,750 K91 K70 K1,589

Gumulira K2,250 K900 K1,350 K70 K70 K1,210

Tanzania Inonelwa TSh42,000 TSh18,000 TSh24,000 TSh3,000 TSh600 TSh20,400

Mbola TSh42,000 TSh18,000 TSh24,000 TSh2,500 TSh700 TSh20,800

Kenya Nyawara, Nyandiwa, and Gongo

KSh2,400 KSh1,000 KSh1,400 KSh70 KSh50 KSh1,280

Anyiko, Nyamninia, and Jina

KSh2,400 KSh800 KSh1,600 KSh50 KSh50 KSh1,500

Ramula, Uranga, and Lihanda

KSh2,400 KSh1,000 KSh1,400 KSh50 KSh50 KSh1,300

Sauri KSh2,400 KSh1,000 KSh1,400 KSh95 KSh50 KSh1,255

38

Exchange rates:

1. Malawi Kwacha: K141 = US$1

2. Tanzanian Shilling: TSh1200 = US$1

3. Kenyan Shilling: KSh64 = US$1

7.2 Importance of storage pests in the Millennium VillagesStorage pests are apparently a serious problem in all MVs where the study was undertaken in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya. They are causing substantial losses even when maize is treated by insecticides. according to the interviews and observations, where LGB is present, the effect of the other pests is masked greatly due to the destruction caused by the LGB. A summary of the importance of LGB and the other storage pests is presented below (Table 17)

Table 17. Relative importance of storage pests in the different Millennium Villages

COUNTRY MILLENNIUM VILLAGE IMPORTANCE OF PEST

IMPORTANCE OF PESTS

Larger Grain Borer Maize Weevil, Flour Beetle, and other

pests

Malawi Mwandama

Nambande


Tanzania Inonelwa

Mbola




Sauri

Key to symbols:

The pest is less important

The pest is more important (please note that where LGB is present, the importance of the other storage pests is masked)

39

7.3 Maize loss to storage pests and the corresponding monetary loss in the different countries Substantial amounts of maize are lost due to storage pests in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya. Using the national loss percentages, losses to national maize production translate to as high as 1.548 million MT in Malawi (Table 18) using the 2006/07 maize production figures, which is equivalent to losing millions of US Dollars (USD). In Malawi, it is equivalent to roughly 309.6 million USD per annum despite the countries’ current efforts to manage pests. Losses could be even higher if management strategies for storage pests were not employed, as was experienced by some farmers who lost up to 100% of their maize if they did not apply any pest control strategies. Despite concerted efforts by governments and international development partners in all three countries; efforts to improve food security are being drastically undermined by storage pests.

Table 18. Monetary loss to storage pests at national level in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya

COUNTRY NATIONAL MAIZE PRODUCTION (MOST RECENT ESTIMATES) (MT)

PERCENT (%) NATIONAL LOSS DUE TO STORAGE PESTS

AMOUNT OF LOSS DUE TO STORAGE PESTS (MT)

PRICE OF MAIZE US$/MT

LOSS IN MONETARY VALUE (US$)

Malawi 3.44 million MT* 45 1.548 million MT 200 309.6 million

Tanzania 3.7 million MTx 40 1.48 million MT 170x 251.6 million

Kenya 2.5 million MT+ 30 0.75 million MT 200x 150 million

Source:

2006/07 Agricultural Malawi Production (• http://www.fews.net/docs/Publications/Malawi_200707en.pdf.).

Regional Agricultural Trade Intelligence Network (RATIN); East Africa Food & Trade Bulletin, Oct ‘07 (No. 45) •Crop Production and Harvest Outlook (http://www.uce.co.ug/Ratin%20bulletin_Oct%2007.pdf.).

Kibaara, W B (2005), Technical Efficiency in Kenyan’s Maize Production: An Application of the Stochastic •Frontier Approach, MSc Thesis, Colorado State University. 51 pp. (http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/kenya/o_papers/tech_eff_maize.pdf.).

7.4 Factors influencing maize losses to storage pests at each level of maize storageAn analysis of losses at each level in the maize chain – from the producer to the end user, reveals a number of factors which come to play in the maize storing systems. These factors will be dealt with under each stage of the chain/maize flow and will lead to developing stage specific recommendations. The stages which will be dealt with in detail are: 1) the household level, 2) the maize holding stage for contributed maize, 3) the community cereal/grain banks, and 4) the other stages.

7.4.1 Factors influencing losses at household level

The household level is the primary and most crucial level in the maize chain since maize losses at the household storage level impact storage losses at subsequent stages in the chain. These factors will be discussed in relation to each MV that was visited throughout the study.

7.4.1.1 Malawi

A general factor affecting losses from storage pests a part from those outlined below is the use of the traditional granary locally known as “Nkhokwe”. In spite of advice from local experts that the local granaries should be mudded in and out side due to LGB which can survive on the wood or twigs or bamboo used to construct the granary, no mudded granary was observed in all the villages visited. An example of the local granary is presented in Fig. 18.

Malawi has the largest number of maize storage insecticides. Unless farmers are properly guided, choosing the right insecticide can be a daunting task especially that not all insecticides are effective.

Fig. 18. A traditional non-mudded granary in Malawi

40

Drying cribs are ideal for controlling maize weevils because maize is often dried ushelled on the cob, which makes it less susceptible to maize weevils than shelled maize. However in Malawi, they dry shelled maize on the cob in drying cribs, which is more susceptible to the grain moth (S. cerealella). What is particularly problematic is that LGB, one of the most prevalent and destructive pests, attacks maize stored on the cob regardless of the presence or absence of the sheath. This may explain why there is increased maize loss in storage due to LGB; especially in Millennium Villages in Zomba where LGB is a serious problem.

7.4.1.1.1 Mwandama Millennium Village

Mwandama, one of the leading Millennium Villages in Malawi, has experienced rapid increases in maize productivity, with a mean of 6.5 MT per ha. But despite these impressive figures, strategies to increase productivity did not adequately consider the importance of proper maize storage thus substantial losses have resulted from storage pests. Other factors influencing maize loss to storage pests are outlined below:

1. LGB is in abundance

LGB is abundant in Mwandama and observations of last season’s maize confirm that LGB is the determining factor accounting for maize losses in storage. While in the field, farmer John Nickson Nkhoma, demonstrated the presence LGB by showing a cob of local maize infested with up to 60 LGB, maize weevil and Flour beetles. Mr. Nkhoma and his wife confirmed that the presence of LGB often results in the total destruction of their maize. Even though other storage pests are present in the village, LGB exacerbates the situation and leads to increasing losses of maize during storage. Furthermore, farmers witnessed LGB even boring into their plastic plates, clothes, and curtains.

2. Maize varieties

Farmers are growing hybrids which are mostly dent (soft) types, hence are more susceptible to storage pests. Even though hybrids are susceptible to storage pests, their yield potential is very high. However, other types of hybrids being grown in Mwandama are more susceptible than others. For example, the group stated that some varieties get infested right in the field. This is therefore a contributing factor to difficulties farmers have in controlling LGB and other pests, and it is part of the cause of the increase in maize losses to storage pests because most insecticides being used in Mwandama and Malawi as a whole can not be effective to storage insect pests when they have bored or laid their eggs on the maize grain. Differences in maize hardness between two newly harvested hybrids was evident (Fig. 19). Farmers indicated that the one on the right is more tolerant and close to their local varieties in a number of characteristics including tolerance to storage pests and poundability

3. Factors influencing the effectiveness of maize storage insecticides

Farmers indicated that the insecticides being used in the village were not effective; many still experienced losses to their stored maize even two months after treating it with common insecticides. However, investigations showed that:

From farmers’ responses, at least all farmers try to apply some modern insecticides – but may have limitations •in the way they apply, and types and effectiveness of the insecticides.

Due to financial limitations farmers mostly purchase insecticides in sachets since they are much cheaper. •Unfortunately sachets were being sold at roadside markets where vendors were exposing the insecticides to the sun’s heat, which reduces the effectiveness of insecticides.

Through discussions with farmers and Malawian professionals, it was discovered that vendors often sell •adulterated insecticides to farmers without their knowledge. They mix the insecticides with flour from ground legumes which in the end looks very similar to the actual insecticides making it very difficult to tell the difference between the two.

There is also a tendency, particularly for vendors, to sell expired insecticides from across the border in Mozambique.•

Application rate – there were apparent discrepancies regarding the application rate. For example the pesticide •manufacturing companies or wholesalers and researchers were stating that 200g of insecticides in dust form can be admixed with 8 bags (i.e. 50g per 50kg maize). The instructions are actually written on the container for the insecticides. However, the agrochemical trader in Zomba City stated that the 200g of insecticide should be applied to only 4 to 5 bags or 200 to 250 kg of maize. He actually stated that if one followed the instructions on the bottle his or her maize would be destroyed by storage pests.

Fig. 19. Soft (left) and hard (right) grain hybrids grown in Mwandama Research Village,

41

If using insecticide in dust form, the moisture content (MC) of maize is crucial at the time of treating for maize •must be dried to 13% MC for the insecticides to be effective. Maize is harvested at physiological maturity in Mwandama MRV and dried in drying cribs before it is shelled, treated and put in bags. If maize is kept in the drying cribs up to 2 months and dried properly to the right moisture content then insecticides will generally be effective. However, the long drying period could expose the maize to storage pests such as LGB thus rendering insecticides ineffective. In light of this complexity and the severity of damage of LGB, a more detailed study is recommended.

Effectiveness of some insecticides is questionable. There was a case of purportedly effective insecticide •which was bought direct from the importing company. It was even demonstrated by one of the company’s experienced sales representative, but all the farmers treated maize and the maize treated for demonstration by the representative was destroyed by LGB. The company was given feedback and as a result increased the dosage of the insecticide. This is not the only case of insecticides being ineffective, commercial maize seed treated with insecticide that was purchased in September 2007 for winter cropping was destroyed to almost flour by LGB by May 2008 (Fig. 20).

There is a possibility that LGB has developed resistance to the main dust based insecticides and farmers seem to believe that the EC formulations are more effective. However, it is important to investigate this further.

Method for applying EC formulation - EC formulated storage insecticides ought to be applied with a sprayer •but not all farmers have sprayers and tend to improvise by using a bloom or leaves on twigs. It has been found that use of alternative application methods results in uneven distribution of insecticides among the grains, thus some maize grains remain unprotected. In addition, farmers may tend to dry their maize in the sun after spraying the maize, thus destroying the effectiveness of the insecticide.

Under dosing of insecticides can lead to their ineffectiveness. For example farmers may try to apply the •recommended insecticides dose for 8 bags to all their bags due to economic reasons.

Timing of insecticide application is crucial and insecticides should be applied before maize is infested but •farmers often try to treat their maize after infestation has occurred. But the eggs laid by the insect pests and the insects already inside the grains cannot be killed by the insecticides and the eggs may hatch when the effectiveness of the insecticides is reduced.

The time of day is important when applying dust formulations. It is important to treat maize in the morning or in •the late afternoon when temperatures are cooler. The mixing of insecticides would also need to be carried out under shade because heat reduces the effectiveness of the insecticide. It was apparent that farmers did not know such details.

4. Proper storage is a major problem in Mwandama, Namande and Gumulira Millennium Villages. Even though the project built an improved granary, which is very effective in protecting maize from re-infestation, farmers are not adopting the storage facility. The main reason for non adoption was due to limited financial resources.

5. As a coping strategy farmers try to mill (remove the seed coat) and store their maize but this does not help considering milled maize is also destroyed by maize weevils and LGB (Fig. 21).

Fig. 20. Insecticide treated maize seed reduced to flour (left) by Larger grain borer (being shown to farmers in the middle), and a comparison of the destroyed seed with the non infested seed (far right)

42

7.4.1.1.2 Nambande Millennium Village

As with Mwandama, farmers from Nambade (from several clusters) indicated that insecticides do not work very well. In fact one farmer was so desperate he used Marathion, which could kill that attempted to infest the maize. He was advised on the spot of the dangers of toxic insecticides which are not recommended by the extensionists or the MVP staff.

1. There is an urgent need to train farmers regarding the use of insecticides in all villages. In fact some traders are selling fumigants such as fostoxin tablets which many farmers stated were very effective. Fortunately one farmer who used fumigants slept outside of the house for five days while treating his maize but tragically, two children of the same family died in Kasungu District in Central Region of Malawi from inappropriate application of fostoxin.

2. Unlike at Mwandama, fewer farmers use drying cribs at Nambande. One possible reason for this is that they harvest their maize until it is dry in the field, thus exposing it to insect pests that infest maize while in the field such as LGB and Maize weevil.

3. Just like at Mwandama, MC, effectiveness, application methods and rates of insecticides are applicable to Nambande,

7.4.1.1.3 Gumulira Millennium Village

Gumulira did not seem to have as much storage maize losses as in Mwandama and Nambande. All farmers agreed that if they used Actellic Super Dust their maize would be protected. However, the following observations can account for losses from storage pests:

•Accordingtothefarmerswhoattendedthefocusgroupdiscussions,mostfarmersdidnotapply•insecticides. For example, only 9 out of 42 farmers (or 21%) who attended were using modern insecticides in spite of the fact that they all agreed insecticides can protect their maize. The reason is that farmers cannot afford to purchase insecticides even though they are sold within walking distance.

•ThemaininsectpestsobservedweremaizeweevilandtheFlourbeetleandonefarmerdescribedaninsect•close to LGB. Surprisingly government researchers indicated that LGB is present in Mchinji District where Gumulira is situated.

•Asacopingstrategyfarmersmill(toremovetheseedcoat)theirmaizetwiceayearandstorewhatislocally•referred to as “Mphale”, and farmers claim this method protects against storage pests.

7.4.1.2 Tanzania

Millennium Villages in Tanzania seemed to have low maize yields during the last two harvesting seasons; however, this particular harvesting season is a bumper harvest and farmers are experiencing substantial maize losses due to storage pests. Maize weevil, locally called “Tembo” or elephant and LGB are the main pests destroying maize in storage. Even though Actellic Super and Shumba Dusts are used, farmers reported that the former is working well while the latter is ineffective. Some of the factors influencing losses to storage pests are therefore outlined below for all MVs which were visited:

7.4.1.2.1 Inonelwa, Migungumelo, and Mbola Millennium Villages

1. Varietal susceptibility

Some varieties get infested right in the field thus making it more difficult to manage storage pests in storage.

Fig. 21. Milled maize reduced to flour by Larger grain borer and Maize weevil

43

2. Harvesting system

Most farmers visited in the MV’s employ traditional systems for harvesting maize such as cutting maize stalks with cobs still attached and then stooking. Maize then remains on the stook for at least 2 months or until dry in the field, which can expose maize to storage pests (especially maize outside the stook) and farmers actually confirmed they observed storage pests on their maize while still on the stook. Furthermore, infested maize is difficult to treat with dust insecticides.

3. Use of insecticides

For those who use insecticides, Shumba Dust works well and better than Actellic Super Dust, however many •found the smell of Shumba Dust more offensive compared to that of Actellic Super Dust.

Those who use insecticides and granaries strongly believe that insecticides work better in granaries.•

Apart from Inonelwa, the proportion of farmers using modern insecticides was extremely low as was the use •of traditional remedies, which would account for maize losses.

All farmers from Mbola used a traditional insecticide, a tuber, which grows in the wild. They claimed it works •very well but further investigation would be needed to asses the efficacy of this technology.

Financial resources are often limited, therefore some farmers could not afford insecticides but some also •stated that they would not use modern insecticides because their harvests were too low to warrant long storage – this may not be common in this year’s harvesting season.

Availability of insecticides is one of the major problems in the villages. They depend to a large extent on •vendors who peddle purportedly effective maize storage insecticides, some of which are not recommended in Tanzania.

Some farmers were using Actellic Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC) which is only recommended, by the •Tanzanian Authorities, for applying in storage areas and on used bags, thus showing a definite knowledge gap.

4. Some farmers were using fumigants without proper training, which goes against government recommendations, implying breakdown in information flow.

5. A DFID funded project previously supported and recommended the use of Diatomaceous Earths (DEs) in Kagera and Central Tanzania but they are currently not used in any of the MV’s. The MVP could explore using DEs and making them available to farmers.

6. Coping strategy - Milling and storing milled maize is the main coping strategy in the area as long as the milled maize is dried properly.

7. Use of granaries, “Vihenge” - Most farmers do not mud their granaries inside and out as recommended by the Tanzania authorities, this may have a serious baring on LGB.

8. Even though small maize silos are very effective in controlling storage pests; farmers do not use them and did not mention them in the MVs.

7.4.1.3 Kenya

7.4.1.3.1 Nyawara, Nyandiwa, and Gongo; Anyiko, Nyamninia, and Jina; Ramula, Uranga, and Lihanda; and Sauri Millennium Villages

Due to similarities in the pre-storage treatment of maize and storage methods, factors that could influence maize storage losses will be discussed for all MVs in Kenya. Nyawara, Nyandiwa and Gongo were met as one group, Anyiko, Nyamninia, and Jina in one group, Ramula, Uranga, and Lihanda in one group, and Sauri Millennium Research Village was met separately. However the findings in all the groups of villages were similar. Factors which could be influencing maize losses to pests in the villages are therefore outlined below:

1. Maize varieties

According to the farmers, some maize varieties are more susceptible to storage pests than others, which could worsen the pest situation.

2. Maize harvesting method

The common maize harvesting method of leaving maize in the field until the cob droops or faces down suggests that many farmers are not practicing early maize harvesting techniques. Leaving maize to dry this long in the field

44

is one way of exposing maize to storage pests such as LGB which starts infesting maize while still in the field. In fact the maize is harvested when it is so dry that farmers only dry the maize for a maximum of a week at home after harvesting.

3. Presence of Larger grain borer

All farmers acknowledged that LGB is the worst storage pest in their villages and is the main reason why farmers lose maize even after treatment.

4. Use of maize storage insecticides

A large proportion of farmers in Kenyan MVs are using alternatives to modern grain treatment methods in •order to preserve and store their maize. In fact the highest proportion of farmers who used synthetic/modern insecticides was 38.5% at Sauri MRV while over 85% of farmers in Anykio, Nyamninia and Jina MV’s were using various types of ash as a treatment method. The most common ash come from cattle dung, tephrosia, maize cobs, bean haulms or a combination of such. One farmer’s ash treated maize was apparently clean after almost a year’s storage (some even claimed it could be stored up to two years) but even though farmers claim ash is effective, it would be useful to carry out further experiments to establish the effectiveness of ashes from different sources.

The fact that very few farmers use synthetic insecticides leads to the build up of storage insect pests. •

All agro-dealers and insecticide manufacturers recommended that maize should be inspected frequently, •at least weekly, and that it should be re-treated after observing re-infestation but it is difficult for farmers to carry out frequent inspections when they are attending to other duties. Furthermore, it is difficult for farmers to purchase insecticides to retreat their stored maize since most farmers have limited funds for purchasing insecticides.

Longevity of insecticides•

The local research maize storage expert stated that Actellic Super dust is effective for 6 months; however, the agro-dealers stated that it, along with fumigants, should be reapplied after every 3 months. This is costly for farmers especially since they need to store their maize for more than 6 months before the next harvest.

Time of application and the effectiveness of insecticides •

Apart from fumigants, most dust insecticides are the contact type meaning that maize should be treated before it is infested otherwise the insecticides will not work. With the practice of delayed harvesting, farmers actually treat their maize after it has been infested explaining why some farmers who use insecticides actually experience infestation shortly after treating their maize.

Efficacy of insecticides •

Farmers generally agreed that insecticides were effective, albeit for a short time, yet group discussions revealed that insecticides may actually be ineffective in controlling storage pests. This came out strongly in group discussions and some famers felt that this may be due to LGB developing resistance to the insecticides, which is possible since the active ingredient in most insecticides has been used over a long period of time.

5. Storage structures

Use of bags •

Synthetic bags are the most common storage structure used by farmers but farmers claimed that LGB bores through synthetic bags and that the jute bags are better for storing maize. LGB does in fact bore through synthetic bags, and may even enhance maize losses to storage pests.

Use of used bags•

Used bags are one of the major sources of storage pests. National experts recommend spraying storage bags previously used for storing maize before they are re-used but this is not feasible since: 1) not all farmers have sprayers and 2) it would require purchasing additional insecticides just for the treatment of bags. The EC formulations are recommended for the treatment of bags in Kenya and Tanzania yet in Malawi, EC formulations can be diluted to spray grain and bags, even though boiling bags is recommended, boiling was not considered feasible in Kenya due to shortages of firewood.

Use of drums•

Farmers who used drums were pleased with their level of protection; however drums require proper drying in order to prevent maize infestation by Aflatoxin producing fungi.

45

6. Adulterated and unavailable insecticides

Farmers living in remote villages are often susceptible to being sold fake insecticide. It has been reported that •some vendors travel to villages situated far from main trading centres and sell farmers adulterated or expired storage insecticides.

7. Farmers reasons for the increase in pest storage problems

Lack of knowledge, by farmers, in maize storage as being responsible for increased storage losses•

Inability to manage bumper harvests by farmers and sharp increases in yields. •

Lack of financial resources to purchase insecticides•

Inadequate maize storage capacity•

Low adoption of insecticides resulting in pest build-up•

Deforestation and/or removal of trees, which are considered alternative hosts.•

7.4.2 Causes of losses at maize collection level

The challenges at this level of maize storage are enormous. Farmers who receive input support from the MVP are required to pay back two bags of maize, which is cared for and stored by the agriculture committee at the MV level with the support of the Agriculture coordinator. The time period in which maize is stored by agricultural committees varies from country to country. Since maize yields were low the past two years in Tanzania farmers were excused from contributing, therefore the discussion on Tanzania will be limited.

7.4.2.1 Malawi

Maize is received by the agriculture committee at each village and is stored at the centre of the MV, in most cases it’s stored at the house of the Group Village Headman. The following are factors which could influence maize’s vulnerability to storage pests:

1. Lack of appropriate storage facilities

Approximately 1000 farmers contributed 2000 bags (50 kg each) of maize and it was apparent that collecting points lacked appropriate storage facilities. For example at Nambande MV a makeshift shelter made of sticks and grass was constructed and used to store maize which resulted in substantial losses to storage pests and LGB, in particular.

2. School feeding program

The schools are required to store maize for the school feeding contribution even though school teachers and/or administrators may not be knowledgeable in maize storing techniques, which have resulted in excessive losses.

3. Unprotected maize

Mainly due to financial constraints, farmers are unable to treat the maize they contribute to the MVP even though the maize is consumed in their own communities. The contributed maize is therefore extremely vulnerable to storage pest attack as was experienced by a number of receiving centres. Storing untreated maize could have contributed to the failure of insecticides to protect the maize at a later date because it was infested from the outset. Fumigation is often the only option after substantial amounts of maize are destroyed.

4. Large budget for treating maize

Maize is contributed to the school feeding programme and donated to vulnerable members of the community. Only a small proportion is sold, sometimes to prevent further storage losses therefore it may not be sustainable for the project to invest heavily in treating and storing the maize.

7.4.2.2 Tanzania

Due to low maize harvests over the past two years, the MVs in Tanzania have not been paying back as much maize yet the current harvesting season is looking more promising. Some challenges therefore exist which could influence maize losses to storage pests at this level in the maize chain. Below are some of the factors:

1. Lack of storage facilities

Tanzanian MVs did not seem to have adequate storage facilities for storing pay back maize and this will •

46

become even more challenging if Tanzania’s maize yields increase over the coming season.

Schools have small storage spaces, and in most cases classrooms are used for storing maize. This is likely to •result in huge losses to storage pests unless provisions are made for proper storage facilities.

2. Limited knowledge of maize treatment and storage

School teachers and administrators may find it challenging to look after the school maize for feeding their •pupils. Unfortunately the agriculture team of the MVP may not be at all the schools in the MVs all the time.

7.4.2.3 Kenya

Just like in the Malawi, Kenyan MV’s experience major challenges when it comes to storing maize; especially at the payback level in the maize chain. Maize is received through a payback system and collected at central points, which in Kenya are generally primary schools where maize is often kept for lengthy periods of time before it is taken to the NCPB. Due to various factors outlined below, substantial quantities of maize are lost to pests in storage because maize is stored at schools before it is transported to the NCPB.. A study by Otieno (2008, unpublished) indicated that 25 out of 127 bags of maize stored at a school in Yala Township and 28 out of 137 bags stored at a school in Muhanda, from September 2007 to March 2008, suffered substantial losses. Below are several factors that could be influencing maize losses at this level:

1. Maize contributed by farmers is untreated

Farmers confirmed that all the maize they contribute through the pay back system is not treated with insecticides, thus making it extremely vulnerable to infestation by storage pests such as LGB, moths and weevils. Maize is also not treated upon arrival at the collection centre resulting in excessive losses. Unfortunately this untreated maize is sometimes kept for long periods before it is taken to the NCPB storage facilities.

2. Lack of proper maize storage facilities

Maize contributions are kept in schools as alternative storage facilities. At this stage the maize is not in the hands of the school even though some of it will be brought back to the schools at a later date through the school feeding programme, but this is after the maize has been taken to the NCPB for further storage. Although some schools have warehouses where maize is kept such as at Yala Township School, still substantial losses occur.

3. Lack of proper care of maize by schools

Before maize is transported to the NCPB, there is lack of ownership by the school since not all the maize will be coming back to the school as part of the school feeding programme. Furthermore, teachers and administrators are not properly trained to store maize.

7.4.3 Causes of losses at Community Cereal/Grain Banks

Kenyan Community Cereal Banks lack storage facilities, and can only store limited amounts of maize. For •example Marenyo Community Cereal Bank was temporarily storing only a few bags of maize, incidentally infested with weevils, in a small building which was also housing a private maize mill. However, most of the banks’ maize is stored at NCPB where it is treated and stored at a fee.

Malawi’s Grain Bank has no storage facility but one large storage structure is being built at Mwandama, which •will substantially ease the storage of maize for the grain bank. The storage facility being built at Gumulira on the other hand, seems much smaller and may be limited in storage capacity. It is not certain whether the system of grain banking in Malawi has started operating at the level of Kenya, where farmers own and contribute to the cereal bank, with proceeds from their maize sales distributed back to the cereal bank members.

In Malawi, community storage outside MVP areas has taken off with the government providing metal silos for •community maize storage. The metal silos have a large capacity; which may ease maize storage losses at community level.

Tanzania’s cereal banks may not be operational due to low maize harvests - this may change in the near •future - but storage space could be very limited.

7.4.4 Losses at other levels (ADMARC, NFRA, NCPB, Traders)

ADMARC, the main maize marketing institution in Malawi, is capable of storing and fumigating maize and they •offer their services to farmers at a fee.

47

Malawi’s National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA), equivalent to Kenya’s National Cereals and Produce Board •(NCPB), has a huge capacity for storing maize at the national level and has silos in all regions of Malawi. Unlike ADMARC, which buys and sells maize to people in the country, NFRA is responsible for food security at a national level. They have the capacity to fumigate maize, and a programme to assist farmers in maize storage and handling.

NCPB in Kenya also has a huge capacity to handle and store maize, their losses are limited, and they also •offer treatment services at a fee.

•InformationonnationallevelmaizestoragefacilitieswerenotcollectedinTanzaniabutthePostHarvest•Management Services of the National Food Security Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives have a programme to train grassroots government staff on grain storage technologies.

48

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations have been split into short term and long term recommendations. The short term recommendations are for immediate implementations in order to reduce loss of the recently harvested maize in MVPs in Malawi and Tanzania, and the maize which will be harvested in September in Kenya. On the other hand long term recommendations will form the basis for a project proposal which will be implemented over a three to five year period.

8.1 Short term recommendations Short term recommendations are presented below for each MVP are presented in sections 8.1.1 to 8.1.3. A summary of the short term recommendations are presented in section 8.1.4, specifically in Table 24.

8.1.1 Short term recommendations for Millennium Village Project in Malawi

Short term recommendations for the MVP in Malawi are presented in Table 19. In addition short term recommendations specific to Mwandama MRV and Nambande MV are presented in Table 20 below.

Table 19. Short term recommendations for all Millennium Villages in Malawi

RECOMMENDATIONS STRATEGY

1. Provision of Insecticides - the MVP to facilitate the availability of insecticides to farmers

•TheMVPshouldpurchaseinsecticidesfromreliablesourcesinBlantyreorLilongwetoprovide to all eligible farmers so that it becomes part of the input support scheme. This will prevent farmers from buying and using ineffective, even expired insecticides.

•Repaymentarrangementscouldbeorganizedbytheproject.Wherepossiblefarmersshould be encouraged to pay for the insecticides on receipt. Arrangements could be made for farmers to pay with maize contributions which could be sold to recoup the money.

•InsecticideswiththefollowingActiveIngredients(AI);Pirimiphos Methyl + Permethrin, Bifenthrin, Fenitrothion + Permethrin, and Deltamethrin + Fenitrothion should be used for treating maize as protectants.

•FumigantswithAluminiumPhosphiteAIshouldbeusedforfumigatingmaizebyatrained fumigator particularly for MVs in Zomba.

49

2. Training on Maize Storage - there must be urgent training on maize treatment and storage

•Trainingoftrainers(TOT)shouldbeconductedimmediatelysofarmerscanbetrainedin the following:

i. Insecticide use - which insecticides to use for treating maize

ii. Maize drying – before treating maize with insecticides a simple Table salt test in a closed bottle should be conducted to determine maize dryness. If not dry, the maize will cause condensation and the salt will absorb moisture and stick to the inside of the bottle

iii. Storage hygiene and treatment - for the used storage bags before storing in grain

iv. Treating maize - proper ways of treating maize using dust and EC formulations of insecticides

v. Maize inspection and re-treating

vi. Fumigants - dangers and proper use of fumigants

vii. Food budgeting – so that farmers know how many bags of maize to store

•TraineesshouldincludeMVPandgovernmentagriculturestaffwhoareworkinginMVs,maize traders, and teachers from schools involved in school feeding programme.

3. Drying Cribs – the period of drying maize in cribs should be shortened to a maximum of 4 weeks

•Thisistoreducethetimethatmaizemaybeexposedtoinfestation.However,farmersshould make sure their maize is dry by using the Table salt test (see 2 above) before treating with insecticides and storing.

4. Awareness Creation

•Postersandleafletsshouldbeproduced,inChichewa,anddisseminatedassoonaspossible to sensitise farmers on proper storage and storage pest control. The following areas should be included in campaigns:

i. Mud granaries - traditional granaries should be mudded in order to reduce infestation from LGB, which can survive on the wooden components of the granary

ii. Store in grain form - farmers should store maize in grain form as opposed to storage of maize in cob form. Cob form is more susceptible to LGB

iii. No sprayers no EC - farmers without sprayers or who can not access sprayers should be discouraged from using EC formulated insecticides

iv. Dangers of fumigants - farmers should be informed about the dangers of fumigants in tablet form – for example there was death of two children of a family which used Phostoxin tables to fumigate the house in Kasungu District, Malawi

v. Maize drying and the Salt Test - maize drying and the table salt test

vi. Safety and dust formulations - safe use of dust formulations, time, methods and rates of application

vii. Avoid mixing hard and soft maize - avoid mixing of dent (soft) and flint (hard) grain maize types in one storage container

viii. Trash removal from maize - proper removal of trash from maize through winnowing before treating with insecticides to facilitate protection of grain by contact insecticides

5. Develop a System for Measuring Maize - MVP to come up with a way of measuring 50 kg to be used when mixing with insecticides

•Overfillingbagscouldcontributetounderdosinginsecticidesbutthiscanbesolvedbyproviding maize measuring containers. For example containers could be developed with the capacity to hold 10 kg of maize so that all maize treatment recommendations to the farmers can be in form of numbers of containers, e.g. one 50kg bag equals 5 scoops from the maize measuring container.

•Similararrangementhasbeendoneforinsecticides,recommendationsforfarmersarein form of a number of match box full

50

6. Build Storage Facilities - where not available receiving stores should be built to store maize received through the payback system

•ProvidefundstopermiteachMVtobuildbrickstoragefacilitieswheremaizereceivedfrom the pay back system can be immediately fumigated. Maize currently contributed through the pay back system is not fumigated. The store system would allow maize to be held for longer periods (as is the case now) without losing much of the maize to storage pests.

Table 20. Specific short term recommendations for Mwandama and Nambande Millennium Villages in Zomba


1. Community Based Fumigation - if maize is already infested with storage pests, then community based fumigation must be provided

•NFRAofferedfreefumigationservicestofarmers,buttheprojectcouldcontributetransportation costs. The project could explore this further – contact The Chief Executive Officer of NFRA

•ADMARCalsoofferedtheirservices,butmaybetooexpensive

•Farmersshouldberesponsiblefortransportingtheirmaize,providingnecessaryassistance when setting up the fumigation process, and looking after the maize during fumigation

•AnominalfeecouldbechargedsuchasK5perbagjusttopreventdevelopmentofdependency syndrome

2. Dipping Maize in Water - introduce dipping of maize in water before milling at all maize mills

•ThiswouldhelpindrowningLGBandotherpestsinordertoslowdownspreadofthepests

•Currently,dippingisonlycarriedoutinmaizeforprocessingintomphale, the seed coat is removed, but to include all types of milling of maize into flour

•Adrumcutinhalfcanbefilledwithwaterwheremaizecanbedippedusingaperforated container

3. Spraying Campaigns - carry out campaigns for spraying farmers’ houses and storage structures against LGB

•DuetothehighlevelsofLGB,allstoragestructures(houses,cribs,granaries(nkhokwes), stores) in the MVs should be sprayed with an EC formulation of Actellic Super or any other similar insecticide

•ThiscampaignshouldbeledbytheMVPwithfarmersprovidinglabourforspraying.This will be similar to the malaria control campaign which involves spraying houses with insecticides to kill malaria vectors, mosquitoes, and is aimed at reducing the population pressure of LGB in the villages

•SprayersandprotectivematerialwillneedtobeboughtforeachMVandcanbeusedfor future operations.

4. Fumigate Before Treating with Dust - payback maize in receiving centres and the cereal/grain banks should be fumigated before treating with dust

•Thisshouldbedonefarawayfrompeople.Iffumigatingnearaschool(thismayneedto be done while community storage facilities are being built) then it should be done at the far end of a football ground for example. This should be carried out by agriculture staff of MVP who can seek extra guidance from the national storage experts.

8.1.2 Short term recommendation for Millennium Villages in Tanzania

Short term recommendations for MVP in Tanzania are presented in Table 21, and Table 22 for those specific to the Mbola MRV.

51

Table 21. Short term recommendations for all Millennium Villages in Tanzania


1. The MVP to facilitate availability of insecticides to farmers

•TheMVPshouldpurchaseinsecticidesfromreliablesourcesinDaresSalaamandprovide to all eligible farmers so that it becomes part of the input support scheme. This will prevent farmers from buying and using ineffective, non recommended, even expired insecticides sold around by vendors. Some farmers are very far from trading centres and depend only on vendors who may sell fake or expired insecticides

•Repaymentarrangementscouldbeworkedoutbytheproject,butdirectrepaymentbycash should be encouraged. Arrangements could also be made for farmers to pay with maize contributions which could be sold to recoup the money

•InsecticideswithPirimiphosMethyl+Permethrin,Bifenthrin,Fenitrothion+Permethrin,Deltamethrin + Fenitrothion, and Pyrethrin AI should be used in treating maize as protectants

•FumigantswithAluminiumPhosphiteAIshouldbeusedforfumigatingmaizebytrainedfumigators particularly for Mbola MV and other centres where LGB is more prevalent.

•OnlypurchaseinsecticideswiththeTanzanianflagonthebottle–symbolofauthenticity- and from reliable dealers who cannot adulterate the insecticides

2. Awareness creation •PostersandleafletsshouldbeproducedinKiswahilianddisseminatedassoonaspossible to sensitise farmers on proper storage and storage pest control. The following areas should be included in dissemination campaigns:

i. Mud granaries - traditional granaries, Vihenge should be mudded in order to reduce infestation from LGB which can survive on the wooden components of the granary

ii. Store in grain form not on cob - Farmers should store maize in grain form as opposed to storage of maize in cob form. Cob form is more susceptible to LGB

iii. Use of EC formulations - EC formulated insecticides should be used for spraying maize stores, houses used for storing maize, used bags, and drums. Sprayers should

iv. Dangers of fumigants - Farmers should be informed about the dangers of fumigants in tablet form

v. Maize drying and the salt test - before treating maize with insecticides a simple Table salt test in a closed bottle should be conducted to determine maize dryness. If not dry, the maize will cause condensation and the salt will absorb moisture and stick to the inside of the bottle

vi. Safety and dust formulations - safe use of dust formulations, time and rates of application

vii. Avoid mixing hard and soft maize - Avoid mixing of dent (soft) and flint (hard) grain maize types in one storage container

viii. Trash removal from maize - proper removal of trash from maize through winnowing before treating with insecticides to facilitate protection of grain by contact insecticides

52

3. Extensionists and farmers should be trained

•Trainingoftrainers(TOT)shouldbeconductedimmediatelysofarmerscanbetrainedinthe following:

i. Insecticide use - which insecticides to use for treating maize

ii. Maize drying - before treating with insecticides – to include a simple test for determining maize dryness using the Table salt test in a closed bottle. Maize which is not dry will cause condensation and salt will absorb moisture and stick to the inside surface of the bottle

iii. Storage hygiene and treatment - for the used storage bags and stores before storing in maize again

iv. Treating maize - proper ways of treating maize using insecticides in dust form

v. Food budgeting – so that farmers know how many bags of maize to store for their consumption

vi. Maize inspection and re-treating

vii. Danger of fumigants - dangers and proper use of fumigants

viii. Trainees should include - MVP and government agriculture staff who are working in MVs, and maize traders. teachers who are responsible for school feeding programme should also be included in the training programme

ix. Use insecticide with Tanzanian flag - only purchase insecticides with the Tanzanian flag on the bottle – symbol of authenticity

4. Stores should be built for receiving and storing maize from the payback scheme

•TheMVPshouldbuildbrickstructuresasstoresforeachMVwherefumigationofmaizecan be carried out at the point of receiving maize from the pay back system, and for storage. Maize coming in from the pay back system is not treated by farmers. The store system can allow holding of maize for longer periods without losing much of the maize to storage pests before it is given to schools and vulnerable members of the community

5. All maize mills sites should have a tank of water where maize should be dipped before milling

•Thistechniquedrownsstoragepestsinthemaize,whichcanpreventspreading.Itwasalready recommended in Tanzania, although its adoption may be limited

•Watertankscanbeinaformofacut200litredrumwhichcanbefilledwithwateroraconcrete water rectangular water tank made from bricks and cement. Maize can be put in a perforated container and dipped in the water for about 5 minutes

6. MVP to come up with a way of measuring 90 kg to be used when mixing with insecticides

•Overfillingofbagscouldbecontributingtounderdosingofinsecticides,thiscanbesolved by making containers available for example ones that can take 10 kg of maize so that all maize treatment recommendations to the farmers can be in form of numbers of containers, e.g. for 90kg it would be 9 containers.

Table 22. Short term recommendations for Mbola Millennium Research Village


1. Diatomaceous Earths (DEs) should be tried at a pilot level

•DEfromBukoba,KageraRegionorfromCentralTanzania,shouldbetriedwithselectedfarmers who are keen to test Des in the research village. The technology is bulky, therefore arrangements should be made for transporting the soil

2. Use of a wild tuber, locally called “Mavumangizo” and other botanicals should be followed up, and its effectiveness verified

•AlmostallfarmersinMbolausethiswildtuber,Mavumangizo – an inventory of farmers using this tuber and other botanicals should be collected and kept, and the Mavumangizo and or any other botanical treated maize should be monitored periodically to ascertain the effectiveness of the tuber and other botanicals

53

8.1.3 Short term recommendations for Millennium Villages in Kenya

Short term recommendations for the MVP in Kenya are presented in Table 23, and Table 24 for those specific to Sauri MRV.

Table 23. Short term recommendations for Millennium Villages in Kenya


1. Maize should be harvest timely in all the MVP

•Farmerswillneedtobetrainedsothattheyharvesttheirmaizeatphysiologicalmaturity. The current method of harvesting after the maize cob has drooped or has dried completely exposes maize to pest infestation while it is still in the field

•MaizewillbeharvestedfromSeptemberinKenya

•Thisinformationcouldalsobeincludedindisseminationmaterials


•TheMVPshouldpurchaseinsecticidesfromreliablesourcesinKisumuorNairobitoprovide to all eligible farmers so that it becomes part of the input support scheme. This will prevent farmers from buying and using ineffective, even expired insecticides. This is crucial because most farmers in Kenyan MVs do not apply synthetic insecticides, mainly due to lack of finances.

•Repaymentarrangementscouldbeworkedoutbytheproject.Wherepossiblefarmersshould be encouraged to pay for the insecticides on receipt. Arrangements could be made for farmers to pay with maize contributions, which could be sold to recoup the money.

•MVPshouldobtaininsecticidesfromreputablecompanies.OneAgrovetinKisumuindicated, when queried about the insecticides which were about to expire, that even if you take the expired insecticides to the dealer, the dealer will just remove the label and replace a new one with a new expiry date – this component will be addressed further in a long term recommendations

•InsecticideswithPirimiphos Methyl + Permethrin, Bifenthrin, and Pyrethrin AI should be used in treating maize as protectants

•FumigantswithAluminiumPhosphiteAIshouldbeusedforfumigatingmaizebytrained fumigators, possibly from NCPB

3. Extensionists and farmers should be trained

•Trainingoftrainers(TOT)shouldbeconductedimmediatelysofarmerscanbetrained.TOT training should target agriculture facilitators and other MVP agriculture staff so that they in turn train farmers in the following:

x. Insecticide use - which insecticides to use for treating maize

xi. Maize drying - before treating with insecticides – to include a simple test for determining maize dryness using the Table salt test in a closed bottle. Maize which is not dry will cause condensation and salt will absorb moisture and stick to the inside surface of the bottle

xii. Storage hygiene and treatment - for the used storage bags and stores before storing in maize again

xiii. Treating maize - proper ways of treating maize using insecticides in dust form

xiv. Food budgeting – so that farmers know how many bags of maize to store for their subsistence

xv. Maize inspection and re-treating

xvi. Dangers of fumigants - dangers and proper use of fumigants

xvii. Trainees should include - MVP and government agriculture staff who are working in MVs, and maize traders. Teachers and school administrators who are responsible for school feeding programme should also be included in the training programme

xviii. Only purchase insecticides from reliable pesticide traders

54

4. Awareness creation Posters and leaflets should be produced in Kiswahili, Kiluya and Kijaluo, and disseminated as soon as possible to sensitise farmers on proper storage and storage pest control. The following areas should be included in dissemination campaigns:

•Mudgranaries-traditionalgranariesandwovenbasketsshouldbemuddedinordertoreduce infestation from LGB which can survive on wood

•Storeingrainformnotonthecob-Farmersshouldstoremaizeingrainformasopposed to storage of maize in cob form. Cob form is more susceptible to LGB

•UseofECformulatedinsecticides-ECformulatedinsecticidesshouldbeusedforspraying maize stores, houses used for storing maize, used bags, granaries, woven baskets and drums

•Dangersoffumigants-Farmersshouldbeinformedaboutthedangersoffumigantsintablet form

•Maizedryingandthesalttest-theTablesalttestshouldbeusedtoconfirmthatmaizehas dried adequately before treating with insecticides and storing it

•Safetyanddustformulations-safeuseofdustformulations,typesofinsecticidestouse, time and rates of application

•Avoidmixinghardandsoftmaizetypes-Avoidmixingofdent(soft)andflint(hard)grain maize types in one storage container since the two have different levels of tolerating storage pest infestation, and can therefore bring problems in protecting the two types when mixed

•Trashremovalfrommaize-properremovaloftrashfrommaizethroughwinnowingbefore treating with insecticides to facilitate protection of grain by contact insecticides

5. Institute LGB reporting system

•Afterfarmershavebeentrainedinproperidentificationofstoragepests,theyshouldbereporting the presence of LGB in their storage to their local agriculture facilitator so that they can be advised on appropriate insecticides use

6. Farmers who use ash of different types should be supported to make sure their maize is safe from storage pests

•ThemajorityoffarmersinKenyanMV’suseashandtheyseemtobepleasedwiththeash’s effectiveness in keeping insects away

•However,itwouldbeusefultohaveaninventoryofallfarmerswhouseashandtoconduct follow-up visits to make sure ash is an effective technique for preventing damage and/or infestation

7. Payback maize in receiving centres and the maize in Cereal banks should be fumigated before treating with dust formulated insecticides

•Thisshouldbedonefarawayfrompeople.Iffumigatingnearaschool(thismayneedto be done while community storage facilities are being built) then it should be done at the far end of a football ground for example. This should be carried out by agriculture staff of MVP who can seek extra guidance from the national storage experts

8. All maize mills sites should have a tank of water where maize should be dipped before milling

•Thistechniquedrownsstoragepestsinthemaize,whichcanpreventspreading.Itwasalready recommended in Tanzania, although its adoption may be limited

•Watertankscanbeinaformofacut200litredrumwhichcanbefilledwithwateroraconcrete water rectangular water tank made from bricks and cement. Maize can be put in a perforated container and dipped in the water for about 5 minutes

9. Stores should be built to be used for receiving and storing maize received through the payback system at each MV, and for each Cereal Bank

•ProvidefundstopermiteachMVtobuildstoragefacilitieswheremaizecanbefumigated, treated and stored. In addition, each Cereal Bank should have a maize store that can be managed by the members of the Cereal Bank. The Cereal Bank and the agriculture committee members should undergo training in proper maize storage systems.

55

Table 24. Short term recommendation for the Sauri Millennium Research Village


1. Diatomaceous Earths (DEs) should be tried at a pilot level

•DEfromGilgilshouldbetestedwithselectedfarmerswhoarekeentotesttheDEtechnology mainly in the Millennium Research Village

8.1.4 Summary of recommendations (all countries)

A summary of recommendations for all the three countries is presented in Table 25.

Table 25. Summary of recommendations for Malawi, Kenya and Tanzania

RECOMMENDATIONS MALAWI KENYA TANZANIA


✓ ✓ ✓2. Training of agriculture staff and farmers in proper maize storage

systems ✓ ✓ ✓3. Use of maize cribs – the period of drying maize in the cribs should be

shortened, probably to a maximum of 4 weeks ✓4. Awareness creation in maize harvesting and handling, storage pests,

insecticide rates and proper use ✓ ✓ ✓5. Payback maize in receiving centres and the maize in Cereal/Grain

Banks should be fumigated before treating with contact insecticides ✓ ✓ ✓6. Diatomaceous Earths (DEs) should be tried at a pilot level in

Millennium Research Villages ✓ ✓7. An inventory of farmers who use ash of different types should be

developed, and they should be supported and followed up to make sure their maize is safe from storage pests ✓ ✓

8. Institute LGB reporting system

✓ ✓ ✓9. Farmers using wild tubers and other botanicals should be followed up,

and the effectiveness of the botanicals verified ✓ ✓10. Carry out campaigns for spraying houses and storage structures

against LGB in the Zomba MVs where there are high populations of LGB ✓

11. Introduce dipping of maize in water before milling at all maize mills in MVP to drown storage pests as part of an integrated storage pest management ✓ ✓ ✓

12. MVP to devise a way of measuring maize quantities for treating with insecticides e.g. develop a measuring container with 10 kg capacity which could be used to measure 50 kg (5 containers equals 50 kg in Malawi) or 90 kg (9 containers equal 90 kg in Kenya and Tanzania)

✓ ✓ ✓

56

13. Where not available maize stores should be built for storing maize at each MV ✓ ✓ ✓

8.2 Long term recommendations for Malawi, Kenya and Tanzania

Long term recommendations for all countries are presented in Table 26 below. In addition long term recommendations specific to Malawi have been presented in Table 27. The long term recommendations form a basis for a project proposal which will be submitted separately.

Table 26. Long term recommendations for Malawi, Kenya and Tanzania

RECOMMENDATIONS/POSSIBLE OUTPUTS

STRATEGY/ACTIVITIES

1. Socioeconomic analysis to determine the feasibility and economic viability of different grain storage practices at household, community and district or national levels

•Socioeconomicsurveystoanalyseimpactonfarmersofmaizelossestostoragepests

2. Evaluation of existing hybrid maize varieties for tolerance to storage pests

•Farmerparticipatoryevaluationofexistingandupcomingmaizevarietiesfortolerance to maize storage pests

57

3. Training of agriculture facilitators and farmers

•TrainingofTrainers(TOT)coursesforagriculturestaffwhowillinturntrainfarmers

•Farmerfieldschool(FFS)approachtobeusedinhands-ontrainingoffarmersbyagriculture facilitators

•MaintenanceofFFSs

•Topicstoinclude:

1. Insecticide use - which insecticides to use for treating maize

2. Maize drying - before treating with insecticides – to include a simple test for determining maize dryness using the Table salt test in a bottle. Maize which is not dry will cause condensation and salt will absorb moisture from the maize and stick to the inside surface of the closed bottle

3. Storage hygiene and treatment - for the used storage bags and stores before storing in maize again. Proper use of EC formulated insecticides in storage hygiene and removal of residual maize

4. Treating maize - proper ways of treating maize using insecticides in dust form. This will also cover types of insecticides in each country

5. Food budgeting – so that farmers know how many bags of maize to store for their subsistence

6. Maize inspection and re-treating

7. Danger of fumigants - dangers and proper use of fumigants

8. Trainees should include - MVP and government agriculture staff who are working in MVs, and maize traders. Teachers and school administrators who are responsible for school feeding programme should also be included in the training programme

9. Only purchase insecticides from reliable pesticide traders

10. Improved traditional granaries and their adoption strategies

11. Storing maize in grain vs. cob form

12. Use of drying cribs – if found effective in preventing infestation by storage pests

4. Carry out research and development activities on biological control of LGB

•Supportmassrearingandreleaseofbiocontrolagent,TN

•MonitoringtheestablishmentandefficacyofTNonLGB

•Searchfornewbiocontrolagentsbyincubatingdeadinsectpestsfromuntreatedmaize, and evaluating what is found against LGB

5. Evaluation of existing and new insecticides for their efficacy to most important storage pests

•On-farmfarmerparticipatoryevaluationoftheexistingandnewinsecticides

•On-stationevaluationtodetermineorconfirmefficacyandexcludeinsecticideswhich are no longer effective

6. Evaluation of botanical pesticides such as Neem, ashes, wild tubers, and other existing botanicals with putative insecticidal properties for their efficacy against maize storage pests

•On-farmfarmerparticipatoryevaluation

•On-stationresearchbasedevaluationofthematerials

•Evaluationofsourcesofash

•Determinationofratesofapplicationforbotanicalsandash

7. Detailed assessment of maize losses from storage pests

•Nationalsurveystodeterminenationallossestostoragepests,especiallyLGB.This will include follow up periodic surveys in selected households to determine loss progression over time

•Controlledexperimentstosupplementsurveydata

58

8. LGB surveys to determine populations and distribution of the pest in each country in order to carry out area specific LGB management strategies

•Biologicalsurveysinmaizeandcassavagrowing,andforestsareas.Thesurveywill also include assessment of TN where it was released to determine whether it is established and its relative effect

9. validation of small metal silos and drums as a possible component of an integrated maize storage pest control strategy

•Smallfarmerevaluationtrialswithmetalsilosanddrumsasapossiblestrategyfor long term grain storage system for farmers

•Facilitationoffarmerswhoareinterestedinadoptingthetechnology

10. Evaluation of “Super Grain Bags” for maize storage by smallholder farmers

•Farmerparticipatoryevaluationofthe“SuperGrainBags”asatechnologyforcontrolling storage pests without using insecticides. They will be evaluated in relation to synthetic and jute bags

•ExploringpossibilitiesofimportingthebagscheaplysinceUS$3maybeonthehigher side for smallholder farmers

•Scientificevaluationofthebagsinordertodeterminetheirefficacyanddurabilityagainst LGB which bores through plastic

11. Verification of drying cribs for preventing maize infestation by storage pests

•SurveyofLGBandotherstoragepestsindryingcribsattwoweeklyintervalsduring the maize drying period in order to determine the optimum period for drying maize in cribs before it is infested

•Determinetheoptimummaizedryingtimeto13%MCinordertocomeupwitharea specific periods for drying maize in drying cribs

•Are-designofthedistancefromthegroundforthecribplatforminareaswheregoats are a problem

12. Dissemination of technologies on maize storage and storage pest management

•Productionanddisseminationof:

1. Posters

2. leaflets

3. Radio and TV programmes

•Topicstoinclude:

1. Improving traditional granaries

2. Storing grains in grain form instead of cobs

3. Promotion of cribs – if found safe from overexposing maize to storage pests

4. No sprayers no EC - EC formulated insecticides should be used for spraying maize stores, houses used for storing maize, used bags, and drums, and grain where recommended. Proper application techniques will be emphasised

5. Dangers of fumigants - Farmers should be informed about the dangers of fumigants in tablet form

6. Maize drying and the salt test - maize drying and the Table salt test (see recommendation number 3 above)

7. Safety and dust formulations - safe use of dust formulations, types of insecticides to use, time and rates of application

8. Avoid mixing hard and soft maize - Avoid mixing of dent (soft) and flint (hard) grain maize types in one storage container

9. Trash removal from maize - proper removal of trash from maize through winnowing before treating with insecticides to facilitate protection of grain by contact insecticides

10. Proper use of metal silos and drums

59

13. Validating and promoting use of Diatomaceous Earths (Des)

•FeasibilitystudyonavailabilitytofarmersofDEs

•On-farmfarmerparticipatoryvalidationofDEsasamaizetreatmentsubstance

•IsDEavailableinMalawi?

14. Facilitating the adoption of improved granaries

•Throughdevelopingcosteffectivegranariestoimproveadoptionofthegranaries

•Explorethefeasibilityoffumigatingmaizein-situ

15. Development of recommendations for storage pest management at the different levels

•Recommendationsdevelopedfromactivitiesoutlinedabovepackagedintomaize storage pest control strategies

16. Promotion of the maize storage pest management strategy among policy makers, extensionists, farmers and other key stakeholders

•Promotionalactivities–workshopsforthekeystakeholdersineachcountry-also will act as an exit strategy for the project so that governments can take over remaining promotional and support activities

Table 27. Long term recommendations specific for Malawi only

RECOMMENDATIONS/POSSIBLE OUTPUTS STRATEGY/ACTIVITIES

1. Feasibility study/validation of large metal silos •Farmerparticipatoryvalidationandutilisationofmetalsilos

•Feasibilitystudiesoncarryingoutin-situ fumigation of the stored maize

60

9. ReferencesAdesuyi SA, 1980. The problems of insect infestation of stored yam chips in Nigeria. Review of Applied Entomology, 68:abst. no.3650.

Atanasov H, 1977. Causes of the increase in the population density and economic importance of the red flour beetle in storehouses and silos. Rasteniev”dni Nauka, 14(9):124-132.

Arbogast RT, Throne JE, 1997. Insect infestation of farm-stored maize in South Carolina: towards characterization of a habitat. Journal of Stored Products Research, 33(3):187-198.

Babu SC, Subrahmanyam P, Chiyembekeza AJ, Ng’ongola D, 1994. Impact of aflatoxin contamination on groundnut exports in Malawi. African Crop Science Journal, 2(2):215-220.

Boxall RA, 2002. Damage and loss caused by the Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae. Integrated Pest management Reviews, 7:105-121.

Braunschweig (Heft) I, Henckes C, 1992. Investigations into insect population dynamics, damage and loss of stored maize: an approach to IPM on small farms in Tanzania with special reference to Prostephanus truncatus (Horn). Xiv + 124 pp. CABI Abstracts, CAB International 2007.

CAB International, 2007. Crop Protection Compendium, http://www.cabicompendium.org/cpc/home.asp

Compton JAF, Sherington J, 1999. Rapid assessment methods for stored maize cobs: weight losses due to insect pests. Journal of Stored Products Research, 35(1):77-87.

Giga DP, Mutemerewa S, Moyo G, Neeley D, 1991. Assessment and control of losses caused by insect pests in small farmers’ stores in Zimbabwe. Crop Protection, 10(4):287-292.

Giles PH, Leon O, 1975. Infestation problems in farm-stored maize in Nicaragua. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Working Conference on Stored Products Entomology, Savannah, Georgia, USA, 1974: 68-76.

Hodges RJ, Dunstan WR, Magazini I, Golob P, 1983. An outbreak of Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in East Africa. Protection Ecology, 5(2):183-194.

Nichols TE, Jr., 1983. Economic impact of aflatoxin in corn. In: Diener UL, Asquith RL, Dickens JW, eds. Aflatoxin and Aspergillus flavus in corn. Auburn, USA: Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, 67-71.

Singh SR, Benazet J, 1975. Chemical intervention on all stages and on all scales of tropical storage practice. Brady, E. U.; Brower, J. H.; Hunter, P. E.; Jay, E. G.; Lum, P. T. M.; Lund, H. O.; Mullen, M. A.; Davis, R. (Organisers): Proceedings of the First International Working Conference on Stored-Product Entomology, Savannah, Georgia, USA, October 7-11, 1974, 41-46.

Stoloff L, 1976. Incidence, distribution, and disposition of products containing aflatoxins. Proc. American Phytopatholgical Society, 3:156-172.

White GG, 1982. The effect of grain damage on development in wheat of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, 18(3):115-119.

61

ANNEXES

ANNEX PAGE ANNEX 1. Itinerary for the consultancy related travels and activities 61

ANNEX 2. Checklist used in facilitating discussions with farmers and key informants in the Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania 63

ANNEX 3. A chart of common storage pests which was used to record the major storage insect pests which are destroying farmers’ maize in storage (used during discussions with farmers) 67

ANNEX 4. The consultancy activities – Purpose and objectives, and description of consultancy activities (from consultancy proposal) 69

ANNEX 5. Farmers’ suggestions on what should be done to improve the storage pest situation 72

ANNEX 6. Farmers’ views on whether the storage pest situation has worsened or improved in the past three years, and their reasons. 73

ANNEX 7. – Detailed information for various storage pests of maize 76

ANNEX 1. Itinerary for the consultancy related travels and activities

DATE ACTIVITY

21st to 25th April Working in Nairobi

27th April 2008 Fly to Lilongwe, Malawi and travel to Zomba by road

28th April 2008 1. Meeting with the MVP Science Coordinator (Team Leader) and the Agriculture Coordinator in Zomba, Malawi

2. Discussions with farmers and visits to selected households in Mwandama Millennium Research Village, Zomba, Malawi

29th April 2008 Discussions with farmers and visits to selected households in Nambande Millennium Village, Zomba, Malawi

30th April 2008 1. Discussions with Agriculture Extensions working in the Millennium Villages – meeting held at Thondwe Extension Planning Area, Zomba, Malawi

2. Meeting with the crop storage team and the Pesticide Control Board at Bvumbwe Agriculture Research Station, Thyolo, Malawi

3. Visit to Farmers World, Blantyre, Malawi

4. Visit to ADMARC Headquarters, Limbe, Malawi

1st May 2008 1. Visit to Thunga, Thyolo District to see the Community Metal Silos which were launched by His Excellency, Dr Bingu Wa Mutharika, President of Malawi

2. Travel to Lilongwe, Malawi

2nd May 2008 Visiting selected households in Gumulira MVP, Mchinji, Malawi

3rd May 2008 Discussions with farmers at Gumulira MRV, but they came from several clusters, and more visits to households in the other MVs

5th May 2008 1. Discussions with the Director of Crops, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security Headquarters, Malawi

2. Visit to Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi

6th May 2008 1. Discussions with the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi

2. Discussions with the Director of Agriculture Research, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi

3. Discussions with the Chief Executive Offer and the Finance and Administration Manager, National Food Reserve Agency, Lilongwe, Malawi

4. Visit to Chemicals and Marketing Company, Lilongwe, Malawi

62

7th May 2008 Fly back to Nairobi

8th May 2008 Fly to Dar es Salaam

9th May 2008 Fly to Tabora

10th May 2008 1. Discussions with farmer in Inonelwa MV

2. Brief visit to and discussions with some farmers of Migungumalo Village, Msimba Cluster

11th May 2008 Discussions with farmers and visits to households in Mbola MRV

12th May 2008 1. Discussions with the District Agriculture Officer and District Crop Protection Officer for Tabora

2. A brief visit to the Provincial Agriculture Officer in Tabora

3. Travel from Tabora to Dar es Salaam

4. Discussions with the Assistant Director, Post-Harvest Management Services in the Food Security Division at the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Cooperatives Headquarters

13th May 2008 Fly back to Nairobi

14th to 16th May 2008

Report writing

18th May 2008 Fly to Kisumu, Kenya

19th May 2008 1. Meeting the Team Leader (Science Head) and Agriculture Coordinator at the MVP office in Kisumu, Kenya

2. Discussions with the Provincial Agriculture Officer, Kisumu, Kenya

3. Visits to agrovet shops in Kisumu, Kenya

20th May 2008 1. Discussions with the District Agriculture Officer, Siaya District, Kenya

2. Visit to Marenyo Community Cereal Bank, Sauri MVP, Siaya District, Kenya

3. Farmer discussions at Bar-Kalare, Sauri MVP, Siaya District, Kenya

21st May 2008 1. Visit to Yala National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB), Yala, Siaya District, Kenya. The Yala NCPB is also used for storing MVP maize from the area

2. Discussions with farmers at Germ Hall, Sauri MVP, Siaya District, Kenya

3. Discussions with farmers at Sauri MRV, Siaya District, Kenya

22nd May 2008 1. Discussions with the Agriculture Facilitators at Yala Guest House, Sauri MVP, Siaya District, Kenya

2. Discussions with farmers at Yala Guest House

3. Visits to selected households in Sauri MVP

23rd May 2008 Trip from Kisumu to Nairobi

29th May 2008 Trip to Arusha, Tanzania by road

30th May 2008 1. Discussions with the Director and Crop Storage Scientist at the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute, Arusha, Tanzania

2. Trip back to Nairobi

2nd to 25th June Report writing

63

ANNEX 2. Checklist used in facilitating discussions with farmers and key informants in the Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania

DISCUSSIONS WITH FARMERS

Name of Millennium Village……………………..................................... Number of farmers attending the discussion ………

Date ………………….

1. Information on groups

1. Location of MV (District)……………..

2. A. Maize production

1. List the main varieties grown in your villages

2. Which is the most preferred, why

3. List most resistant varieties to maize storage pests

4. Quantity of maize produced per hectare (Ha.). Obtain the average from the group

5. Whatarethereasonsforchoosingaparticularvarietyifyouchoose?

B. Harvesting practices

1. Howismaizeharvested?

2. Doyoucarryoutanydryinginthefield?

3. Howlongdoyoudryyourmaizebeforeyouputyourmaizeinstorage?

4. Howdoyouknowthatthemaizehasdriedenough?Howdoyoudryyourmaize?

5. Whoisresponsiblefordryingandstoringmaize?

C. Maize use

1. Sold, shared, saved as seed, stored at home, stored centrally; given away);

2. Quantity which is sold at different times of the year and to whom it is sold

3. Doyoustoreyourmaizeingrainformoronthecob?

4. Doyousellanyofyourmaize?Yes/no.Howmuchdoyousell,towho?

5. Howmuchofthemaizedoyoustore?

D. Marketing patterns

1. Howismaizesold,athome,atalocalmarket,specialmarketsuchasADMARC?

2. When do you normally sell your maize; soon after harvest, six months after harvest, or just before the next harvest?

3. Whatarethecommonreasonsforsellingthemaize?

E. Pre-storage management and treatment

1. Howdoyouhandleyourmaizeafterharvesting?

2. Doyoutreatyourmaizewithanypesticidesoranyformoftreatmentsbeforestoring,mentionthetreatment?Whatistherate?

F. Relative importance of maize storage pests to farmers

1. Listfivemajorpestsofmaizeinthefield?

2. Doyouexperienceanypestdamagetoyourmaizeinstorage?Yes/No

3. Carry out matrix ranking of pests of maize especially in storage to gauge relative importance of storage pests affecting maize quantity in storage, livelihoods, household incomes etc.

64

G. Awareness, incidence and loss from maize storage pests

1. Farmers knowledge of storage pest losses; losses due to maize storage pests

2. Listfivemajorpestsofmaizeinstorage?(afterlistingNPtocirculatethephotosofcommonstoragepeststoseeif they are same as they experience

3. According to you how much maize in terms of bags is lost to pests eg out of ten bags stored, how much would be lost to pests after:

i. 3months?

ii. 6months?

iii. 1year?

4. Do they recognize the different storage pests and their effects on stored maize

5. Hasincidenceofmaizestoragepestsdecreasesorincreaseinthepastthreeyears?Askfarmerstoprovidereasons for the decrease or increase.

6. Estimate the maize loss in storage from pests

H. Control of storage maize pests and coping strategies

1. List the four major control methods for maize storage pests

2. number of members controlling maize storage pests

3. For the methods of control used; carry out matrix scoring of these methods to establish the farmer rating these methods

4. Problems encountered while trying to control the pests

5. Arethecontrolmethodssuccessful?Ifnotwhynot?

6. If the use materials such as insecticide – where do you source materials – if source is far how do they go to collect the materials and what does it cost

7. what do you do when your maize has been destroyed in storage by storage pests

8. List other causes of losses, such as weather, rodents, fungi, theft – in order of priority

9. Suggestions on how to improve control of storage pests

I. Storage structures; management during storage

1. List five major storage methods/structures you use; e.g. bags (Hessian, sisal, plastic, drums, cribs, big earthen pots, platforms or grain stores etc

2. Inyourviewwhichisthemostidealmethodincontrollingstoragepests,why?

3. Howmaizeisharvestedandstored?

4. Doyoustoreeverythingtogetherorseparateparticulargrainforstorageandimmediateuse?

5. Do they have facilities to store as much maize as they want – or are they forced to sell some immediately because of lack of space

L. Costs of storage

1. Pre-storage treatments – cost of pesticides, transport, cost of applying pesticides, cost of storage structures, e.g. bags, tins, cribs (construction and maintenance), pots, grain stores

2. Quantify costs associated with the different control methods

3. Howmuchmaizewouldyouloseifyoudidnottreatyourmaize?

M. Constraints and opportunities

1. How would you treat and store your maize if you had adequate resources

2. What would you like Millennium Village Project to do in the area of maize storage in order to reduce maize storagelosses?

3. Whatareaswouldyourequiremoreinformation/investigatedfurther?

4. Are there materials (e.g., insecticides) that you know would be useful but can’t source them – if so what are these and do you know where they are

65

DISCUSSIONS WITH MILLENNIUM VILLAGE PROJECT STAFF AND GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE EXTENTIONISTS

1. Whatmaizetreatmentmethodsdoyourecommendtofarmersbeforeandduringstorage? Whatratesifinsecticides?

2. Arefarmersfollowingtherecommendations?Yes/no

3. If no why

4. Inyourview,whichrecommendedmaizetreatmentmethodsareusedbyfarmers?

5. Whataretheroutesthemaizetakesafteritisharvestedbyfarmers?

6. What proportions is stored by:

a. Farmers?

b. Atcommunitylevelstoragefacilities?Whatproportionissold?

c. Howisitsold?Whatcommunitybased/bulkstoragefacilitiesareavailable?Whoisincharge?

7. Wheredoesmaizegotofromcommunitybasedstoragefacilities?Inwhatproportions?

8. Whatarethemainmaizestoragestructuresatthecentralstoragecentres?

9. Whatarethemainstoragepestsexperiencedinthebulkstoragefacilities?

10. Whatproportionofthemaizeisdamagedbystoragepests?

11. Whatisbeingdonetocontrolthepests?

12. Areanyinsecticidesapplied?Whichones?Whataretheircosts?

13. Whichinsecticidesaremosteffective?Howaretheyapplied?

14. Howmuch/whatproportionsofmaizedofarmersactuallyloseinstorage?

a. Iftheydonotapplyanyinsecticides?

b. Iftheyapplyinsecticides?

c. Ineachstoragetype?Storagetypeandloses:

15. Whatstoragemethodsdoyourecommendtofarmers?

16. In your view which are the common storage facilities which are used by farmers:

17. Whatarethemaizevarietieswhichyourecommend?

18. Whichvarietiesaretoleranttostoragepests?

19. WhichvarietiesaremostlygrownbyfarmersinMVPareas?

20. Howmuchwouldfarmersgetperbagiftheysoldtheirmaizesoonafterharvest?

a. Afterstorage?

21. Howmuchdoesmaizecostfromtraders?

a. At harvest

b. Just before next harvest

22. Howmuchdoesmaizecostfromsemigovernmentmaizemarketinginstitutions?

23. Whatareasofmaizestoragewouldyoulikeinvestigatedfurther?

MEETINGS WITH MAIZE STORAGE RESEARCHERS

1. The recommended maize storage facilities in the country:

2. Whataretherecommendedpre-storagemaizetreatmentmethodsforthecountry?

3. Whatarethemostimportantstoragepestsinthecountry?

4. Whatlosesareexpectedifmaizeisnottreated?

5. Whatisthecostofinsecticidesusedintreatingmaizebeforestorage?

6. Whatarethecostsofthedifferentrecommendedstoragefacilities?

66

7. What proportion of maize would be saved if the farmer followed the recommended maize treatment and storage facilities?

8. Whatarethemainareasofresearchinmaizestorageyoufeelshouldbeinvestigatedfurther?

MEETING WITH GOVERNMENT MAIZE AUTHORITIES (DEPARTMENT HEAD(S))

1. Whatisthegovernmentpolicyonmaizeinrelationtofoodsecurity,curbingstoragelosses,etc?

2. Whatarethemainmaizevarietieswhicharerecommendedinthecountry?

3. Inyourviewwhatarethemajorconstraintstomaizeproduction?

4. Whataremajormaizestorageconstraints?

5. Whatistheministry/departmentdoingtomanagetheconstraints?

6. Whatisthedepartment’sprioritiesinmaizestorage?

7. What are the losses due to pests in storage at:

a. Householdlevel?

b. Atnationallevel?

NATIONAL SILOS

1. Whatistheproportionoftheannualproductionwhichcomestothesilos?

2. Whatroutedoesthemaizefollowfromharvestingtothesilos?

3. Whatareexpectedlossesalongthechain?(sourcesofmaizewhichisstoredinthenationalmaizesilos)

4. Whatarethemainpestsinstorageinthesilos,andhowaretheymanaged?

5. What do you think could be possible areas of improvement as far as curbing losses in storing in the silos, fundspermitting?

GOVERNMENT MAIZE MARKETING ORGANISATIONS (EG ADMARC IN MALAWI) /CEREAL BOARDS

1. Roughlywhatproportionofmaizedoyoubuyfromfarmers’annualproduction?

2. Howdoyoustoremaizesoonafterpurchasingthemaizeatyoursatelliteandareamarkets?

3. Howlongismaizekeptattheprimarybuyingdepots?

4. Howlongismaizekeptattheareadepots?

5. Whatarethemaizestoragepestsyouencounterateachlevel/depottype?

6. Whatdoyoudotocontrolthepests?

7. Whatinsecticidesdoyouselltofarmersforcontrollingstoragepests?,whatarethecosts? Howaretheyapplied,atwhatrate?

8. Whatarethepotentiallossesifyoudonotcarryoutthenecessarytreatments?

9. Whatproportionofthestoredmaizeisstilllostevenwhenyouapplythenecessarytreatmentandstorage?

a. Atprimarymaizebuyingdepots?

b. Atareadepots?

c. Atregionalorcentraldepots?

10. Whatproportionofthemaizegoestothenationalmaizesilos?

11. Whatproportionissoldattheorganisation’sdepots?

67

1

3

5

2

4

6

ANNEX 3. A chart of common storage pests which was used to record the major storage insect pests which are destroying farmers’ maize in storage (used during discussions with farmers

Do you know your enemy - Common pests of stored maize

68

7

9

11

13

8

10

12

69

Key to pests

Number Name of pest

1 Maize weevil

2 Rice weevil

3 Rice weevil

4 Granary weevil

5 Confused flour beetle

6 Rust Red Flour beetle

7 Larger grain borer

8 Larger grain borer



11 Lesser grain borer

12 Angoumois Grain Moth

13 Fungal (mycotoxin) contamination

ANNEX 4. The consultancy activities – Purpose and objectives, and description of consultancy activities (from consultancy proposal)

1. Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the proposed consultancy is therefore to reduce post-harvest losses of maize in the Millennium Villages of Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania, and by extension across the region, through improved management.

The specific objectives are:

To make a rapid assessment of maize storage practices and losses in Malawi, Kenya and Tanzania•

To provide interim recommendations (best practice) for managing maize storage pests in these countries•

To prepare a full CABI-MDG Centre joint proposal for submission to donors.•

2. Description of activities

The following activities will be carried out:

Activity 1: Literature review

A literature review of the latest maize storage and pest management methods, with a view of choosing the most appropriate management practices for stored pests for use by farmers in the Millennium Villages, other farmers surrounding the Millennium Villages, and the country as a whole. Literature review will form the first component of the study.

Activity 2: Consultation

In the Millennium Villages of Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi, discussions with members of staff and participating farmers will determine the varieties of maize being grown, storage methods, and methods currently used to manage pests of maize. Grain storage experts from the national programmes, as well as government officials responsible for maize production, will also be consulted, to determine available storage methods in each country and their perceptions regarding maize storage pests. In addition, the most common maize storage structures and pests will be physically examined, to validate the information acquired through discussions. Stored grain will be randomly sampled using a spear sampler to determine the most common maize storage pests particularly under smallholder conditions.

Activity 3: Development of interim recommendations

The findings of Activities 1 and 2 will inform the development of interim recommendations on best practice for the management of maize storage pests within the context of the current state of knowledge.

70

Activity 4: Development of a comprehensive proposal for an integrated and sustainable management system for maize storage pests

There is a need for further research and development activities to build upon current knowledge to expand the range of options available for effective management of stored maize in the region. The consultancy will include the development of a full project proposal which will include the following areas:

Review and validate, using farmer participatory methods, the technical efficacy of managing maize storage •pests

Review of the available maize varieties and documentation of tolerant (hard grain) varieties. This will include •short term storage experiments in liaison with the national teams. The review will also include the use of hybrids vs. open pollinated varieties and their associated socio-economics of storage

Develop storage pest management recommendations which can be taken up at household, community and •large scale levels

3. Methodology

Different methods will be used in carrying out the different activities. A summary of the methodologies which will be used are presented below:

Activity Methodology

Activity 1: Literature review A desk study.

Activity 2: Consultation 1. Discussions with Millennium Village staff and at least 10 farmers; discussions will aim at answering the following questions:

•Aretherepestproblemsinmaizeproduction?

•Whicharemostimportantpestsduringpre-andpost-harvestofmaize(rankingof1-5inlevelofimportance)?

•Whatarethefarmer/staffdoingaboutthepests?

•Whatcontrolmeasuresaretheyusingifcarryingoutanycontrolmeasures?

•Howsuccessfularethemethodsincontrollingthepests?

•Whataretheirsourcesofinformationonmaizeproduction,storage,andpestcontrol?

•Whicharethemainstoragemethodsfarmersareusing?

•WhatmaizevarietiesarefarmersgrowinginMillenniumVillages?

•Whataspectsofmaizestorage(includingpestmanagement)wouldtheylikeresearchtoinvestigatefurther?

2. Discussions with government agriculture extension and crop storage staff to find answers to the following questions:

•Whicharethemostcommonmaizevarietiesbeinggrowninthecountry?

•Whatarethemostcommonstorageproblems/pestsinthecountry?

•Whataretheydoingaboutit?

3. Physical assessment storage structures and the pest status.

•Maizeinstoragewillberandomlysampledforpresence/absenceofthemain storage pests. This will not be a detailed study due to limited time available. More details will be carried out in the main project if the main proposal is funded.

Activity 3: Development of interim recommendations

Desk study. Recommendations will be given on predominant storage pests and structures found during visits to the different countries and Millennium Villages in the respective countries, and will be based on findings from literature review.

Activity 4: Development of a comprehensive proposal for an integrated and sustainable management system for maize storage pests

Desk study which will utilize findings from the field visits and literature review.

71

4. Expected outputs

1. A report outlining:

a. The main methods for storing maize in participating countries

b. The main maize storage pests in each of the Millennium Villages in Malawi, Kenya and Tanzania

c. The main methods being used in managing the main storage pests by farmers in the Millennium Villages of the three countries

d. Recommendations on the best interim methods for managing the maize storage pests

2. A full project proposal on integrated management of the main maize storage pests in the Millennium Villages, to be co-hosted by CABI and the MDG East and Southern Africa Centre.

5. Schedule of activities:

Activity Week 1 Week2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6

Activity 1: Literature Review

Activity 2: Consultation

•VisittoMalawi

•VisittoTanzania

•VisittoWesternKenya

•Reportwriting

Activity 3: Development of interim recommendation

Activity 4: Develop a full proposal

72

ANNEX 5. Farmers’ suggestions on what should be done to improve the storage pest situation

Millennium Village Suggestions


•Theprojecttoprovidecementwhilethefarmerstoprovidelabourandtherest.

•Grainbankstobeusedbythecommunitymemberswhodon’thavegranaries.

•Theprojecttoassistinsourcingforgoodstoragepesticides.

•Farmerstobetrainedonthechemicalapplicationsandtherighttypeofchemicals to be used.


•Providefarmerswithgoodseedvarieties.

•ConstructGranariesineveryhouseholdasthefarmerprovideslabour,sandandbricks.

•Sprayerstoprovidechemicalsandtechnicaladvice.

•MVPtocomeupwithformulationstocontrolLGB.


•Theprojecttoprovidestoragepesticidesandatechnicalpersontoadvicethefarmers on their application and storage.

•Constructagrainbank.


•Theprojecttohelpwithstoragepesticideswhichareeffective.

•Toprovidedurablestoragebags.

•Shouldassistthemtomakecribsorgranaries.


•Toprovidesisalbagswhicharemaredurable.

•Providestores/granaries.

•Setupdomegranaries.


•Provisionofsafestoragestructures.

•CommunitySilos.

•Improvementoncerealbankingwheretheirmaizeisstoredatasmallfee.


•Constructionofacommunitytobemaintainedbythem.

•Shouldbetaughtonhowstoretheirproduceandtoconstructmoderngranariese.g. metallic silos.

•Shouldbeprovidedwithsisalgunnybags.

•Tobeadvisedontherecommendedpesticidesorsuppliedwith.


•ConstructastoragefacilityliketheNCPBoneatYala.Theyarewillingtopayasmall fee.

•Thecommunitystorecouldbepaidinoftheproduceharvested.

•Transportshouldalsobeorganisedintheformofacommunityvan.

•MVPtoopenanenterprisewheretheycanselltheirmaize.

•Trainedpersonneltoadviceontheproperstorageoperations.

Sauri •Theyshouldbesupportedthroughconstructionofminisilosathouseholdlevel.

•Constructionofimprovedcribs.

•Buildbiggerroomsforthemsoastohavestoreroomwithin.

73

ANNEX 6. Farmers’ views on whether the storage pest situation has worsened or improved in the past three years, and their reasons.

MILLENNIUM VILLAGE PEST PROBLEM INCREASED OR DECREASED

REASONS


Increased (All groups)

•Insufficientstoragestructurestostoremaize

•Mostoffarmersdonothaveenoughmoneytobuychemicals(insecticides)results into high multiplication of storage pests

•Mostofstoragepestsenterourvillagethroughmaizeassistance from government to the past three years the multiplication of insect is faster

•Thehybridmaizeissoft

•Foodaidcamewithstoragepests

•Becauseofdelaysinharvesting

•Notapplyinginsecticidesontime

•DuetocomingofdifferentmaizetypesintheGrainBank

•Lackofapplyingthecorrectinsecticides

•Increaseinamountofhybridsmaize

•Theinsecticideswhicharebeingboughtareineffective

•Lackofpropercarefromharvestingsuchasnotputtinginsacks

•Comingofmaize/foodwhichcamewithweevilstoragepestsespecially LGB

•Thishappenedin2004/2005whentherewasalotofstructure

•Somemaizematureearlyandbecomeinfectedinthefielde.g.DK 8031- it is open tipped hybrid by Monsanto

•Mosthybridsdonotcloseproperly


Increased •Duetoineffectiveinsecticides

•Duetodestructionoftreeswhicharealternativehosts

•Duetosusceptiblevarieties


Increased •Onlyfewpeopleuseinsecticides,thuspestpopulationbuild up Maize is not fully mature due to shortage of rains, it becomes very susceptible

•Duetoproliferationofsusceptiblevarieties

•Scarcityofinsecticidesandmoney

Inonelwa Millennium Village, Ibiri Cluster, Tabora, Tanzania.

Increased (All groups)

•Lackofmoneytobuypesticides

•Insufficientstoragestructurestostoremaize

•Mostofstoragepestsenterourvillagethroughmaizeassistance from government to the past three years the multiplication of insect is faster

•whenmixingtheinsecticideswegetcoughandflu

•Lowchemicalstrengthtokillstorageinsects

74


Increased •Typeofseeds-Varietiesgrownsusceptibletoinsect

•Storedgrainsarenottreated

•Unavailabilityofchemicalstocontrolstoragepests

•Lackofmoneytobuychemicals


Decreased (2 out of 6 groups)

•WhenIfoundthembeingdestroyedIboughtthechemicalwhich decreased the pests

•Afterrealizingthattheparticularbagsincreasedpests,Istarted using the granary and sisal bags

•Airingforsometimesespeciallyafter2month

Increased (4 out of 6 groups)

•Lackofmoney/income

•Badweatheri.e.rainyseason

•Poorstoragefacility

•HIVpandemichasreducedmanpower

•Chemicalsideeffectshavehamperpeoplefromusingchemicals

•Mixingofnewharvestwitholdstock

•Poorstorage

•Stickbeatingofcobswhileshelling

•Lackofdustingmaterials

•Lackofeffectivepesticide

•Lackoffundstobuythesepesticides

•Lackofgoodstoragefacilities

•Typeofseeds-Differentseeds,recentlyintroducedseedsencourages these pests

•Thechemicalsareexpensivetothefarmers

•Lackofknowledgeonthechemicaluse

Anyiko, Nyamninia, and Jina.(atYala Guest House)

Increased (4 out of the 5 groups)

•Inadequatetreatment

•Increaseinyields

•Poormanagementofmaizeyieldpractices

•Weatherproblemsindryingmaize

•Lackofstoragefacilities

•Differentvarietiesofchemicals

•Lackofknowledgeonstoragemanagement

•Pestsmultiply

•Poorstorage

•Poordusting

•Somedrugsarenotpowerful

•Poordrying

•Rapidmultiplicationofpests

•Inadequatechemicalapplicationduetobumperharvest

75

Decreased (1 out of the 5 groups)

•Useofinsecticides

•Wellventilatedstores

•Useofsisalsacks


Increased(All) •Developedresistance

•Lackofproperknowledgeondryingandpestcontrol

•Maizevarietiesplantednowareeasilyaffectedbypestscompared to local varieties

•Lackofproperstoragefacilities

•Lackofstorageskills

•Increaseinyields

•Insufficientfundstobuypesticides

•Lackofmarket

•Thestrengthofthepesticide/chemicalhasreduced

•Useoflessamountofthepesticideduetolackofmoney

•Poordryingmethod

Sauri Decreased (1 out of the 3 groups)

•Applicationofchemicals

•Improvedstorage

•Technicalknow-howoverthepests

Increased (2 out of the 3 groups)

•Lackofstorageknowledge

•Financialdisabilitytobuythepesticides

•Bumperharvest

•Capacityofstorageinadequate

76

ANNEX 7. Descriptions of various storage pests of maize

PEST TYPE DESCRIPTION

The Larger Grain Borer (Prostephanus truncates (H).

The Larger Grain Borer (LGB) belongs to the order Coleoptera and family Bostrichidae. It’s a polyphagous insect with a wide range of hosts e.g. maize, cassava, bulrush millet, sorghum, yam, wheat, and structural wood (Nansen et al., 2004).The first reported African outbreak of the LGB occurred in western Tanzania in the late 1970s and Togo in West Africa in the early 1980s (Dunstan and Magazini, 1981) where, due to lack of natural enemies and with a favourable climate and food sources, the pest caused serious damage to farm-stored maize. The pest has now spread to many African countries where it has become a serious pest of both stored maize and dried cassava ((Meikle et al., 1998). Females lay about 30-50 eggs in tunnels they bore as they feed in the food source which hatches after 3-7 days to larvae which are white, fleshy, partly covered with hairs and have three pairs of legs. After 4-7 days, pupation occurs inside the grains from where the adult beetles which are cylindrical, 3-4.5 mm long and dark-brown in colour emerge through round exit holes. The life cycle is completed within 25-26 days at optimum conditions of temperatures of 30ºC, humidity of 70% and grain moisture content of13% but takes longer under cooler and drier conditions (Nan’gayo et al., 1993, 2002, Nansen et al., 2004). The pest attacks maize on the cob both before and after harvest with the adults boring holes into the maize husks, cobs, or grains making round holes and producing large quantities of grain dust as it tunnels (Nansen , 2003). Adult beetles display most flight activity around dusk with a small peak around dawn. This flight activity together with the importation and exportation of infested grains helps in the spread of the beetle over long distances to new and uninfested areas (Nansen et al., 2001).They cause losses as high as 35% after only 3- 6-month maize storage period in East Africa with a mean loss of 9% in farm stores (Meikle et al., 2002).

77

Biology and Ecology

Prostephanus truncatus may be attracted to maize grain and dried cassava over short distances. However, field studies in both Mexico and Togo suggest that there is no long-range attraction of adult P. truncatus to maize grain or cobs, or dried cassava; this is not surprising because wood is the major host of this beetle. It has been shown in laboratory tests that upwind flight is mediated by a male-released aggregation pheromone and not by host volatiles (Fadamiro et al., 1998) and field studies provide strong evidence that host selection, in the case of maize and cassava, occurs by chance (Birkinshaw et al., 2002). Details of host selection can be found in Hodges (1994), Scholl et al. (1997) and Hodges et al. (1998).

Adults frequently initiate their attack on stored maize cobs with intact sheaths by boring into the base of the maize cob cores, although they eventually gain access to the grain via the apex of the cob by crawling between the sheathing leaves (Hodges and Meik, 1984). Adults bore into the maize grains, making neat round holes, and as they tunnel from grain to grain they generate large quantities of maize dust. Adult females lay eggs in chambers bored at right angles to the main tunnels. Egg-laying on stabilized grain, like that on the maize cob, is more productive than on loose-shelled grain as the oviposition period is longer, equal in length to the life of the female, and the eggs are laid at a greater rate.

Larvae hatch from the eggs after about three days at 27°C and seem to thrive on the dust produced by boring adults. For example, large numbers of larvae develop and pupate in dust at the base of dense laboratory cultures.

The life cycle of P. truncatus has been investigated at a range of temperatures and humidities and according to the work done by Shires, 1979, 1980; Bell and Watters, 1982; Hodges and Mei, 1984), development of the larva through to the adult stage at the optimum conditions of 32°C and 80% RH takes 27 days on a diet of maize grain. They observed that humidity within the range 50-80% RH does not greatly affect the development period or mortality; at 32°C, a drop in RH from 80 to 50% (giving maize with an equilibrium moisture content of about 10.5%) extended the mean development period by just 6 days and increased the mean mortality by only 13.3%. This tolerance of dry conditions was confirmed during field studies in Nicaragua and Tanzania in which maize at 10.6 and 9% moisture content, respectively, was heavily infested.

The success of this pest may be partly due to its ability to develop in grain at low moisture. Many other storage pests are unable to increase in number under low moisture conditions. For example, Sitophilus oryzae, a species occurring in the same ecological niche, needs a grain moisture content of at least 10.5% for development. Thus, in dry conditions, P. truncatus probably benefits from the absence of any significant competition from other storage pests.

P. truncatus develops more rapidly on maize grain than on cassava; at 27°C and 70% RH, the respective development periods on maize grain and cassava were 32.5 and 40 days, respectively. Under ideal conditions of temperature and humidity on maize cobs or stabilized maize grain, estimates for the intrinsic rate of increase (r) of P. truncatus are in the order of 0.7-0.8 per week; this is similar to the rate of increase reported for Tribolium castaneum under comparable climatic conditions (Hodges et al 1984).

Details of flight performance and factors affecting flight and distribution behaviour have been investigated in the laboratory (Fadamiro and Wyatt, 1955, 1996; Fadamiro, 1997). A field study in Honduras showed flight activity of P. truncatus following a daily bimodal pattern with a major peak at 06.00-08.00 h and a minor peak at 18.00-20.00 h (Novillo, 1991). A similar pattern was observed by Tigar et al. (1993) in Central Mexico and Birkinshaw et al. (2004) in Ghana, but in both these cases the major peak was associated with dusk.

Adults may be sexed using a method described by Shires and McCarthy (1976).

For further detailed information on biology and ecology, consult reviews by Hodges (1986), Markham et al. (1991), Hodges (1994), Nansen and Meikle (2002) and Hill et al. (2002).

78

Maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) and Lesser grain weevil (Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus))

Maize weevil, also called greater grain weevil is the most common pest of stored maize in most African countries. Maize weevil mainly prefers maize, but has also been reported as a pest of dried cassava. Its preferred host include maize, cassava, rice, sorghum, and wheat. Minor hosts include taro, soybean, common beans, wheat, adzuki bean and cowpea.

Biology and ecology

The earlier confusion over the identity of S. zeamais and S. oryzae, and the fact that most of the major basic studies were made before the confusion was resolved, means we cannot be sure to which of the species many of the observations refer. The development of the two species is clearly very similar, but there are probably a number of differences in the effects of environmental factors. Thus, the information given below may be taken as generally applicable to both species, but it should be remembered that there may be specific differences in details.

The biology of S. zeamais and S. oryzae has been reviewed in detail by Longstaff (1981). The adults are long-lived (several months to one year). Eggs are laid throughout most of the adult life, although 50% may be laid in the first 4-5 weeks; each female may lay up to 150 eggs. The eggs are laid individually in small cavities chewed into cereal grains by the female; each cavity is sealed, thus protecting the egg, by a waxy secretion (usually referred to as an ‘egg-plug’) produced by the female. The incubation period of the egg is about 6 days at 25°C (Howe, 1952). Eggs are laid at temperatures between 15 and 35°C (with an optimum around 25°C) and at grain moisture contents over 10%; however, rates of oviposition are very low below 20°C or above 32°C, and below about 12% moisture content (Birch, 1944).

Upon hatching, the larva begins to feed inside the grain, excavating a tunnel as it develops. There are four larval instars: in English wheat at 25°C and 70% RH, pupation occurs after about 25 days, although development periods are extremely protracted at low temperatures (e.g. 98 days at 18°C and 70% RH). Pupation takes place within the grain; the newly developed adult chews its way out, leaving a large, characteristic emergence hole. Total development periods range from about 35 days under optimal conditions to over 110 days in unfavorable conditions (Birch, 1944; Howe, 1952). The actual length of the life cycle also depends upon the type and quality of grain being infested: for example, in different varieties of maize, mean development periods of S. zeamais at 27°C and 70% RH have been shown to vary from 31 to 37 days. The development of S. zeamais on different wheats (Triticum spelta, T. dicoccum and T. monococcum spikelets and kernels) has also been studied (Suss et al., 1999). A demographic population simulation model of S. zeamais in grain stores in West Africa has been devised (Meikle et al., 1999).

Although both species are capable of flight, S. zeamais has a greater ability and tendency to fly (Giles, 1969). Where grain is stored on small farms, S. zeamais is thus more likely than S. oryzae to fly to the ripening crop in the field and establish an infestation in the grain before harvest.

Trematerra et al. (1996) developed a method for analysis and comparison of the development rate of S. oryzae on different cereals (Triticum aestivum, T. dicoccum, T. durum, T. monococcum and T. spelta). Yoon et al. (1997) constructed a matrix model of S. oryzae populations based on degree-days. The behavioral activity of S. oryzae towards intact and damaged kernels of Triticum aestivum, T. durum, T. dicoccum, T. monococcum and T. spelta was investigated by Trematerra et al. (1999).

Although both species are capable of flight, S. zeamais has a greater ability and tendency to fly (Giles, 1969). Where grain is stored on small farms, S. zeamais is thus more likely than S. oryzae to fly to the ripening crop in the field and establish an infestation in the grain before harvest.

The Confused beetle (Tribolium sp)

Confused beetle or Flour beetle (T. confusum and T. castaneum), though a temperate pest is an important secondary pest of flour and cereal products. It infests maize after the other pests have damaged the maize grain. The pest(s) were very common in maize which had been destroyed to flour by the LGB alone or in a combination with other storage pests in Malawi, Tanzania and Kenya.

79

Biology

The biology and ecology of T. confusum resemble those of T. castaneum in many respects. However, the optimum temperature for development (32.5°C) and minimum (a little below 20°C) and maximum (37.5°C) temperatures where development is possible for T. confusum are all about 2.5°C lower than for T.castaneum (Howe, 1960). T. confusum is not cold-hardy; 7°C seems to be the critical temperature at or below which all stages are killed when exposed for 3 weeks or more.

1. Eggs

A total of 4-500 eggs are produced over a period of a few months by a single adult T. confusum or T. castaneum. Under favourable conditions, eggs hatch in 3-5 days.

2. Larval development

Larvae go through a series of instars while feeding in grain or processed grain products. In whole grain, the presence of grain dust and debris provides a suitable environment for the development of early instars. In such an environment, larvae can develop at moisture contents as low as 8%. Larvae molt 5-11 times, depending on the food source and environment.

3. Pupae

Pupae are naked (no cocoon). The development from egg to adult can be completed in 26 days under ideal conditions. Adults normally live for about 1 year, but have been known to live for up to 5 years (Sauer, 1992). The maximum rate of increase is about a 60-fold increase in population size per lunar month, which is lower than for T. castaneum.

4. Adults

Adults and large larvae eat conspecific eggs and pupae, and will also attack immobile stages of other species.

T. confusum is more successful than T. castaneum on undamaged cereal grains, and is more capable of development on food with low vitamin B content (Haines, 1991). It is reported to be commonly found in processed grain products, possibly because of its reduced dispersal capabilities: T. confusum is not known to fly, despite the presence of flight wings similar to those of T. castaneum (Sauer, 1992).

Mixed populations of the two species are only found when populations are small. Competition between the two species is complex, involving differences in nutrition, physical preferences, cannibalism and many other factors. T. castaneum is always dominant in tropical conditions, but elsewhere the outcome of competition is difficult to predict. T.confusum is known to be an alternate host for various cestode parasites of man, rodents and poultry: Hymenolepis diminuta uses (amongst other arthropods) T. confusum as an intermediate host, and this flour beetle is usually the host used for laboratory maintenence. H. diminuta is mainly a parasite of rodents, and man is only occasionally infected. Infections in man are light and of short duration.

Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier))

The grain moth is a pest of stored products. Plants are attacked at a post harvest stage, although some are also attached at the fruiting stage. Most host plants whose seeds are affected are maize, oats, barley, rice, pearl millet, rye, sorghum, and wheat. However, Grain moth is often found alongside other pests, with which it may act synergistically.

Biology and ecology

Infestations of S. cerealella occur during storage, or preharvest (Howlander and Matin, 1988) or postharvest (Seck, 1991a). In the field, S. cerealella is able to attack whole (undamaged) grains (Evans, 1987), which poses a greater problem in tropical and subtropical countries than elsewhere (ARS, USDA, 1978). There are about five generations per year in southern Europe, but in warmer climates S. cerealella is continuously brooded with up to 12 generations per year. In temperate countries, it overwinters in the larval stage in stored grain kernels or in scattered wheat in litter, straw piles or baled straw.

80

The eggs are laid at night on the outside of cereal grains, in cracks, grooves or holes made by other insects (Hammad et al., 1967). Eggs are laid singly or in clumps; the number laid is variable. The adult lifespan may be up to 15 days (Mondragon and Almeida, 1988) and one female may lay up to 200 eggs (Dobie et al., 1984) although 40 is a more average number (ARS, USDA, 1978).Larvae bore into the grain after hatching, entering sorghum kernels primarily in the germ end and its periphery (Wongo, 1990). Larvae complete their development in a single grain; two or three larvae may develop in single grains of maize, but only one adult is produced from single grains of other hosts (Cox and Bell, 1981).The rate of development is dependent on temperature. Mondragon and Almeida (1988) found that development was favoured at 25°C, and that at this temperature, with 70±2% RH and a diet of maize, the mean period of development for the larval stage was 29.4 days. Although larvae will hatch at temperatures down to 12°C and up to 36°C (Cox and Bell, 1981), 16°C and 30% RH are cited as the minimum conditions for population increases (Evans, 1987) and the upper temperature limit is 35°C (Dobie et al., 1984). Humidity in the range 50-90% RH has little effect on the development rate (Boldt, 1974).

The nature of the host may also affect the rate of larval development, with development times of 20 days reported for wheat (Cocurt X-71) and 22.4 days for barley (Cleaper) (Mahdi et al., 1988). Even under laboratory conditions, there may be wide variation in life cycles, with adults emerging after 20 to 90 days (Grinberg and Palii, 1981). Before pupation, the larva extends the anterior of its chamber to just beneath the surface of the grain, forming a small circular ‘window’ of translucent seed coat, which is the first visible sign of infestation. Mondragon and Almeida (1988) recorded an average pupal stage of 10.4 days, but this may be as short as 5 days (Dobie et al., 1984). In very small grains (e.g. some sorghum grains), pupation may occur between two or more grains held together by the silken threads of a thin cocoon. The newly emerged adult pushes through the window of the seed coat, leaving a small, but characteristic, round hole, usually in the crown end of the grain (Wongo, 1990). Part of the window often remains at the edge of the hole in the form of a ‘trapdoor’ or shallow cone. At 30°C and 80% RH, the complete life cycle can take as little as 25 to 28 days, although at 25°C, the total life cycle was found to last 48.6 days (Mondragon and Almeida, 1988). Under optimal conditions, the estimated intrinsic rate of increase of the population is 50 times per lunar month. The effect of different rearing temperatures (21, 24, 27 and 30°C) at 65% RH and different relative humidities (30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90%) at 26°C on the biology of S. cerealella reared on wheat grains was investigated in Egypt. The duration of the egg stage, preoviposition, oviposition and postoviposition periods, and adult lifespan was negatively correlated with temperature. The highest number of eggs was laid at 27°C (155/female).Adults are strong fliers and cross-infestation occurs easily. However, they are also delicate and cannot penetrate far into closely packed grain. Because the larvae also stay in the same grain throughout their development, infestations in bulk grain are usually confined to the outermost exposed layers.

The lesser grain borer (Rhizopertha dominica)

This is a tiny beetle (2-3 mm long) with a slim and cylindrical shape and red-brown to black in colour. The thorax bears rows of teeth on its upper front edge and the head is turned down underneath the thorax so that it cannot be seen from above. Eggs are laid loose among the cereal grains. The larvae are mobile. Both larvae and adult bore through the stored produce usually causing characteristic round tunnels (up to 1 mm diameter).

In later stages of infestation this beetles may also hollow out the grains. Pupation usually takes place within the eaten grain. The lesser grain borer is primarily a pest of cereal grains, other seeds, cereal products and dried cassava. It will be controlled by any method that controls the LGB,

Storage moth or tropical warehouse moth (Ephestia cautella)

The main storage moths are the tropical warehouse moth (Ephestia cautella), the rice moth (Corcyra cephalonica), and the Indian meal moth (Plodia interpunctella). These storage moths are small (15-20 mm wingspan), greyish brown in colour. The moth of the Indian meal moth is dinstinctive with the outer half of the forewings a coppery-red separate from the creamy inner half by dark grey bands.Female moths lay eggs through holes in the bags. Larvae are elongated whitish caterpillars about 2 cm long. They feed on the seed germ, moving about freely in the stored foodstuff. They cause extensive damage in cereal Flours and other milled products, but also in whole grains, mainly feeding on the germ. They also attack nuts, groundnuts, dry fruit, cocoa, copra and other foodstuff. The dense white cocoons of the pupae are often seen attached to the bag surfaces. Infestations are characterised by aggregations of kernels, frass, cocoon and dirt caused by webbing, which contaminates the foodstuff reducing its quality.

81

Dried fruit beetles (Carpophilus spp.)

They are slightly flattened ovate to oblong beetles, 2-5 mm in length. The wing cases are short, leaving part of the abdomen exposed. They are light brown to black in colour, but

several species have yellow or red markings on the wing cases. They are secondary pests; presence of these beetles is an indicator of damp, mouldy conditions. Adults and larvae cause damage on poorly dried cereal grains, cocoa, copra, oilseeds, dried fruit, vegetables, herbs and mouldy produce.

Fungi Storage fungi include species of Aspergillus and Penicilium. Storage fungi require a relative humidity of at least 65%, which is equivalent to equilibrium moisture content of 13% in cereal grain. Storage fungi grow at temperatures of between 10°C to 40°C. Infection with certain species of fungi may already occur in the field, reducing considerably the storage life of grains. Infection with storage fungi can cause:

Loss of nutrients •

Discolouration of the grain •

Reduction of germination capacity •

Caking of grains •

Increase in the temperature of the stored goods up to spontaneous combustion •

Mouldy smell and taste •

Production of mycotoxins;•

These are toxic substances produced various fungi under certain conditions, which remain in the stored product as residues. They are highly poisonous to both human and animals. The best-known mycotoxins are aflatoxin, ochratoxin, patulin and citrin. Aflatoxins, which are produced by Aspergilus flavus are regarded as very dangerous substance causing liver cancer Damage caused by fungi is often neglected until it has reached and advanced stage. However, it is very important to prevent growth of fungi, since it the only way of avoid mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are very stable and cannot be destroyed by boiling, pressing and processing. This means that infected produce has to be destroyed. Mycotoxins can be found in the stored product as soon as 24 hours after infection with fungus. To prevent contamination by fungi, the produce must be properly dried, and any source of moisture in the store should be avoided.

The major moulds and mycotoxins they produce are shown below:

Fungi Mycotoxin(s) produced

1. Aspergillus parasiticus Aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, G2

2. A. flavus Aflatoxins B1, B2

3. Fusarium sporotrichioides T-2 toxin

4. F. graminearum Deoxynivalenol (vomitoxin) zearalenone

5. F. moniliforme Fumonisins

6. Penicillium verrucosum Ochratoxin A

82

JUNE 2008


Submitted To:

The MDG CentreEast And Southern AfricaBox 30677-00100Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 7224485Fax: +254 20 7224490

By:

CABI AfricaUN Avenue, ICRAF ComplexBox 633-00621Nairobi, KenyaTel.: +254 20 7224450Fax: +254 20 7122150Email: [email protected]

Managing pests of stored maize in Kenya, Malawi and … Table of contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 2....

Documents

Transcript of Managing pests of stored maize in Kenya, Malawi and … Table of contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 2....