Affiliation: | aInternational Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi 00100, Kenya bUniversity of Nairobi, P.O. Box 25093, Nairobi 00625, Kenya cEgerton University, P.O. Box 536, Egerton 20107, Kenya dKenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kitale, P.O. Box 450, Kitale 30200, Kenya eBiological Chemistry Division, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK |
Abstract: | The ‘push–pull’ technology (PPT), developed in Africa, offers effective control of cereal stemborers and Striga weed in maize-based cropping systems. It involves intercropping maize with desmodium, Desmodium uncinatum, with Napier grass, Pennisetum purpureum, planted as border around this intercrop. Desmodium repels the stemborer moths (push) that are subsequently attracted to the Napier grass (pull). Desmodium also suppresses and eliminates Striga. We assessed economic performance of this technology compared to the conventional maize mono- and maize–bean intercropping systems in six districts in western Kenya over 4–7 years. Ten farmers were randomly recruited in each district and each planted three plots representing the three cropping systems. The cost–benefit analyses were carried out, together with the systems’ net returns to land and labour and their discounted net present values (NPV). Maize grain yields and associated gross margins from the PPT system were significantly higher than those in the other two systems. Although the production costs were significantly higher in the PPT than in the two cropping systems in the first cropping year, these reduced to either the same level or significantly lower than in the maize–bean intercrop from the second year onwards in most of the districts. Similarly, the net returns to land and labour with the PPT were significantly higher than with the other two systems. The PPT consistently produced positive NPV when the incremental flows of its benefits compared to those of the two conventional systems were discounted at 10–30%, indicating that PPT is more profitable than the other two systems under realistic production assumptions. PPT is thus a viable option for enhancing productivity and diversification for smallholder farmers who largely depend on limited land resource. Hence, enhancing farmers’ access to less costly planting materials and promoting quality education and training in the use of this knowledge-intensive technology could stimulate its successful adoption. |