EFFECT OF USE OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON YIELD OF RICE IN SOUTH-EAST, NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009273

No of Pages: 173

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦10000

  • $

 

ABSTRACT

The study assessed the effect of use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practice on yield of rice in South-East, Nigeria. The specific objectives of the study include to; ascertain the most prevalent pest of rice in the study area, ascertain farmers’ awareness of IPM, ascertain farmers’ sources of information about IPM in South-East Nigeria, estimate the yield of rice before the use of IPM practice, determine the level of utilization of IPM practice by the respondents, estimate the yield of rice farmers after the use of IPM practice in the study area and ascertain the perceived constraint in the use of IPM. The major hypothesis states that use of IPM practice has no significant effect on the yield of rice in the study area. A Multi- stage sampling technique was used to select 360 respondents from three States (Abia, Ebonyi and Enugu States) of South-East Nigeria. Questionnaire and interview schedule were used for data collection, and data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics such as frequency count, percentages, mean scores, ANOVA and regression model. The results showed that most prevalent pests of rice were represented by birds, grasshopper, grasscutter, stemborer and butterfly and most (64.4%) of the farmers became aware of IPM practice mainly through friends, cooperatives, radio, extension agents, facebook and newspaper.  The estimated yield of rice farmers was low (1,236.5kg/ha) before they started using IPM but became high (3,115kg/ha) after the use of IPM practice. The grand mean score  ( = 3.05) showed that there is high utilization of IPM in South-East. The major perceived constraints in the use of IPM include, inadequate finance, insufficient information about IPM, high cost of inputs, inadequate technical know-how, among others. The first null hypothesis result was rejected since the farmers’ use of IPM had significant effect on yield of rice at 1% probability level. The last null hypothesis was also rejected since there was a significant difference on yield of rice produced, using IPM and that produced without using IPM practice at 0.05 alpha level. The study, therefore, concludes that the use of IPM practice had a positive effect on yield of rice in South-East, Nigeria. It, therefore, recommends that financial agencies should make loan and other credit facilities accessible to rice farmers through their various cooperatives to support their farming activities. Also, extension agencies and Government agricultural ministries should organize in-service training for extension agents to equip them with skills and information about IPM practice because that will help to solve the problem of insufficient information about IPM and inadequate technical know-how. More so, farm shows/exhibition programmes should be organized by agricultural agencies and cooperatives to enable rice farmers showcase their high yields from IPM practice and encourage more farmers to utilize IPM practice.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page                

Title Page                                                                                                                                i

Declaration                                                                                                                             ii

Certification                                                                                                                            iii

Dedication                                                                                                                               iv

Acknowledgments                                                                                                                  v

Table of Contents                                                                                                                   vi

List of Tables                                                                                                                          xi

List of Figures                                                                                                                         xii

Abstract                                                                                                                                   xiii

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1           Background of the Study                                                                                            1

1.2           Statement of Problem                                                                                                 7

1.3           Research Questions                                                                                                    10

1.4           Objectives of the Study                                                                                              10

1.5           Hypotheses                                                                                                                 11

1.6           Significance of the Study                                                                                           11

1.7           Scope of the Study                                                                                                      13

1.8           Definition of Terms                                                                                                    13

 

CHAPTER 2:  REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1       Conceptual Review                                                                                                     15

2.1.1    Pests of rice and its’ effects on rice production                                                         15

2.1.2    Measures of pest control                                                                                            29

2.1.3    Integrated pest management (IPM) strategy                                                              37

2.1.4    Overview of rice production                                                                                      41

2.1.5    Rice production in South-East, Nigeria.                                                                     45

2.1.6    Overview of rice yield                                                                                                49

2.1.7    Utilization of integrated farm management (IFM) practices/sustainable

agricultural practices (SAP)                                                                                        52

2.1.8    Concept of farm management extension services                                                      58

2.2      Review of Relevant Theories                                                                                      61

2.2.1    Programme theory or logic model                                                                              61

2.2.2    Protection motivation theory (PMT)                                                                          64

2.2.3    Theory-based participation evaluation model                                                            66

2.2.4    Stimulus-response (S-R) theory of learning                                                   68

2.2.5    Theory of change                                                                                                        70

2.3      Theoretical Background                                                                                              70

2.4      Empirical Framework                                                                                                  72

2.5      Conceptual Framework                                                                                               76

2.5.1    Independent variable                                                                                                  76

2.5.2    Intervening variable                                                                                                    77

2.5.3    Moderating variable                                                                                                   78

2.5.4    Dependent variable                                                                                                     78

2.5.5    Interaction of variables                                                                                               80

 

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1       Area of Study                                                                                                              81

3.2       Population of the Study                                                                                              84

3.3       Sample and Sampling Procedure                                                                                85

3.4       Method of Data Collection                                                                                         86

3.5       Validation of Instrument                                                                                            87

3.6      Test of Reliability of Instrument                                                                                 87

3.7       Measurement of Variables                                                                                          88

3.7.1    The independent variables                                                                                          88

3.7.1.1 Utilization of IPM practices                                                                                       88

3.7.1.2 Selected personal, social and economic characteristics of the farmers                        88

3.7.2    The dependent variable                                                                                              90

3.8        Method of Data Analysis                                                                                           90

3.8.1     Model specification                                                                                                   93

 

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

4.1 Personal, Social and-Economic Profile of the Respondents                                            98       

4.1.1:   Age                                                                                                                             99

4.1.2:  Sex                                                                                                                              99

4.1.3:   Marital status                                                                                                              100

4.1.4:   Access to credit                                                                                                          100

4.1.5:   Household size                                                                                                           101

4.2      Social Profile of the Respondents                                                                                102

4.2.1:  Membership of co-operative                                                                                      103

4.2.2:  Extension contact                                                                                                       103

4.2.3    Level of education                                                                                                      104

4.2.4:   Farming experience                                                                                                    104

4.3       Most Prevalent Pests in South-East                                                                            106

4.4       Awareness of IPM Practices                                                                                      108

4.5       Sources of Information about IPM Practices                                                             110

4.6       Perceived Effect of Pest on Rice before the Use of IPM                                              112

4.7:      Yield Estimate of Rice Farmers before the Adoption of IPM                                  114     

4.8       Level of Utilization of IPM Practices                                                                        115

4.9       Perceived Effect of Pest on Rice after the Practice of IPM                                        117

4.10     Yield Estimate of Rice Farmers after the Use of IPM                                                118

4.11     Perceived Constraints in the Use of IPM                                                                   120

4.12     Hypotheses Testing                                                                                                    122

            Hypothesis 1                                                                                                               122

            Hypothesis 2                                                                                                               123

            Hypothesis 3                                                                                                               124

            Hypothesis 4                                                                                                               126

            Hypothesis 5                                                                                                               129

 

 

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1           Summary                                                                                                                    130

5.2           Conclusion                                                                                                                  133

5.3           Recommendations                                                                                                      133

REFERENCES

APPENDICES


 









LIST OF TABLES

3.1          Sampling Procedure and Sample Size                                                                              86

4.1:         Distribution of Respondents according to their Personal and Economic Characteristics         98

4.2:         Distribution of Respondents according to their Social Characteristics                               102           

4.3:         Distribution of Respondents according to the Prevalence of Pest in Rice Farm             106

4.4:         Distribution of Respondents according to their Awareness about IPM Practices                  108

4.5:         Distribution of Respondents according to their Sources of IPM Information              110

4.6:         Distribution of Respondents according to their Perceived Effect of Rice before IPM   112

4.7:         Distribution of Respondents according to Yield Estimate before the Adoption of IPM      114

4.8:         Distribution of Respondents according to their Level of Utilization of IPM Practices          115

4.9:         Distribution of Respondents according to their Perceived Effect of Pest after IPM Use          117

4.10:        Distribution of Respondents according to their Yield Estimate after the Use of IPM Practice  118

4.11:       Distribution of Respondents according to their Constraints in the Use of IPM                      120

4.12:       Simple linear Regression Influence of Use of IPM on Yield of Rice in the Study Area.        122

4.13:       Analysis of Variance of the Difference in the Level of Use of IPM among States in South-East.   123

4.14a:     Analysis of Variance of Difference in the Yield of Rice Produced among States in South-East.   124

4.14b:      Freidman’s Pairwise Comparism Test Statistic of the Variations across the States Studied 125

4.15:        Multiple Regression Analysis of the Effect of  Personal, Social and Economic Characteristics of      

 

                the  Respondents on Yield of Rice Farmers.                                                                                    126

 

4.16:    Z-test Analysis of the Difference in the Yield of Rice Produced Using IPM Practice and

 Without Using IPM Practice.            

                                                                                                                                       129

    

 



 

LIST OF FIGURES

                                    Page

1.     Schematic presentation of the conceptual framework designed for this study

‘’Effect of use of IPM practices on yield of rice in South-East’’.                                 79   

 

2.     Map of South-East Nigeria                                                                                             84

 






 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


            1.1           BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Nigeria is endowed with favorable environment for cereal cultivation. Cereals are the major dietary energy suppliers which provide significant amount of protein, minerals (potassium and calcium), vitamins (Vitamins A and C). Its protein is easily digestible, with good biological benefits and protein efficiency ratio due to the fact that its lysine concentration is high (Dauda, Yakubu, Sambo, Okwoie, Adeosun and Onyibe, 2014). They are consumed in a variety of forms, including pastes, noodles, cakes, breads, drinks etc. The bran, husk, plant parts and other residues (after processing) are useful as animal feeds and in the culture of micro-organisms, while wax syrup and gum extracted from cereals are used for industrial purposes. Major cereals produced in Nigeria are rice, sorghum, maize, and millet.

Rice (Oriza sativa) is a very important food crop globally. Virtually all the rice growing ecologies (the upland irrigated, inland valley swamp, deep water floating and tidal mangrove swamp) abound in Nigeria. The Nigerian savannah ecology is the major cereal production area in Nigeria. It accounts for about 665,600 square kilometres (about 67 million hectares), and today rice is one of the leading staple foods in the world.This is due to changing consumer preferences and rapidly increasing population (Muthaya, Sugimoto, Montgomery and  Maberly, 2014). Globally, rice consumption increased from 437.18 million metric tons in 2008/2009 crop year to about 486.62 million metric tons in the 2018/2019 crop year (Shahbandeh, 2020). By virtue of the extent and variety of its uses and adaptability to a broad range of climate, edaphic and cultural conditions, it is a major food crop in the world (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), 2012). The World Bank, according to National Agricultural Extension and Research and Liaison Service (NAERLS) (2010), projected that from 2010, the poorest income class of urban households in Nigeria may obtain not less than 33 percent of their annual cereal-based calories from rice because among the major cereals, rice is the primary staple of more than hundreds of millions of people in developing economies, including Africa. Presently, revenue in rice market amounts to US$ 3.85bn in 2023 and the market is expected to grow annually by 15.66% between 2023-2027 (Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), 2023). The African continent emerged as a major rice importer because rice emerged as the fastest developing food in sub-Saharan Africa in the last decade, and as a result, there is considerable increase in demand for rice in Africa than other places round the world (Nasrin, Lodin, Jirstrom, Holmqist, Djurfeldt and Djurfeldt, 2015). Rice is one of the most consumed staples in Nigeria, with a consumption capita of 32Kg and within the past decade, consumption has increased 47%, almost four times the global consumption and reached 6.4 million tons in 2017 (Edafe, 2017).

Again, rice consumption is accelerating rapidly in the country owing to urbanization, easy cooking, and storage (Uga, Sugimoto, Ogawa, Rane and Ishitani, 2013). More so, rice is among the few food crops in Nigeria that is eaten across religious, ethnic, cultural or geographical divides. This food crop is highly prioritized and widely accepted as food during festive periods. According to Basorun (2013), rice is highly revered in many rural areas to the extent that it is prepared mostly on Sundays and local market days, though, it is now assuming a regular daily meal nowadays. Sustainability is, therefore, paramount in rice production for the nation to fill the gap required for the increasing population.

Rice production flourishes well in humid regions of the sub-tropic and temperate climates and, according to Ajijola, Usman, Egbetokun, Akoun and Osalusi (2012), Nigeria is richly blessed and has the ability to be self-reliant in producing rice because every ecological region throughout the nation can comfortably cultivate rice. Unfortunately, however, the production of this all important food crop is gradually reducing and consequently, there is increase in price beyond the reach of many Nigerians (Ajala and Gana, 2015). As a result, the country relies hugely on imported rice to the tune of more than five million tonnes per annum, which equates to more than $ US 800 million (Ojogbo and Alufohai, 2014). Currently, according to Ekwelem (2023), rice import into Nigeria dropped to 438 tons in 2022 due to increase in Nigeria local rice production.

Research has shown that Africa faces great challenges in the production of cereal crops of which rice is among the largest (Macauley and Ramadjita, 2015). This is against the backdrop that cereal forms the highest percentage of calorie intake in the national diet of 22 countries of the world, sixteen of which are domiciled in Africa (Blein, 2013). These challenges in South-East Region of Nigeria, where agricultural activities are predominant, includes harsh climatic factors and the prevalence of pest infestation. IITA (2019) indicated that climate-induced cereal production is associated with certain constraints which include heat, drought stress and emerging invasive insect pests and diseases. As a result of the above constraints, cereal crops yield in Africa is generally low (Edmeades, Trevisan, Prasanna, and Campos, 2017).

The common pests of cereal crops in Nigeria, according to Harrison, Thierfelder, Baudron, Chinwada, Midega, Schaffner and VandenBerg (2019), include termites, stem borer, weevils, armyworm, birds, grasshopper, butterfly, etc and these pests survive on at least 80 plant species, including rice. The negative influence of pest invasion on food/nutrition security has been made worse due to insufficient resistant/tolerant varieties, poor control measures and management of pests (Harrison, et al., 2019).

 

Currently, researchers are working on immediate and long-term solutions to these problems, and the available control strategies include use of pesticides, cultural practices, use of natural enemies, the use of resistance variety, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy.

Most farmers rely on synthetic pesticides because intensive synthetic pesticides can support rice productivity by reducing yield losses caused by pests but on the other hand, the persistent overuse of chemicals has resulted in a number of adverse environmental impacts such as, outbreak of secondary pests, decreasing of beneficial insects and the accumulation of toxins in the food webs (Arora, Mukherji, Kumar and Tanwar, 2014).  More so, some still rely on mechanical control methods, indigenous method, farmer-to-farmer advice, and recommendations from extension services (Baudron, Zaman-Allah, Chaipa, Chari, & Chinwada, 2019). According to Baudron et al., (2019), some of the practices are seen as labor- intensive, exhaustive, time-consuming, and not practicable, especially for women, who are usually the dominant labour force in smallholder agricultural systems. In some regions, farmers tried to control pest using botanical pesticides such as ground chili pepper, tobacco extracts and neem tree leaves (Kumela, Simiyu, Sisay, Likhayo, Gohole and Tefera, 2019). These are seen to be cheaper alternatives for the resource-poor farmers, and are probably less hazardous to the farmers, environment, and non-target insects (Stevenson, Isman, & Belmain, 2017).  However, farmers’ choice of pest control strategy is affected by various factors, which include availability of a control strategy (including its effectiveness and ease of use), availability of resources, gender, age, among other issues (Kansiime, Mugambi, Rwomushana, Nunda, Lamontagne-Godwin, Rware, and Day, 2019).

Research and extension are advising farmers to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to manage cereal crop pests because it is targeted at minimizing chemical damage to humans and the environment, while targeting effective pest control (Day, Phil, Melanie, Tim. & Anne, 2017). According to Kabir and Rainis, (2015), Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a combined use of chemical, cultural, biological and mechanical methods to control pest in a farm. This technique has been developed by Farmers Field School (FFS) and it is an effective, environmentally-sound approach to pest management, with the aim of also protecting the air, water and soil resources, while meeting specific production objectives (National Pesticides information Centre in USA, 2015). Wu and Guo (2005) also stated that Integrated Pest Management practices in agriculture can be defined as an optimum combination of pest management methods implemented in farmers’ fields, which minimizes economic yield loss of crop caused by insect pests, without resulting in toxic effects to other organisms.

It is recognized as one of the most robust constructs to arise in the agricultural sciences during the second half of the twentieth century. The approach of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), according to Syarief, Gatot, Abdul, Toto (2018), is an extensive approach which involves the use of all existing skills, techniques and practices such as the combination of;

i.        Cultural practices (use of various farming practices/systems and adjusting the planting/harvesting time)

ii.       Physical/Mechanical methods (scaring, trapping, killing and putting up physical barriers)

iii.     Biological materials/techniques (use of natural predators, biopesticides and resistance varieties)

iv.     chemical pesticides (use of synthetic or inorganic substances)

in harmonious and compatible manner in order to restrain pest inhabitants below economic injury level, based on regular crop pest inspections and monitoring.

It is imperative to note that including farmers' traditional agricultural knowledge of insect behavior and life cycles is essential for developing a successful IPM plan (Vinatier, Lescourret, Duyck and Tixier, 2012). According to Craig (2015), it takes into account their current agricultural practices and experience in a given agro-ecosystem.

According to Surendra (2019), the design of IPM models are expected to stem from science base, with special emphases on environmental factors and evolving aspect of pest control in order to ameriolate the economic losses, that could arise due to pest. The operation of IPM strategies, anywhere in the world is expected to be guided by this model, with the sole motive of ensuring increased gains for the grower, in addition to generating and executing sustainable agricultural practices which are geared towards ensuring food security for the ever increasing population worldwide. Integrated pest management is an effective and environmentally-friendly pest control technique (Kabir and Rainis, 2015) and according to Alam, Crump, Haque, Islam, Hasan, Hossain, Hasan, Hossain (2016), was generated for use, as an approach to be adopted in the production of healthy food, hence its use for effective pest control in rice ecological regions.

From historic point of view, Sorby, Fleischer, Pehu (2003) noted that the development of Integrated Pest Management practices has taken various forms in different countries across the world, however, these practices changes with the socio-economic characteristics and environmental conditions of each country. Conducive environment is very important to the survival of living things, therefore, it is expedient that all agricultural stakeholders must necessarily take conscious actions and be actively involved to restore environmental balance both at the micro and macro levels (Ifenkwe, Apu and Arigbo, 2013). 

The focus of IPM, in line with the control of pest to meet specific production objectives, is to protect and encourage natural predators of pests (Naranjo, Ellsworth and Frisvold, 2015). The developers of IPM strategies should have a good understanding of the pest development, ranging from its breeding to death, and how they interact with predators as this will help to provide the basis for effective design and implementation of an IPM strategy. Continued research and development of sustainable and effective agricultural-pest-management techniques is essential if farmers are going to successfully adopt environmentally-friendly pest-management strategies (Pretty and Bharucha, 2015).

IPM control strategy, guided by cultural approaches already being used by farmers, is the best option to manage different types of pest in Nigeria. According to Onstad (2014), the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy is targeted at preventing or avoiding pest infestation, using the IPM Triangle Strategies. The IPM triangle strategies is anchored on the combined use of minimum application of safe pesticides (chemical method), use of evidence-based option (cultural method) and managing insect resistance (biological method) to control the infestation of pests in the farm.

It, therefore, become necessary to carry out an empirical study to assess the effect of use of Integrated Pest Management Practices on yield of rice in South-East Region of Nigeria.

 

1.2     STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

According to Mba, Madu, Ajaero and Obetta (2021), rice is produced in not less than four States of the South-East, especially Ebonyi, Abia, Enugu and Anambra States. However, production capacity is far below national requirement. Pests are major cause of crop yield losses around the world, and a major player causing food shortage in the developing countries as high yield losses are associated with these pests leading to reduce rice yield in Nigeria and sub-Sahara Africa (Zakari, Ying and Song, 2014). According to Estiati,(2019), increasing crop yield and achieving farmers target, is only realizable if the risk caused by pest are curtailed.

There are several types of pests that negatively affect rice production. These pests, as stated by Shazial (2020), can be categorized into three major groups which are: insects, rodents and birds. However, Baudron et al., (2019) stated that these pests are likely to continue causing great losses to cereal crop farmers in Africa, due to the fact that the climatic condition of the region is good for pest growth and development. Harrison et al., (2019) noted that the African Union’s sustainable development goal number 7 (G7), targeted at reducing poverty and hunger, may be difficult to achieve in the absence of effective pest management strategies, since pests are envisaged to be imposing negative influences on cereal crop production, consumers’ health, environmental condition and export trade.

Currently, majority of smallholder farmers in Africa rely on the conventional and their traditional knowledge to manage pest problems, mainly by the use of synthetic and botanical pesticides, even as Nigerian farmers who actively manage pests rely primarily on chemical pesticides, but can be constrained by the cost and availability of insecticides/pesticides (Banjo, Lawal, Fapojuwo and Songonuga, 2013). Use of pesticides to control pests predisposes farmers to harmful insecticide contamination, and also destabilizes the ecosystem, because most of the non-target organisms that would have been beneficial to the crops are being killed (Kumela et al., 2019). Studies by Sisay, Simiyu, Malusi, Likhayo, Mendesil, Elibariki and Tefera (2018) and Kansiime et al., (2019) have shown that most farmers are not aware of, or simply ignore, the dangers of insecticides on human health and non-target insects.

 For effective management of the dangerous pests that are causing havoc to crops, farmers need a combination of indigenous and scientific knowledge. It, therefore, implies that the development of sustainable and environment-friendly control strategies for pest is paramount to enhance production and improve health/environment.

In the context of sustainable agricultural development in Nigeria, IPM comes to play. According to Evie (2022), IPM is recognized as one of the most robust constructs to arise in the agricultural sciences during the second half of the twentieth century and according to Syarief, Gatot, Abdul, Toto (2018), is an extensive approach which involves the use of all existing skills, techniques and practices such as the combination of different control methods in a harmonious way to achieve higher productivity. Day et al., (2017) had advised farmers to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices, guided by cultural approaches which they are familiar with, as the best option to manage pest in Nigeria.

A study of IPM on Lepidopteran pest in rice, carried out by Babendreier, Hou, Tang, Zhang, Vongsabouth, Win, Kang, Peng, Song, Annamalai, Horgan (2020), reported that pest had been a major problem in rice farms in Asia but the implementation of the IPM strategy reduced the infestation of pest, resulting to higher rice yields. Adoption study of IPM in Indonesia by Andi (2020), showed that adoption rate of IPM by farmers was high while Sadique (2020) study on farmers’ perception of IPM and determinants of adoption reported that the implementation of IPM will be beneficial to farmers especially if their knowledge regarding IPM is increased. More so, Muck (2015) noted in his study that by the practice of IPM, pest problem in Nigeria can be reasonably mitigated in a sustainable manner which may eventually reflect on the crop yield. More localized empirical study on the adoption of IPM practices and understanding how it will reflect on the yield of crop will be an important instrument to help farmers in Nigeria to make informed decision on the use of this innovation known as IPM practices. It, therefore, becomes necessary to carry out an empirical study to assess the effect of use of IPM practices on yield of rice in South-East Region of Nigeria.

 

1.3     RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In order to guide the stated problem, the following research questions were pertinent.

i.           What are personal, social and economic characteristics of the respondents?

ii.         Which are the most prevalent pests that attack rice in South-East States?

iii.       Are the respondents’ aware of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practice?

iv.        What are the major sources of information about IPM in the study area?

v.         What are the perceived effects of pests on rice in the study area?

vi.        What is the yield of rice produced before adoption of IPM practice?

vii.      What is the level of utilization of IPM practice by farmers in South-East?

viii.    What is the perceived effect of IPM practice on rice in the study area?

ix.        What is the yield of rice produced after the use of IPM practice?

x.         What are the perceived constraints in the use of IPM practice in the study area?

 

1.4       OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of the study is to assess the effect of use of Integrated Pest Management practice on yield of rice in South-East, Nigeria.

Specifically, the objectives of the study are to;

  i.       describe the personal, social and economic characteristics of the respondents;

ii.       ascertain the most prevalent pests that attack rice in South-East States;

iii.       ascertain the awareness of farmers about Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practice;

iv.       ascertain the farmers’ sources of IPM information in South-East; 

v.       determine the perceived effect of pests on rice in the study area;

vi.       estimate the yield of rice farmers before the adoption of IPM practice in the study area;

vii.       determine the level of utilization of IPM practice by the respondents;

viii.       determine the perceived effects of IPM practice on rice in the study area;

ix.       estimate the yield of rice farmers after the use of IPM practice, and

x.       ascertain the perceived constraints in the use of IPM practice in South-East.

 

1.5      HYPOTHESES

The study tested the following null hypotheses at 5% alpha level:

Ho1:    Use of IPM practice has no significant effect on the yield of rice in the study area.

Ho2:   There is no significant difference in the level of use of IPM practice among the States in South-East.

Ho3:   There is no significance difference on the yield of rice produced using IPM across the States in South-East.

Ho4:    Selected personal, social and economic characteristics of the respondents have no significant effect on the yield of rice in the study area.

Ho5:    There is no significant difference on the yield of rice produced using IPM practice and without using IPM practice.

 

1.6       SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Agriculture is a business, and whosoever that is involved in its practice has a major aim of having a bumper harvest, generating more income, making higher profit and enjoying a better living standard. Therefore, the farmer will always frown at anything, including pest that will pose as an impediment towards realizing the target objective. Moreso, Baudron et al., (2019) has already stated that, pest is likely to continue causing great losses to rice farmers in Africa of which South-East Nigeria is inclusive. Taking cognizance of these facts, a study of this nature which is investigating the effect of use of Integrated Pest Management on yield of rice in South-East, Nigeria will be very relevant to the spectrum of stakeholders in the agricultural sector.

The significance of this research cannot be over-emphasized. This is because the study will be valuable in the following ways;

1.      It will serve as a means of highlighting in more organized and concrete form, the major pests of rice prevalent in South-East States.

2.     It will equally ascertain farmers’ awareness of IPM and reveal extension agents’ contact with rice farmers in relation to dissemination of IPM package. This will in no small measure enhance farmers’ relationship with extension agents and encourage effective dissemination of IPM practices to farmers, leading to regular increase in rice yield.

3.      It will also help to assess the level of rice farmers’ utilization of IPM practices to cushion the effect of pest attacks in South-East Region of Nigeria.

4.     It will also provide relevant information on how utilization of IPM strategies by farmers would influence yield of rice in South-East and Nigeria by extension.

5.     The study will also aid in exposing the constraints faced by farmers in implementing Integrated Pest Management strategy and guide researchers in developing an IPM package that will be suitable for rice farmers in South-East, and Nigeria in general.

It is hoped that the recommendations that will emanate from the study will be beneficial to the government and policy makers in policy formulation because, they can depend on it in making policies that can encourage the generation and utilization of IPM practices for better yield which will help to promote food security and enhance better living standard of the citizens.

 

1.7     SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is limited to South-East Region of Nigeria. Three States among the five States in the South-East were purposively selected for the study. This is due to the fact that they were among the States in the region that are major producers of rice. Furthermore, the scope of the study is limited to assessing the effect of use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices on yield of rice in South-East, Nigeria.

 

 1.8     DEFINITION OF TERMS

1.      Pests: These are destructive organisms that have the ability of causing damage to crops. They include insects, birds and rodents that destroy rice in the field

2.      Rice: This is a cereal crop that produce starchy grains used as food for man, feed for livestock and seeds for planting.

3.      Paddy rice: This is the harvested rice with its grains/seeds and bran that has not been milled.

4.      Grain/Seed: This is the part of the rice that is used as food (grain) or planting material (seed)

5.      Bran: This is the part of the rice that is covering the grain/seed which is removed during processing/milling.

6.      Rice farmers: These are people who are involved in producing rice crop for different purposes. They include both men and women that are in the business of cultivating rice.

7.      Integrated Pest Management (IPM): This is the combined use of chemical, cultural, biological and mechanical methods to control pests in the farm.

8.      Chemical method: This is the use of inorganic substances (pesticides) to control pests

9.      Cultural method: This is the use of different traditional practices such as sprinkling of wood ash on plants, crop rotation, intercropping, changing planting time, etc to curtain the attack of pest in the farm.

10.    Biological method: This is the use of natural enemies, developed resistant varieties and bio-pesticides in suppressing pest populations in the farm.

11.    Mechanical/Physical method: This is the use of hand and/or devices such as scarecrow, guns, catapult, etc to control pest in the farm.

12.    Bio-pesticides: These are organic pesticides made from spores of micro-organisms such as fungi, bacteria, virus, etc.

13.    Utilization: This is the act of practicing or adopting IPM strategies by the farmers to control pest attack in the farm.

14.    Effect: This is the noticeable result/outcome observed on the farm product, emanating from the use of IPM in the farm.

15.    Yield: This is the quantity of rice in kg produced from the farm.

16.    Assess: Act of determining the use and effect of IPM practices after a careful study.


 

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.

Review


To Comment