You are on page 1of 14


Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097

Economic performance of the ‘push–pull’ technology for stemborer and Striga control in smallholder farming systems in western Kenya
Zeyaur R. Khana,Ã, Charles A.O. Midegaa, Esther M. Njugunaa,b, David M. Amudavia,c, Japhether M. Wanyamad, John A. Pickette

International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi 00100, Kenya b University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 25093, Nairobi 00625, Kenya c Egerton University, P.O. Box 536, Egerton 20107, Kenya d Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kitale, P.O. Box 450, Kitale 30200, Kenya e Biological Chemistry Division, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK Received 9 July 2007; received in revised form 6 October 2007; accepted 13 January 2008

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. r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stemborer; Striga; Push–pull; Gross margins; Kenya

1. Introduction Efficient production of maize, Zea mays L., a major food and cash crop among majority of the smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, is severely constrained, partly by lepidopteran stemborers, causing yield losses of 20–80% (Kfir et al., 2002). Stemborers are difficult to control, largely
ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +254 59 22216/7/8; fax: +254 59 22190.

E-mail address: (Z.R. Khan). 0261-2194/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2008.01.005

because of the cryptic and nocturnal habits of the adult moths, and the protection provided by the stem of the host crop for immature stages (Reddy and Sum, 1992). Additionally, the recommended chemical control strategies are often not practical and economical for smallholder farmers (Van den Berg and Nur, 1998) while effectiveness of some of the cultural control methods is not empirically demonstrated (Van den Berg et al., 1998). Consequently, the majority of the farmers do not actively control these pests (Chitere and Omolo, 1993), leading to devastating losses in grain yields.

Busia. the Striga strangulation causes death of the maize plant. 2. of which Striga hermonthica Benth. Desmodium roots produce a blend of chemical compounds. maize is intercropped with a stemborer moth repellent fodder legume. Khan et al.. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 1085 Maize production in the region is also severely constrained by parasitic weeds in the genus Striga. Suba. with an allelopathic effect being the most important (Khan et al.. 2. hermonthica are most severe in degraded environments. planted around this intercrop. Striga roots attach to the maize roots from where they draw their moisture and nutrient requirements. 2003. However.. Oswald. 2005). Tsanuo et al. 341300 –351 00 E) lies on an altitude of 1300–1500 masl and receives an annual precipitation of 1800–2000 mm. popularly known as baraza. 2005). Besides stemborer control.. A number of conventional methods based on the principles of reducing the number of Striga seeds in the soil. Pennisetum purpureum (Schumach) (pull). either for own use or sale. Khan and Pickett. (Scrophulariaceae) is by far the most damaging (Oswald. Busia (0110 –01330 S.... Study districts We conducted the study in six districts in western Kenya (Fig. In severe cases. On-station and on-farm trials have demonstrated that the PPT can also be used for control of stemborers and Striga weed in sorghum (Khan et al. An integral consideration in the development of the PPT has been to ensure that the companion plants are of economic value to the farmers (Khan et al. Bungoma (01250 –01530 S. 341480 –351350 E) lies on an altitude of 1600–2000 masl and receives an annual rainfall averaging 1200–2100 mm. 2007a. 2004). Bungoma. Berner et al. Napier grass does not support full stemborer larval development and hence majority of the larvae die before reaching adulthood (Khan et al. In addition. 2006. 2005). Van den Berg et al. Materials and methods 2. up to 100% yield losses have been reported in on-farm and onstation experimental plots (Hassan et al. one for the PPT and the other two for maize monocrop and a maize–bean intercrop.1. preventing production of new seeds and spread from infested to non-infested soils have been tried with some limited and localized success (Hess and Ejeta. 2005). 2001).. 2004). Vihiga district (01–01150 S. 341100 –341340 E) lies on an altitude of 500–800 masl and receives an annual average precipitation ranging from 600 to 1500 mm. Oswald. thereby hindering their attachment to maize roots (suicidal germination) (Khan et al. 2000. such as Napier grass. in western Kenya. Problems with S. 1990. with an in situ reduction of soil seed bank (Khan et al.. based on stimulo-deterrent diversionary strategy (Miller and Cowles. 2004. Van den Berg.. desmodium. The main objective of the current study was to assess the ` -vis farmer’s economic performance of this technology vis-a conventional practices of either planting maize in sole stands or in intercrops with beans.ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. 2002. largely due to lack of immediate returns and prohibitive ` hounou and cost implications of the technologies (Gbe Adango. In this technology.... Trans Nzoia (01520 –11180 S. 1995. Tsanuo et al. and under subsistence farming systems with few options for external inputs (Rodenburg et al. 2003). 1992. Adoption of most of the recommended methods has been limited. while desmodium seed is in high demand by smallholder farmers who either want to establish or expand their PPT plots (Khan and Pickett. 1994). Vihiga and Kisii. and further on-farm research and development is ongoing to understand the full potential of this strategy for millet farmers in arid and semiarid parts of Africa.. Desmodium uncinatum (Jacq. 2006b).. Cook et al.2. Chamberlain et al. Plot layout Ten farmers were randomly selected for participation in the study in each district through local public meetings. 341380 –351230 E) has highland equatorial type of climate with rainfall of about 1300 mm per annum and lies between 1700 and 4313 m above sea level (masl). 2006c).) (push). some of which stimulate Striga seeds to germinate while others inhibit lateral growth of Striga roots. with low soil fertility and low rainfall. 2001. leading to significantly enhanced maize grain yields (Khan et al. 2000. in the process inhibiting growth of the maize plant leading to a reduction in grain yields. 2007). 2001. Striga emergence is thus suppressed. 2003). 341210 –351040 E) receives an annual rainfall of 1000–1800 mm and lies on an altitude of about 1300–3500 masl.. Vissoh et al. 2002. Scientists at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE). 2001). Each agreed to set up three plots.R. giving 10 replications of . Desmodium and Napier grass are nutritious and highly valued fodder.. 2002). and Kisii (01300 –01580 S. 2006). 2006a.. Suba (01200 –01520 S. The green leaf volatiles produced by desmodium repel stemborer moths while those produced by the trap plant attract them (Khan et al. 2006). Both are serious pests in all the districts except Trans Nzoia where only maize stemborers are a biotic production constraint (Khan et al. Maize yield losses of 30–50% have been reported under typical field infestations by Striga (Parker. 1): Trans Nzoia. with an attractant trap plant. where PPT is being disseminated among smallholder farmers to address the problems of maize stemborers and/ or Striga. 2000. 331540 –341250 E) lies between 1128 and 1500 masl and receives mean annual rainfall ranging from 600 to 2030 mm. 2002. desmodium also suppresses and eliminates Striga. We carried out the study in farmers’ fields under different agroecological zones represented in the selected six districts in western Kenya. 1991. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in Kenya and Rothamsted Research in the United Kingdom have developed a push–pull technology (PPT) for the control of cereal stemborers. Subsequent studies have identified mechanisms by which desmodium suppresses Striga.

maize: desmodium) in all the districts except in Trans Nzoia. outputs/yields and revenues were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire and benefits calculated from the plots for 6 and 7 years in Suba and Trans Nzoia districts (the initial districts) respectively. but for each farmer. 2. farmers did not plant the maize–bean intercrop. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Study Districts TRANS NZOIA N BUNGOMA UASIN GISHU BUSIA KAKAMEGA NANDI SIAYA VIHIGA NYANDO L. Land as a raw material in production was assumed a fixed input because it does not change in the short run (Makeham and Malcolm. and 4 years in the other four districts. Victoria RACHUONYO SUBA HOMA BAY GUCHA W S KEY Study districts Lake Victoria District boundaries KERICHO 0 50 Kilometers E CENTRAL KISII Fig. 2. 1. While all plots had maize planted in rows. Financial on-farm prices of inputs and labour at the nearest market outlet to the farmer were used in the calculations. Khan et al. In Trans Nzoia in 1998 however. with a major involvement of family labour in most of the activities. and in addition.4.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1086 Z. 1986) and was therefore not costed. In addition. one row of desmodium was planted after every seven rows of maize since there is no Striga in the district. household size and family labour availability. Family labour costs were calculated by applying prevailing local labour rates. 2. Those in Trans Nzoia and Suba districts began in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Production expenses Capital and labour were the economic resources for production considered in this study. as is often the practice (Rasul and Thapa. the PPT plots had three rows of Napier grass planted around the plot. each treatment in a district. The farm operations were largely done by hand in most of the districts.4. farmers planted beans between the other rows of maize. Data collection Data on production expenses. Crop management activities The farmers made all crop management decisions such as planting. detailing the household sizes. Map showing study districts. save for Trans Nzoia where tractors were used for ploughing and harrowing.R. 2004). with desmodium planted in alternate rows (1:1. with technical backstopping provided by the ICIPE field technicians on management of the desmodium and Napier grass.1. The production expenses were divided into labour and non-labour expenses. The plots varied in size from farmer to farmer. we took only short-run impacts into account. education level of the head of household. the sizes of the three plots were the same (Table 2). while those in the other districts began in 2001. weeding and harvesting. In building up the budgets of the cropping systems. gender of the head of household. In the latter.3. Labour costs included the activities carried out by the farm family or . Farm activities and items included in the financial analyses are summarized in Table 1. The layout of the plots was the same in all districts and the farmers and plots were maintained throughout the study period. baseline information was collected on the households.

e Forage amounts (weights) were taken each time fodder was cut (approximately three times for both Napier and desmodium in a cropping year) and either directly sold or fed to animals on the farms. nutrient supply. d In all districts. farmers do not carry out second weeding because by that time desmodium has spread and smothered the other weeds. both maize and beans were harvested and grain yields calculated. diammonium phosphate. CAN. the costs of the activity for each cropping system were determined. the revenues generated from their sale.2. By multiplying the number of man days with the local labour wage rate. the expenses . b Desmodium and Napier grass are perennial crops and are planted only in the first year when PPT is being established. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Table 1 Farm activities. alleviation of soil constraints) were ignored. Financial on-farm prices of output at the nearest market outlet to the farmer were used in the calculations and all long-run benefits of the PPT and partly maize–bean intercrop (e. seeds Threshing beans Shelling maize Ploughingd Harrowingd Gunny bags Transport costs Maize seed Bean seed DAP/CAN Napier splits Desmodium seeds Maize grain Desmodium seeds Desmodium foragee Napier foragee Bean graina 1087 Non-labour costs Gunny bags Transport costs Maize seeds DAP/CAN Gunny bags Transport costs Maize seeds Beans seeds DAP/CAN Outputs Maize grain Maize grain Beans grain DAP.. forage Harvesting desm. c In areas where desmodium and maize are planted at a spacing of 1:1. inputs and outputs that were included in the financial analyses in the three cropping systems Treatments Labour costs Maize monocrop Planting maize First weeding Second weeding CAN topdressing Stocking maize Harvesting maize Shelling maize Ploughingd Harrowingd Maize–bean intercrop Planting maize Plant beans First weeding Second weeding CAN topdressing Stocking maize Harvesting maize Harvesting beans Shelling maize Threshing beans Ploughingd Harrowingd Push–pull technology Planting maize Planting beansa Planting Napierb Planting desmodiumb Hand weeding desmodium First weeding Second weedingc CAN topdressing Stocking maize Harvesting maize Harvesting beans Harvesting Napier Harvesting desm. 2. tractors were used for ploughing and harrowing. The plot level data were computed and scaled to ‘per hectare’ while the Kenyan currency figures in Kenyan shillings were converted to US dollars (exchange rate: USD 1. All the farm activities had the number of man days used to carry them out estimated even when any activity was carried out by family members. agronomic benefits of mulch—soil erosion and weed control. In cases where farmers kept farm produce for home consumption. seeds Threshing desm. The main sources of revenue from each plot are summarized as outputs in Table 1. except in Trans Nzoia. shelter for biological life. Nonlabour expenses included the costs of inputs such as seeds and fertilizers.0 ¼ Kshs 70) for purpose of making standard comparisons. planting. Revenues were calculated from the outputs from each plot. In Trans Nzoia. Analysing the crop yields from the plots in a season. calcium ammonium nitrate. ploughing and harrowing was done using oxen plough or hand digging with a major involvement of family labour.R.4. weeding. transport and gunny bags for storage and sale of the produce. fertilizer applications and harvesting of the crop. all costed at the nearby average market rates (Table 1).ARTICLE IN PRESS Z.g. improved water balance. a Beans in PPT are only found in Trans Nzoia district. Grain yields and revenues At the end of every cropping season. In both cases the market price was used to estimate the amount of money made from the forage. Khan et al. its value was calculated by applying prevailing local market prices. hired labour for land preparation.

20% and 30% for each cropping year. 2. Pm is the price of maize. due to the technology including maize grain.. total variable costs (TVC). (7) NPVðMBÞ ¼ 1 ½ðPm  Y mb Þ À ðC mb ފ. marginal returns and cash flows to avoid the complexity introduced by discounting but these have the disadvantage of ignoring the effects of time on cash flows. to compare the profitability of PPT relative to that of maize monocrop (MC) and maize–bean intercrop (MB). and set it to 99.. The net benefits from the systems were discounted at 10%. respectively. Khan et al. Two important factors included in the analysis that determine the farmers’ preference for internalizing the cropping costs are the discount factor and the planning horizon over which farmers’ decisions are made (T).3.e. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 incurred to produce the crops and the gross benefits accruing to the farmers were carried out. The nominal price data were converted to real price data using the annual weighted average index (consumer price index) for the years 1998–2004 obtained from the Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics. discounting should be used for comparing all investment decisions where expenditures and revenues occur over a period in time. Farmers need a valid way of comparing alternative options when the amounts of cash spent and earned are different and occur in the future.. Pannell et al. In theory. Additionally. were carried out. ð 1 þ rÞ (12) where r is the discount rate and 1=ð1 þ rÞ the discount factor. The option which produces the net cash flow with the highest amount of cash in the hand today (NPV) is the best one for targeting investment (Soule and Shepherd. NBmbt ¼ ðPm  Y mb Þ À C mb . NPVðMCÞ ¼ (11) where zi is the amount of money generated from the sale of farm output i. T is the time horizon (years) considered in the analysis. beans. Calculations and data analyses Total labour costs (TLC).g. We used the three interest rates for discounting taking into account the current interest market rates in Kenya of about 21%. total non-labour costs (TNLC). Ymc and Ymb are the annual maize yields from the PPT. the net present values (NPV) (Pannell et al. The discounting is therefore important to show how attractive the different alternatives are to prospective users. total revenues (TRV) and gross benefits (GBN) were calculated for each farm and cropping system as follows: TLC ¼ n X i¼1 NBmct ¼ ðPm  Y mc Þ À C mc . Farmers are likely to consider the costs of production of these alternatives in their decision making. (1) where xi is the amount of money paid for the labour of carrying out activity i TNLC ¼ k X i¼1 yi . Means were separated using Tukey’s Studentized Range test and a set at 0. desmodium seeds and desmodium forage GBN ¼ TRV À TVC: (5) Seasonal data were subjected to analysis of variance (SAS Institute. ð 1 þ rÞ 1 ½ðPm  Y mc Þ À ðC mc ފ. TRV ¼ K X i¼1 where Ypp. and Cpp.9. 2000. inflation and increasing prices of labour and other inputs. . Cmc and Cmb are the annual production costs of these alternatives. The Bureau took 1997 as the base year. analyses on returns to the main factors of production in the study. (8) (9) xi . 2001) using the generalized linear model for any differences between PPT and the other cropping systems with regards to the parameters above. the investments are evaluated on the basis of partial budgets. crop yields and input–output prices. Similar studies have used 10% and 20% discount rates in economic analysis of farm technologies on farmers’ net incomes (e.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1088 Z.9 to obtain the real values in production costs and revenues for farmers in the six districts in our study using the formula: NOMINAL value  99:9. 2004)—the sum of the discounted stream of net benefits/returns—generated by the three systems were calculated using equations: NPVðPPTÞ ¼ T X t¼0 T X t¼0 T X t¼ 0 (3) (4) 1 ½ðPm  Y pp Þ À ðC pp ފ. i.R. land and labour. fertilizers or pay for ploughing where it is done by a tractor TVC ¼ TLC þ TNLC. In practice. The costs and returns are measured in 1997 dollar rates.05. The ratio of nominal data to price index was therefore multiplied with 99. maize monocrop and maize–bean intercrop systems.. (2) where yi is the amount of money used by the farmer to buy non-farm input i such as seeds. (6) PRICE index The annual net benefits (NB) per unit of land in year t generated by the PPT (NBppt) and those of maize monocrop (NBmct) and maize–bean intercrop (NBmbt) were defined as the difference between annual revenues and annual costs: Real value ¼ NBppt ¼ ðPm  Y pp Þ À C pp . The planning period that is used in this study varied from 1 to 7 years. Franzel et al.4. ð1 þ rÞ (10) zi . 2003). The net returns per hectare under different cropping systems were computed as a function of the input requirements.. Therefore. Napier grass forage.

8 3.8 42. these costs increased in the two conventional cropping systems from the first to the second cropping years.8 – 38.8 – 48 44 8 8 92 Busia 42.1 7. Respondent and farm characteristics The average age of the household heads (HHs) in the sample ranged from 41 to 55 years. 27.7 809 2. The size of the households ranged from 6 to 11 persons.1 3. (10)– (12)).8 and 1. Busia and Vihiga). with a general tendency of those with smaller land sizes aiming to intensify their production by putting relatively larger plots to maize cultivation.1 ha while those in the high-potential districts were much smaller.4/ha in Trans Nzoia in 1998. po0. 3.9/ha in Kisii to USD 393. The relative profitability of PPT depends on two factors.4 23. and remained fairly constant in the subsequent years.7 7. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 1089 2004).2. Labour costs in the PPT and maize–bean intercrop systems.0 – – – 900 1.1. They however. with little fluctuations which were generally not statistically significant (Table 3). 7. the TVC in the initial year were significantly higher in the PPT than in the other two cropping systems (F2. with considerable farming experience of between 14 and 23 years (Table 2). In all the districts. 3. total number of acres a household held within and outside the village.3 2. po0. however.1 884 – – 68 24 8 20 80 Suba 48. varied from one district to another.05) (Table 3). There was a reduction in labour costs from the first to the second cropping years in the PPT in all the districts.1/ha to establish PPT in Suba in 1999 and USD 213. These levels persisted to the last cropping year.5 ha in Vihiga and Trans Nzoia. ranging from an average of USD 114. or significantly lower than those in the maize– bean intercrop (in Suba. A positive discount rate means that the option is earning at a rate greater than that of the discount rate used. ranging from an average of USD 235. respectively. po0. Farm size.2/ha in Vihiga in 2001 (Table 3).5 61.4 2. The initial labour costs were significantly higher in the PPT than in the maize–bean intercrop and maize monocrop systems (F2. 27.05).2 5. respectively.2 23. an area of low agroecological potential. Over 50% of the HHs were of primary or secondary education levels across the districts.4 7. 27.8 16 40 36 8 4 96 Trans Nzoia 55. the discounted value of the flow of the annual revenue differences and annual cost differences (Eqs.7 18. remained significantly higher in Trans Nzoia and Bungoma. These costs were similarly significantly higher in the maize–bean intercrop than the maize monocrop systems in all the districts (F2. 3.2/ha in Kisii and USD 182. In all the districts. it had cost in terms of labour. 6. Khan et al. Those in Suba district.05). Age of household head (years) Farming experience of head of household (years) Number in household Household members giving labour on farm Size of study plots in m2 Farm size in hectares (ha) Education level of household head (%) No education Primary education Secondary education College education Bungoma 50. The analysis utilized actual experimental data and benefits for each year. 3. Previously. .5 8. The same analytical procedures were performed on the returns to labour for the two districts. Cropping years were therefore treated individually in the analyses. with the majority of the households being male headed (over 60%).2 600 4.8 19. 4.2 11. The average size of the study plots ranged from 600 to 2225 m2. with significant interactions between treatments and cropping years. Total variable costs In all the districts. This reduction in labour costs in the PPT was to levels either equal to (in Kisii).0 6. averaging 0. the production costs and benefits significantly differed between treatments and years.R.5 16 40 32 12 16 84 Kisii 41.2 14. Data not available.7/ha in Trans Nzoia Table 2 Summary of household characteristics of farmers in six study districts of western Kenya Household characteristics 1. except in maize–bean intercrop in Trans Nzoia. consistently remained significantly higher than in the monocrop. 2.2 2225 1. 5. had the largest farms averaging 4.ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. Gender of head of households (%) Female headed household Male headed household –. o50% of the household members provided labour on the farm as some of the members worked away from home while others were either in school or too old to participate in farm activities.3.3 53.1 16 36 16 32 24 76 Vihiga 44. Total labour costs In all the districts.6 3.5 728 0. an average of USD 155. Results 3. The analysis examined returns to land in three cropping systems in Trans Nzoia and Suba districts as typical areas of high and low agroecological potential areas.

4(1. data not available as the technologies had not been established in the districts.8)c 216.9(1.5(1.9(1.0(0.5(0.5)c 242.5(0.3(1.7(0.1(1.3)b 138.8(1.9)a 82.8(2.0)a 208.9(1.3(0.6(0.0)b 172.8)c 2003 324.2)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2000 329.9(0.2(0.2(0.7(1.6)a 128.5)c 245.4)a 117.8)a 119.1(0.2)a 93.9)c 282.2)a 179.3)a 184.4)a – 142.0)a 302.0(0.9)b 284.7(1.9)c 2004 281.5(0.7)c 136.7(0.3)c 200.7(0.0)b 156.9)c 243.4(0.3(0.0(1.8)c 122.0(0.9)b 73.4(1.3)c 128.6(0.7(1.5)a 200.2(1.8(0.9)b 273.2)a 152.0)b 230.2(1.9)b 260.1)a 96.2)a 99.2((1.8)a 168.4)b 237.1)b 269.3)c 98.8)a 212.2)c 139.5(1.6(0.9)b 260.2)b 229.4)c 204.9(0.3)b 248.1)b 130.8(1.8)c 231.7)b 242.4(0.9(1.2(1.2(1.05.1(0.9)a 226.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1090 Z.0)a 163.8)a 186.8)b 152.5(1.1(0.1)b 97.2)a 331.5(1.1(1. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Table 3 Average (7SE) total labour costs in US dollars/hectare incurred in the different cropping systems in six districts in western Kenya over 4–7 cropping years District Treatment Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono 213.3)a 182.8)b 135.6(0.9)b 147.7)a 344. there was a significant reduction in labour costs from the first to second cropping years in the push–pull plots.7(2.2)c 103.3(0.0(0.8(0. In all districts. In all districts.9(0.1(0.3)a 199.2(1.7(0.9(0.3)b 93.4(1.0(0.7(0. Khan et al.2(1.9(0.0)a 236.6(1.1(0.3)b 178.6(2.8(0.6(0.9)a 159.9)b 135.1)a 241. data not available as the technologies had not been established in the districts.7)c 2004 161.7)a 319.4(1.0)c 247. –.9)a 120.2(0.1(0.8(0.9)b 241.8(0.4)a 120.1(1.7)b 128.4(1.7)a 230.7)c 118.1)a 306.8(1.3)a 113.1)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2000 184. means marked by different letters are significantly different at p ¼ 0. there was a significant reduction in total variable costs from the first to second cropping years in the push–pull plots.9(1.7(1.2(0.9(0.4)b 127.3(0.1)a 192.0(1.0)b 153.4(1. .3)c 204.3(1.7(0.6(0.6)a 144.5(0.2)b 83.9)b 157.3(1.5)b 96.0)c 225.5)a 215.5)b 239.3)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2001 197.05.9(1.7(0.7(0.4)a – 266.1)b 257.4(0.5)a 200. There were no maize–beans plots in Trans Nzoia in 1998.6(0.5(0.7)b 220.4)c 2002 205.R.4(0.9(0.5)b 238.5(0. Table 4 Average (7SE) total variable costs in US dollars/hectare incurred in the different cropping systems in six districts in western Kenya over 4–7 cropping years District Treatment Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono 393.9)b 153.5(0.0(2.9)c 182.3(1.6)b 189.3(0.2(1.4)c 305.6)b 141.4)c 130.8(0.3(0.4)a 126.3(0.2(2.9)a 128.4(1.7)a 206.6(2.6)c 126.0(1.0)b 260.3(1.3(0.9(1.4)b 257.2)b 146.8)b 126.2)b 98.5)a 188.0(2. means marked by different letters are significantly different at p ¼ 0.1(0.5(1.9)a 113.3)c 114.4)a 266.3(0.5)c Suba Bungoma Busia Kisii Vihiga Within a year and district.6(2.3)a 184.9(0.8(1.4(1.8)c 199.4(0.1(0.3(0.6)b 141.1)a 261.0(1.3)c 235.1)a 263.5)b 125.5)c 2002 339.3(0.2)c 126.8(0.6)a 198. –.1)a 103.4(2.0(0.7)a 226.6)c Suba Bungoma Busia Kisii Vihiga Within a year and district.2(1.1)b 162.3)b 268.9(0.1)a 86.2)c 267.5)c 155.6)a 186.5(1.2(1.3(0.2(0.1)c 240.4)a 86.6)a 116.4(0.9(0.2)a 103.1(1.6(0.4)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2001 344.4)c 144.9(1.7)c 131.0)c 181.7)a 117.1)a 115.4)c 2003 186.9(0.2)c 126.1)a 108.2)c 103.1(0.2)b 101.3(1.9(0.9)b 228.8(0.6(0.3)a 243.3)b 134.7(1.1)a 218.4)a 217.6(0.2)a 109.1(0.1(1.3)a 79.0(1.0(1.3(1.9(0.1)b 144.3)c 321.4)a 214.7)c 224.7(1.3(0.9)b 222.3)a 98.7(1.2)b – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1999 205.8(0.7)b 237.2(0.8(0.2(0.9(1.3)b 232.8(0.3)a 211.6)a 185.1)b 293.6)a 231.9)c 139.0(0.1(0.4)b – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1999 357.0(0.3)b 249.5(1.8(0.6(1.9(0.9(2.2(1.

These costs were consistently higher in the maize–bean intercrop than in the monocrop systems in all the districts throughout the cropping years.2)a 1. Similarly.1)b Suba Bungoma Kisii Busia Vihiga Within a year and district the means marked by different letters are significantly different at p ¼ 0.1)b 3. ranging from 1.1)a 1.1(0.1(0.1)b 3.04)b 5.1(0.04)b 3.0(0.0/ha in Trans Nzoia (Table 6). A general increase in revenue from year to year was also observed in the maize–bean intercrop and maize monocrop systems in most of the districts.2)a 3.5(0.8(0.3)a 3.3(0.4(0.3(0.1)b 3.7(0.05).2)b 3.2(0.2)a 3.9(0.1(0. Gross benefit and returns to land and labour The period of comparison between the three cropping systems was 6 years.6(0.6(0. the estimated time period within which Striga is almost completely eliminated from a field if cropped under PPT (Khan et al. however.1)b 5.1)b 2002 4.1)b 2.1(0.03)b 5.05)b 4.9/ha in Busia to USD 957. 27. and in Busia throughout the study period.0(0.3(0. In all the districts.1)b 3.4(0.1)b 1.6(0. Gross revenue TRV arising from sale of farm produce in PPT in the initial year ranged from USD 351.1)a 1.5(0.1)b 3.9(0.6(0.6(0.05)b 1.4.0(0. except Suba in the last two cropping seasons when these costs were statistically the same between the two cropping systems (Table 4).1)b 3.1)b – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1999 4. –. In all the districts.1)b 2.7(0.1)b 4.3)a 1. these costs in the PPT reduced to below those of maize–bean intercrop and remained significantly lower in the subsequent cropping years.1)a 3.1)a 0. In all the districts returns to labour were significantly higher with the PPT than with the Table 5 Average (7SE) maize grain yields in tones/hectare obtained from each of the cropping systems in six districts of western Kenya during 4–7 cropping years District Treatment Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono 4.1)b 3.2)a 3.2)a 2.0(0. the TRV was significantly higher in the PPT than in the maize–bean intercrop and the maize monocrop systems throughout the cropping years.01)b 1. Table 8 shows the 4–7 years’ returns to labour from the three cropping systems.1)b 2.7(0.05)b 1.02)b 1.1)b 1. They ranged from 0.7(0. 3.01)b 1. Similarly.2)b 3.8(0.9(0.0(0. though with general annual increases (Table 6).1)a 3.1)b 4.1)a 3.1(0.9(0.4(0.4(0.2)b 3.2)b 2.2)a 3.05)b 5.9(0.05)b 3.0(0.8(0.5.5(0. in the second year.7(0.3(0.7(0.4(0.1)b 2003 5.8(0.1(0.1)b 3.01)b 3.2(0.1(0.2(0.0(0.1(0.2(0.04)b 4.0(0.9 t/ha in Trans-Nzoia (2000 and 2004) in the maize–bean intercrop and 1.2(0.6. po0.02)b – – – – – – – – – – – – 2000 5. Maize grain yields Maize grain yields were significantly higher in the PPT than in the maize–bean and maize monocrop systems throughout the cropping years (F2.R.4(0.1)a 1.04)b 1.5(0.2(0.0(0. 3.2)a 1. however. There were.1)a 1.8(0.3(0.5(0.1)a 3. the gross benefits were significantly higher in the maize–bean than in the maize monocrop systems in all the districts across the years.. these costs reduced to the same level as those of maize–bean intercrop from the second cropping year and remained so in the subsequent years.6(0.7(0.2)b 2.1)a 3.05.0(0.3(0. the gross benefits were significantly higher in the PPT than in the maize–bean intercrop and maize monocrop systems from the first to the final cropping years.2(0.1)b 1.1)b 3.6(0.0(0.02)b 5.6(0.03)b 4.1(0.2(0.1)a 3.2)a 3.03)b 1. there were loses incurred in cereal production with maize monocrop systems in the two districts throughout the study period (Table 7). However. losses in cereal production in maize–bean cropping systems in Suba in 2000 and 2001.05)a 1.04)b 1. In Bungoma.3 t/ha in Kisii (2003) (Table 5).9(0.9 t/ha in Suba (2000) to 3. data not available as the technologies had not been established in the districts.3(0.1)b 3.1(0.1)a 1. Khan et al.05)b – – – – – – – – – – – – 2001 4. .9(0. in all but Trans Nzoia and Bungoma.3)a 3.1)b 2.1(0.9 t/ha in Trans Nzoia (2004) in the maize monocrop.1(0. except Bungoma in the first year. 3.1(0.02)b 4.2)a 3.2)a – 2.04)b 3.1)b 2.2(0.2)a 3.0 t/ha in Suba (1999) and Busia (2001) to 3.2)a 2.1(0. except in Bungoma where the difference was not significant.2(0. 2007b).1)b 6.9 t/ha in Suba (1999) to 6.04)b 5.3(0.2(0.1)b 3.1(0.0(0. with annual increases in most of the districts.1)a 3.0(0.1)b 3.ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 1091 (Table 4).2)b 2004 5.

7(8.6(6.1)b 75.5)b 383.2)b À40.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1092 Z.2(7.R.3)a 412.9(9.8(4.2)a 736.5)b À35.3(7.8)a À25.1)b 339.3(8.9(4.4(4.0(34.1(40.2(13.9)b À93.5)b 321.8)a 467.4(30.9)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2001 1110.1(6.6)b 146.5)c 358.7(4.7(4.7(11.9)c Suba Bungoma Busia Kisii Vihiga Within a year and district.1)c 673.4)b 359.2)a 238.2(10.2)b 312.8)a 234.2(8.9)c 389.7)a 789.5)a À2.2)c 2003 997.6(5.4)b 318.9(8.1(12.9)b 41.8)c 787.9(5.7)c 880.3(26.4(28.1(13.3(15.9(8.0(33.0)c 297.4)c 444. In all districts there was a significant increase in total gross benefits from the first to the second cropping years in PPT.8(4.4)a 211.2(2.5)b 159.3)b 156.5)b À81.8)c 1029.4)b À24.5(4.4(11.5)a 203. .8(19.9)b 46.2)b 238.5(19.7)a 8.7)b À55.2(3.6)a 208.1)a 404.6(20.9)a 236.1)c 573.1)c 665.1)a 389.6(12.6(14.0(5.0(8.6)b 109.3(7.6(14.1(12.1)a À1.4(13.6)c 878.6)c 438.3(8.5(8. means marked by different letters are significantly different at p ¼ 0.3(19.1)c 2004 834.8(14.0)b 99.5)b 131.2(28.5(12.2(12.5)c 365.3)c 704.5(6.1(16.3(24.2)b 140. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Table 6 Average (7SE) total gross revenue in US dollars/hectare obtained from sale of outputs in the different cropping systems in six districts in western Kenya during 4–7 cropping years District Treatment Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono 957.1(8.9(8.2)c 739.0(9.9(12.0)a 671.2)a 245.8(5.0(18.4(19.7(4. –.3(15.6(7.6)b 117.4(39.6(29.5)c 1084.4)c 331.4(27.9)c 565.3(4.9)c 110.3)c 810.9)a 491.3)a – 368.2)b 133.4(4.5(14.7(36.2(12.1)b 359.8)b 130.1(8.7)c 227.1(5.2)a 708.9)b 314.6)a 121.1)a 51.3)c 375.9)c 434.7)b 144.7(11.3)b 124.9)c 678.0)c 2003 673.4)b 154.4)b 368.6)a 465.1(9.1)b 130.4)a 266.1(14.7)b 66.7(12.9(11.8(15.3(8.3(14.6)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2000 854.2)b 334.9)c Suba Bungoma Busia Kisii Vihiga Within a year and district.6(8.7(14.9)c 626.6)a 480.1)c 470.5(29.1)b 117.5(6.6)a 405.8)a 252. –.5(8.2)a 219.0)b 122.6)a 372.7)b 129.7)b À113.3(6.8(6.8(8.5(28.1(12.9)a 248.0(4.3(4.5)c 91.4(7.0(8.8(41.2(27.6)a À14.0(24.4(19.1(8.05.9(5.0)c 234.2(3.7(7.3)b 387.5)a 258.9)a 369.1)c 687.8(5.2)b 315.0(11.7)a 249.4)a 797.4(25.5(7.7(20.9(51.7(25.0(5.4(7.5(7.1)b 146.7(11.5(24.2(28.3(14.2)c 944.6(5.4)b 410.6(29.2(13.05.9)a 138.1)a 169.9)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2001 765.2)b 86.5(15.5(5.4(14. means marked by different letters are significantly different at p ¼ 0.1)c 436.3)c 632.5)c – – – – – – – – – – – – 2000 1183.6)c 619.3)b 121.0)b 75.9)a 250. Khan et al.2(16.7)b 252.6(5.0(37.3(7.8(8.9(36.8(7. data not available as the technologies had not been established in the districts.5)a 405.9)a 426.0(5.1)a 394.7(26.3(3.3)b 305.6)b À53.3)a 190.1)b À84.5(6.3(6.0)a – 102.7(10.4)b – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1999 972.8(15.0(51.9(30.1)c 610.1(3.1)a 633.4)b – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1999 614.9)c 383.9)b 79.7(9.5)c 759.4)a 197.8)c 2002 928.2)b 74.9)a 467.3)b 351.9(25.0(4.1)b 176.8)a 116.3(8.2(18.3(7.9(11.6)c 2004 1115.1)a 209.2(15.1)a 353.6(7.1)a 176.9(6.2(5.4(2.3(30.5(14.6(29.8(5.9)a À25.7(18.8(18.9(12.8)a 446.6(6.5)b 132.6(16.9(39.5)c 393. Table 7 Average (7SE) total gross benefits in US dollars/hectare obtained from sale of outputs in the different cropping systems in six districts in western Kenya over 4–7 cropping years District Treatment Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono 563.6)c 2002 588.6)a 26.4)a 319.5)b À73.3(5.3)c 623.9)a 7.3(15.9(4.8(28.2(8.7)a 499.1)c 1007.4)a 55.1(37.3)c 395.6(5.5(13.9)b 352. In all districts there was a significant increase in total gross revenue from the first to the second cropping years in PPT.7)c 514.2)a À19.8)c 468. data not available as the technologies had not been established in the districts.

in some instances accounting for over 50% of the total production costs.2(0. On the other hand.R.2)a 2.6(0.2(0.7(0.2(0.7(0. was realized in Kisii in 2003.2)b – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1999 2. 20% and 30% discount rates indicated that returns per unit of labour in the PPT system were consistently and significantly higher than those derived from the maize–bean and maize monocrop in both districts except in 1999 in Trans Nzoia where they did not significantly differ from those of maize–bean intercrops.1)b 0.1)c 3.5(0.0(0.3(0.1(0. the means marked by different letters are significantly different at p ¼ 0.6(0.03)b À0.4/ha and USD 122. Also shown in the Table are the undiscounted and discounted NPV are also shown.2)c 2.03)b À0. of the annual net benefits for each cropping system in USD/man-day in Trans Nzoia and Suba districts.1(0.5(0.1)a 2.2(0.3/man-day.4(0.1)c 3.2(0.04)b – – – – – – – – – – – – 2000 4.05)b 3.1)a 1.0(0.1)a À0.3(0. returns due to the maize–bean intercrop in Trans Nzoia ranged between USD 369.2)a 1.2)a 0.2)b 0.1)b 0.9(0. comparison systems throughout the cropping years.2)b 2.05)b 2.0(0.04)b À0.5(0.6(0.1)a 0.3(0.6/man-day in Busia to USD 5.03)c 2004 5.1)a 0.5(0.1)a 0.04)b À0. whereas in Suba the initial returns were about USD 110.2(0.04)b À0.3(0.4(0.1)a – 0.8(0.8(0. 27.4(0.1(0. except in Bungoma during the first cropping year and Trans Nzoia in 1999.6(0.5(0. Table 10 shows the returns to labour and discounted NPVs.4(0.0)b 3.1(0.1)a 0.2)b 0.1(0.1)b 2.3(0.2)b 0.1(0.3(0.02)b 2002 3.1(0. . There was a significant increase in return to labour from the first to second cropping years in the PPT in all the districts except in Trans Nzoia where the increase was not significant.04)b À0.6(0.3(0.ARTICLE IN PRESS Z.7(0.2(0.1)a 2.2)a 2.1)ab 0.7(0. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Table 8 Average (7SE) return to labour in the three cropping systems (treatments) across six districts between 1994 and 2004 in US dollars/man day District Treatments Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono Push–pull Maize–beans Maize mono 2.1/ha by the fifth year. data not available as the technologies had not been established in the districts.2)b 2.02)b 0.1)b 0.0(0.05).4/ha while in the Striga-infested Suba district.5(0.8(0. this ranged from USD 0. of net benefits from the three systems of cropping across the two districts that are representative of high and low agro-ecological potential areas.9/man-day in Trans Nzoia. Table 9 shows the returns to land in USD/ha in Suba and Trans Nzoia districts.2(0.2)b 0.9(0.7(0.1(0.1)b 0.1(0.4(0.03)b À0.3(0.1)b 0.04)b 1.3)a 0.3(0.0(0.2(0.4 and USD À24.1) 3.1)c 2. The flows of annual net returns per unit of labour from PPT were more superior to the other two cropping systems in both districts throughout the study period.1)b 4.2(0.04)ab À0.04)a 1.05)b 3. 4.1)b 0.04)b 2.2)b 0.9(0.4(0. Discussion and conclusions Labour. calculated at 10%. respectively. there were significant increases from the first to the second cropping years in all the districts.8(0.03)b À0.01(0.1)b 1. Similarly.6(0. as an important factor of production. The highest return to labour in maize monocrop system.8(0.1)a 0.2)a 2.0(0.2(0.1)b 1.1/man-day in Busia to USD 2.2(0.04)c 2003 3.7)a 1. In maize–bean intercrop.1)b 2.6(0.4(0.4(0.1)b 0. USD 1.4(0. The NPV of the annual flow of net benefits.8(0.7(0. still generated positive and significantly higher returns compared to the other two cropping systems.3(0.04)b – – – – – – – – – – – – 2001 4. as above.01(0. even at a high discount rate of 30%. 20% and 30%.02)a 0. Discounting at higher rates of 20% and 30%.2(0.1)b Average 3.6)a 0.1)b 0.7/ha and increased to about USD 444.5(0.1)a 0.7(0.4(0.6(0.1)b À0.04)b 3.2/man-day in Trans Nzoia.05.1)b À0.1)b 2.9(0.2(0.6(0.1(0.4(0.1)a 0.4)a 0.1)a 1.2(0.1)a 0. Average returns to labour with the PPT ranged from USD 0.3)b 0.2/ha and USD 491.4)a 2. equivalent returns ranged between only USD À25. However.2(0. po0.0/ha and USD 51.4)a 1.6)a 1.2(0.1)b 1.1)c 3. the costs of establishing PPT were recovered in the first year with returns of about USD 563.1)c 3.0(0.7(0.9(0.9(0.2(0. Returns per unit of land with PPT were significantly higher than those derived from the maize–bean and maize monocrop (F2.6/ha and USD À73.2)a 1.1)a 1.1)a 2.1)b À0.04)b 1.1)a 1.1(0.1)a 0.1)b 0.5(0.1/ha.3/ha and gradually increasing to an average of USD 854.3(0. –.05)b 2.1)a 0.1)a 2.1)b 1. In Trans Nzoia.2)c 3.4(0.3(0. the latter being at real interest rates of 10%.1/ha by the third year.3)b 1.03)a 0.1)a À0.1)a 1.6(0.3(0. accounted for a significant portion of the TVC. returns to labour with respect to maize monocrop were negligible and in some cases (Busia and Suba) negative.1(0. although reduced the expected net returns from PPT. Khan et al.1(0.1)b 1093 Suba Bungoma Busia Kisii Vihiga In all the districts and cropping years.0/ha and the monocrop between USD 74.5(0.2)b 1.

. grain yields of maize per unit area were significantly higher than in the two cropping systems.6(9) 24.7(4. 2005).3(4.1(6.2(3.7(31) 368.4(2) 119.7(35) 81.1(15) 44..7(3) 8.4(18) 241.9(2) À18.6(3) 178.2(8) 365.2(21) 368.0(1) 438.4(5) À11.2(4) À0.9(15) 263. The PPT significantly increased the costs of labour in the initial cropping season due to the extra requirements for labour to plant the Napier grass.5(7) 4. desmodium completely covers the soil thereby reducing weeds to a minimum.8(4) 4.6(5.0(6) À0.1(25) 276.6) 26.3(5) 14. In some areas. the labour costs and indeed the total production costs. In Trans Nzoia.7(3) À22.1(14) 79.1(9) 39.2(10) 43.0(4) À20.4(14) 428.7(3) À17.6(11) 49.5(3) 216. Weeding is therefore reduced from twice to once per cropping season.9(11) 494.9(2) 297.1(2) À22.4(11.3(9) 363.3(24) Maize–beans – Maize mono 102..6(4) 146.9(30) 69.4(4.0(4.9(26) 446.0(4.7(2) 138.1(13) 141. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Table 9 Discounted net present values (7SE) of returns to land in Trans Nzoia and Suba districts District/treatment Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia district Return to land.1(2) À25.8(10) 5.1(4) 133. the labour-saving benefits of desmodium are not realized since such practices as yearly ploughing and weeding are done in the PPT just like in the other cropping systems.7) À55.8(11) 427.0(51) 117. since the farmers plough only between the rows of desmodium from the second cropping year.3(2) 673.6(3) À14.3(5) 2.7(3) À34. compared to the farmers’ conventional practices.2) À40.7) 8.4(6) 123.3(7) 232.1(21) 70. farmers simply cut back the desmodium and plant maize at the beginning of a cropping season (minimum tillage). Khan et al.0(33) Return to land discounted at 10% Push–pull 512.4(4) 76. undiscounted values Push–pull 563.5(26) Suba district Return to land.6(5.0(19) 369.5) 223.8(4) À20.4(3) À42. attributable to the effective control of Striga and stemborer (Khan et al.5) À73.0(37) 122. 2000. nitrogen fixation by desmodium (Henzell et al.7(7) 765.8(5) 103.7(26) 523.1(2) 172. harvest the Napier grass and the desmodium.8(2) 110.8(3) À36.0(8.3(8) 854.3(24) 284.4(16) 42.9(39) 75.7(12.4(2) 395. This reduction is attributable to the lower costs of land preparation. because of the maize to desmodium ratio of 1:7.1(5.3(5) 13. These results corroborate earlier findings that the PPT enhances maize grain yields.1(3.3(18) Maize–beans – Maize mono 78.8(5) À0. particularly ploughing.8(4) 21. Napier grass having occupied 10–15% of the land.8(3) 158.9(36) 404.7) 269.3(17) 195.8(8) 388.4(20) 372. However.4(30) 86.4(20) Maize–beans – Maize mono 85.6) 100. however. In spite of a reduction in the area of land available to maize in the PPT.2(5) 236.8(3) 253.5(12) 156.7(2) 5.6)b À53.1(8.3(2) Returns to land were significantly higher in the PPT than in the other two systems throughout the years at all discount rates in both districts.5(9) À18. 2002.8(19) 223.9) À25.6(9) 49.5(2) 3. the results showed that in the second cropping year. Whiteman.4) À24..4(1) À8.1(7) À14.1(14. desmodium.7(4) À18.4(5) 31.4(4) 834.7(3) À55. 2001.1(13) 508.0(18) 309.7(20) 369.1(3) 85.4(14) 614.7(2) 444.9(3) 92.7(14) 26.4(3) 90. hand weed the desmodium.0(28) Return to land discounted at 30% Push–pull 433.9(5) À21.4(3) 190.9(11) 208. 1969.0(10) 225.9) 302.2(19) 36.9(28) 91.7(30) Return to land discounted at 20% Push–pull 469.0(3) 59.6(3) 365.1) À1.1(41) 491.5(12) 268.1) 51.2(28) 74. Midega et al.7(2) À13.6(2) 2.2(10) 191.5(17) 55.5(9) 588. undiscounted values Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – Return to land discounted at 10% Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – Return to land discounted at 20% Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – Return to land discounted at 30% Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 614.1(22) Maize–beans – Maize mono 92.1) 247. 1966.6(42) 96.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1094 Z.9) 7.5(1) 135.R.1(2) À15.5(6) 15.4(2. During the growing season.4(2) À33.5(7. 2006b.4(7) 379.9(6) 139.5(29) 389.9(8) 24.5) À35.5(8) 104. dropped to either the same level as the costs of producing a maize–bean intercrop or even significantly lower in some of the districts.3) 275.5(29) 51.

02) 1.3(0.1) À0.02) À0.03(0. undiscounted values Push–pull 2.03) 0. This is important in technology uptake by farmers in that the benefits of a technology are realized either from the onset or shortly after a short time lag.03) 0.1(0.1) 0.3(0.2(0.6(0.1) À0.3(0.1) 0.6(0. Maize prices have been shown to fluctuate each year in the districts under study thereby causing the revenue and net benefits to fluctuate as well (Waithaka et al.2) 0.2(0. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Table 10 Discounted net present values (7SE) of returns to labour in Trans Nzoia and Suba districts District/treatment Cropping years 1998 Trans Nzoia District Return to labour.2(0.05) 0.02) 1.1) 0.5(0.04) À0.04(0.1) 0. In Kenya.2) 0.. Since PPT has the diversified outputs of Napier grass.1) 2.1) 1.5(0.0(0.02) 0.0(0.5(0.4(0.7(0.0(0.1) 0.1) 1.0(0. farmers in most of the study districts generated revenue that only met the production costs.8(0. especially in Suba and Busia districts.02) À0.1) 1.4(0.3(0. but in some cases.02(0.2(0.8(0.2) 0.7(0.3(0.01(0.1) 0.9(0.5(0.8(0.1(0.3(0.. increased grain yield was realized right from the first cropping year and was sustained throughout the study period.4(0.2) Return to labour discounted at 30% Push–pull 2.04(0.9(0.2(0.3(0.03) 1.01) 3. desmodium herbage and desmodium seed. it is versatile and profitable as a technology in different agroecological zones as represented by the six study districts.1(0.1) 1. 2004). undiscounted values Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – Return to labour discounted at 10% Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – Return to labour discounted at 20% Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – Return to labour discounted at 30% Push–pull – Maize–beans – Maize mono – 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1095 2.1) 1.4(0.1) 2.05) 4.2(0.01(0.03) À0.1) À0.5(0.01) 3.0(0.02) 0.04) 0.3(0.03) À0.1(0.2(0.7(0.02) 0.1(0. 2005).04) À0.1(0.03) 1.04) 2.02) À0.9(0.1(0.03) 0.2) 2.1) 0.02) Return to labour was significantly higher in the PPT than in the other two systems in both districts throughout the years and at all discount rates.3(0.2(0.0(0.8(0.1) 0.1(0.03) 1.2(0.1) 3.2) Suba district Return to labour. The benefits are especially more significant starting from the second cropping year . The most important output for the farmers was maize grain.4(0.1(0.2(0.1) 2.2(0.1) Maize–beans – Maize mono 0.1) 1.8(0.02) 0.1) 2.04(0.2) Return to labour discounted at 20% Push–pull 2.01) 0.6(0.03) 2.7(0.6(0.4(0.03) 0.5(0.1) 1.5(0.1) 2.04) 0.7(0.1(0.1) 1.03) 3.1) 0.01) À0.5(0.02(0..1(0.2(0.1) 0. moisture retention by desmodium (Khan et al.5(0. they could not break-even.2(0.01(0.02) 2.05) 4.01) À0.05) 1.03) 0.1) 0.9(0.5(0. 2006).2(0.1) 1.2(0.02) À0.03) À0.0(0.2) 0. In the maize monocrop.03) 0.1) 2.1(0.7(0.1(0.01) 3.04) 0.R.3) 0.1(0.2) Return to labour discounted at 10% Push–pull 2.3(0.01) 0.6(0.2) 0.3(0.5(0.2(0.6(0.1(0.01) 5.1(0.01) 3.02) 0.03) À0.1) 0.6(0.1(0.1) À0.4(0.02) À0.01) 1. 2002) and an additional organic matter resulting from decaying desmodium foliage (as suggested by Midega et al.03) À0.01) À0.9(0.3(0.2) 0.1(0.01(0.2(0.4(0.3(0.1) 0.2(0.3(0.7(0.1) 1.1) 0.7(0.2) 2. indicating that the farmers in the latter category incurred losses.3(0.01) À0.3(0.02) 0.02) À0.02) 3.1(0.2) 0.1(0.7(0.6(0.1) 1.2(0.1(0.1) 0.02) 1.6(0.01(0.1) 0. food security is linked to households having sufficient maize supply (Khan and Pickett.1) 2.1) 1.2(0. Khan et al. Khan et al.03) À0.2(0.5(0.2(0. It is notable that in all the districts.4(0.8(0.03) À0. Revenue generated by the farmers is influenced by the amounts of crop yield obtained and the prices the produce can fetch in the nearby markets.04) 2.04) À0.2) 2.7(0.1(0.4(0.7(0.04) 0.04) À0.03) À0.2(0.4(0.02) 0.3(0.6(0.5(0.1) 0.1) Maize–beans – Maize mono 0.1) 2.2(0.03) 0.7(0.5(0.ARTICLE IN PRESS Z.03) 0.1) 0.1) Maize–beans – Maize mono 0. 2006d).1) 0.04) À0.03) 0.02) 1.05) À0.04) 0.04) 2..1) Maize–beans – Maize mono 0.4(0.2(0.1(0. Maize prices are important for the consumers (who need to get their staple food at the least price) and to the producers (who need to get the most out of their produce).1) 0.04) À0.05) À0.1) 1.0(0.2) 2.4(0.1(0.8(0. in addition to enhanced maize grain yields.1) 1.02) 0.02) À0.2(0.1) 2.1) 1.03) À0.9(0.03) 0. except in 1999 in Trans Nzoia when they did not significantly differ with the maize–beans intercrops.7(0.1) 1.2) 0.1) 2.8(0.7(0.5(0.02) 0.4) 2.

UK. No. this can enable households shift to other income generating activities. are realized. institutional partnerships with farming communities are needed to ensure concerted resource mobilization and proper training on the value and use of the technology. they would be more apt to pursue alternative methods that not only guarantee increased output but also give reliable returns. however. Khan et al.L. and planting of Napier grass reduces the space available for maize as indicated above. for example improved dairy farming due to increased livestock fodder and other products that can be readily sold in nearby market. Such analysis enables a comprehensive assessment of financial profitability of a strategy. Dillon. Although annual labour costs are subsequently reduced in the PPT system. or vines for vegetative propagation. conducted in conjunction with Rothamsted Research which receives grant-aided support from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) of the United Kingdom. the PPT consistently produces positive NPV of the incremental flows of benefits compared to the maize monocrop and maize–bean intercrop when discounted at rates between 10% and 30%. Italy. the farmers’ commonly used cropping systems. J.. the intensification of land use increases the overall demand for labour. These findings thus show that the use of PPT is economically efficient at the farm level.8 for the maize monocrop in most of the districts studied. The findings also suggest that analysing efficacy of a technology should take into account farmers’ planning horizons and the degree to which the farmers discount the future benefits of the technology. since the farmer can then use harvested seeds or vines from the established crop to expand the acreage under the PPT. effectively bringing the farmers into the cash economy. an important economic impact where family labour has alternative uses. Francis Muyekho. Additionally. PPT has a potential to address food and fodder insecurity in the case study districts and beyond in a holistic manner. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 after the desmodium and Napier grass have established in the farms. Given that the majority of small-scale farmers are usually averse to risks. We appreciate the efforts of farmers in the various districts who participated in the study and shared their farm information generously. but they also mean greater potential loss if a crop fails. farmers may hesitate to adopt a technology or practice it if the costs and risks are high. particularly land and labour as demonstrated in this study. Aloice Ndiege and the late Naphtali Dibogo are also greatly appreciated. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. Rome. The most limiting factor is desmodium seed.R.ARTICLE IN PRESS 1096 Z.. 2. On this basis. This will yield more maize grain and leave some land available for other farm activities when labour is available. rapid returns in terms of enhanced grain yields and returns to both land and labour. Greater returns to factors of production. References Anderson. can be added. investment in PPT appears to be a sound option for smallholder farmers in both highand low-potential areas as it consistently yields positive returns under different farming conditions. The inputs of Lawrence Mose. appropriate training is necessary and should be packaged in the technology’s dissemination pathways. Farm Systems Management Series. By examining the impact of the three cropping systems on the variability of NPV. Because its effectiveness depends on proper establishment and management of the companion crops (Khan et al. 1992. which costs about USD 16/kg at current market rates. Risk Analysis in Dryland Farming Systems. J. for funding this research. it would still suffice to put part of the land under the PPT since this guarantees Striga and stemborer control.2 in the PPT relative to 0. Higher cash expenses may mean greater potential profit. For households that are labourconstrained. Moreover. (2001) who reported significant economic gains from the PPT relative to the conventional farmer practices. It is also more profitable than the maize–bean intercrop or the maize monocrop. 1992). On these grounds. under varying production scenarios. 2007a). . to a critical mass of smallholder farmers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. East Africa and Biovision. getting over it is critical. Moreover. Kilimo Trust. There is thus an urgent need to develop strategies of availing desmodium seed. such as livestock keeping. Switzerland. it is possible to assess the impacts of the systems on average financial returns and on the risk and uncertainty the farmers face. for sustainability and wider dissemination of the technology. These results corroborate those of Khan et al. This implies that successful adoption and adaptation of PPT is subject to factors conditioning farmers’ future benefits. But being a one-time investment and desmodium being a perennial crop. only if the farmer’s planning horizon is more than one year. With the diminishing size of landholdings and productivity of the available land and a growing demand for food and fodder. Dickens Nyagol. Although in the PPT desmodium takes the place of beans and other food legumes often intercropped with cereals. Its diversified benefits make it a platform technology around which new income generation and human nutritional components.. with a cost–benefit analysis showing returns by a factor of 2.R. Its positive spillover effects over and above Striga and stemborer control serve to provide incentives to the farmers for its adoption. one that recognizes that resource constrained farmers are interested not only in increasing net benefits but also in reducing production risks (Anderson and Dillon. An important issue for future consideration relates to how the subsistence farmers could gain access to sufficient finance resources to meet the up front costs of accessing the technology. these changes do not seem to depress the realized benefits of the technology. George Genga.

333–342. S. J. 52. 13. Busseola fusca (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).. J. Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in three varieties of maize.. Syst. 241–252. Insect Sci. pp. (Ed. A. Weeds as agricultural constraint to farmers in Benin: results of a diagnostic study. Nur. Agricultural Research and Extension Network. Agric. Hutter. 1992. P. Ahande ´ de ´ .J. Singapore.. 83–98. 2003.. Kuyper.G. Sum. Cambridge University Press. Oviposition preference and survival of the maize stem borer. C.. economic and social perspectives. 2003. The Economics of Tropical Farm Management. Z. 250–254. Miller. Oviposition preference and larval survival of Chilo Partellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) trap crops. Pickett. Chem.P.J.O. In: Polaszek. J. and maize. Taxonomy. B. 375–400.A... 16.. Sorghum bicolor. E. R. Schmidt. Khan. Midega. Pickett. L. Wadhams. G..R. J. Anim. De Bruyn. 2007b.J...M. N.... Van den Berg. P.A. 1998. Midega.J. P. 565–577. Henzell. M. Int.. C. Wilkins. K... 2006. S. 2000. pp. Rev.A. ` hounou. Ecol.. Z..B. Ge ¨ lling. C. Z. International Institute of Entomology. Biology and management of economically important Lepidopteran cereal stem borers in Africa. Integrating New Technologies for Striga Control: Towards Ending the Witch-hunt. Khan. Rasul. Sanchez. Parker.O. Ecol. P.. M. Thapa.R. 6–22. L. L. 1969. Woodcock. C. Van den Berg.F..D. 22.. Nur. Pickett. J.. Z.J.. Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems. J. J.R. Polaszek.. Z. Control of witchweed Striga hermonthica by intercropping with Desmodium spp. Syst. Martin..S. A. Fergus. Statistics. Shepherd.. Wallingford. Ro Vissoh. Hess. Ejeta. Chitere.. H. Ransom. Pannell. 1966.. Van den Berg. NC. A. Hess.. S. Striga hermonthica. L.. Pickett. Natural Enemies and Control. J..R. 10.. Assessment of the potential of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) varieties as trap plants for management of Chilo partellus. N.J. 2000.... 32.. Franzel. Cambridge.J..O. R. 1990. Khan. Hooper. Ogol. A. CAB International... A. Khan.O. Gressel.. Woodcock. Pretty. C. Z... (Ed.V.. Exp. Appl. 93. Wratten... pp. Habitat management strategies for the control of cereal stemborers and Striga weed in maize in Kenya. Ecological Engineering for Pest Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods. 2007. Exp. Whiteman. Adango. D. L. Hassanali. 2006... 47. Khan..C.. Ball. L.. G.. Exploiting chemical ecology and species diversity: stem borer and Striga control in maize in Kenya. The adoption and dissemination of fodder shrubs in Central Kenya.). L. Makeham.. A. Chemical control.. J. 1871–1885.. 2006. 1986..B.. M. UK.F..R. C. J. 375–380.J.E.. G... Pest Manage. Overholt. Taxonomy. Z.. C. 243–271. Oxon.A. Hassan. International Institute of Entomology. M. 333–340.. Inheritance of resistance to Striga in sorghum genotype SRN 39. . Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental. Yield infestation relationship and determination of economic injury level of stem borers.A. African Cereal Stemborers.. Afr. 2006b. J. Afr. 265–273.. Managing polycropping to enhance soil system productivity: a case study from Africa. Network Paper No. 305–325. pp. 64. C. G.)... I. Appl.. 90. Midega. 124. Khan.. Khan. Khan.. Oswald. Ecol. A. Wadhams. A.. Crop Prot.D.M. Agric. 327–351.E. 2003. In: Ejeta. 652–660. Chem.K. Entomol. Boca Raton. 2004. An ecological and economic analysis of phosphorus replenishment for Vihiga Division. 1993. Sci... J. Pennisetum spp.J. A. Reddy. 989–995. J.J.M. Wadhams.. A. Tsanuo.. Kfir. on Napier grasses. L.A.A.M. Monjardino. A. Polaszek. Diel periodicity in the production of green leaf volatiles by wild and cultivated host plants of stemborer moths. Crop Prot. Toshova.V. 1991. Khan. OX. A. Pickett. 2002.. Chem. Natural Enemies and Control.. C.. Evaluation of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) varieties for use as trap plants for the management of African stemborer (Busseola fusca) in a ‘push–pull’ strategy. In: Uphoff.. Appl.. Van den Berg.R. A. Aust. Entomol.. Thies.R. A. Striga control-technologies and their dissemination. Economic Importance. 79.A. Neth... J. E. Entomol. A. (Eds. 371–376. Wadhams.A. K. F... Wallingford. Pickett. Herrero. intercrops.. J. In: Gurr.. K. Entomol. 79. Kaberia. J. C. C..A. Weltzien.G.J. Shepherd. L.... 2006a. Chilo partellus and Busseola fusca.. CRC Press. 2004. Accumulation of soil nitrogen and carbon under a Desmodium uncinatum pasture. Pickett. pp. Bennett. Midega.. Management of witchweed.. A. Khan. SAS Institute.E. African Cereal Stemborers. Z.).K. The spatial distribution and farmers strategies to control Striga in maize: survey results from Kenya. Palm. The effects of close grazing and cutting on the yield.R.. Agric. The use of ‘push–pull’ strategies in integrated pest management. UK. Pickett. 2006c. 126–132. 28.. Zea mays L. S.. Plant Breed.. Laing.. Midega. through intercropping with Greenleaf desmodium.K. Bioeconomic evaluation of farmers’ perceptions of viable in western Kenya. Entomol. Trap crops of Striga hermonthica: in Gbe vitro identification and effectiveness in situ.A. Protection of crops against parasitic weeds. Farmers’ indigenous knowledge of crop pests and their damage in western Kenya. Pickett. Wadhams. Pickett. Wallingford.A. Int. Rev.A. 395–404. Pest Manage.. 2004. Anim. T... 52. and stemborers in sorghum. V.2 ed. SAS Institute.O. Z. W. J. J. 957–962. Maydica 37. G.A. Version 8. Khan et al. Sci. J. Cook. Tuwei. Sanginga.. Ojiem. Z. J.M. Herren. Khamis.. Agric. T.M.J. Altieri. ` hounou. Int. E.. Cultural control.. Pest Manage.. Phytochemistry 64.. 319–332. 119. 3197–3212. J. L. Wadhams. A. 157–160. and the mechanism defined as allelopathic. Hassanali. (Eds.K.A. 24.. 21. Khan. B. / Crop Protection 27 (2008) 1084–1097 Berner. Husb. 575–586.. Van Hamburg.. Striga research and control: a perspective from Africa. In: Fourth Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference. H. 34–50.M..A. D..R. Stewart. Stimulo-deterrent diversion: a concept and its possible application to onion maggot control. CABI Publishing. 1995. J. N. Husson. Singh. 211–218..J. Plant Dis. Agric.O.A. T. 109. Exp. M. Crop Prot. L. Fernandes. Pickett. 15–22. The ‘push–pull’ strategy for stemborer management: a case study in exploiting biodiversity and chemical ecology. P...O.. western Kenya.. 131.A.R. 28 March–1 April 1994. J.S. 14. 2001. 2004. 287–294. 1097 Khan. 297–302.R.O. Exp. 79. Agric. O. Rodenburg.R. M. World Scientific Publishing Company. Muyekho. Crop Prot.. 333–347. 701–731. Omolo. N. Annu. Z. Bastiaans. 2002.... 37–44.M. pp. R.F.. E. Khan. Field developments on Striga control by Desmodium intercrops in a ‘push–pull’ strategy. Z. Mumuni. Powles. Midega. Thorton. Chamberlain. D. J. Syst.. 2005. J. M. D.B. R.A.J.K. (Eds.. Habitat management and its impact on maize stemborer colonization and crop damage levels in Kenya and South Africa. J. 1994. 2006. 1998.D. Southeastern Queensland. G. S. K. J. 2001. 25. J. A. Entomol. In: Polaszek.R.R. Hooper. SAS User’s Guide.R. J. Khan. 305–329. Wadhams. G.O. A. Desmodium intortum.. F. J. persistence and nitrogen content of four tropical legumes with Rhodes grass at Samford... P. J. Aust. 56.. Z. C. Hassanali. Van den Berg. Waithaka.. Isoflavanones from the allelopathic aqueous root exudates of Desmodium uncinatum. Z.. Annu. J.ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. Overholt. 1992. A. Z. Wanjoya. Wadhams. How can selection for Striga resistance and tolerance in sorghum be improved? Field Crops Res. 52. A.. 9. Cary. Husb.. Combined control of Striga hermonthica and stem borers by maize-Desmodium spp. 6. 201–211. FL. W.). Soule. Malcolm.. Khan.F.R. Kling. J. 2005. Cowles. 2005. Hassanali. Oxon. CAB International. Economic Importance.R. 155–164. L..). Pest Manage. Wadhams. Van den Berg.R. J. UK. Syst.. J. C. 52. 233–241...W.P. Wambugu. RIM: a bioeconomic model for integrated weed management of Lolium rigidum in western Australia. Pickett.... Taylor and Francis.M.S. Wadhams.. Hassanali. 2007a.. Agric.. 39. 2006d. A.A.