Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa

If future rice production is to contribute to food security for the increasing population of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), effective strategies are needed to control weeds, the crop’s fiercest competitors for resources. To gain better insights into farmers’ access to, and use of, herbicides as part of w...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rodenburg, J., Johnson, J.M., Dieng, I., Senthilkumar, Kalimuthu, Vandamme, Elke, Akakpo, C., Allarangaye, M.D., Baggie, I., Bakare, S.O., Bam, R.K., Bassoro, I., Abera, B.B., Cisse, M., Dogbe, W., Gbakatchetche, H., Jaiteh, F., Kajiru, G.J., Kalisa, A., Kamissoko, N., Sekou, K., Kokou, A., Mapiemfu-Lamare, D., Lunze, F.M., Mghase, J., Maiga, I.M., Nanfumba, D., Niang, A., Rabeson, R., Segda, Zénabou, Sillo, F.S., Tanaka, A., Saito, Kazuki
Format: Journal Article
Language:Inglés
Published: Springer 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10568/100882
_version_ 1855541848795250688
author Rodenburg, J.
Johnson, J.M.
Dieng, I.
Senthilkumar, Kalimuthu
Vandamme, Elke
Akakpo, C.
Allarangaye, M.D.
Baggie, I.
Bakare, S.O.
Bam, R.K.
Bassoro, I.
Abera, B.B.
Cisse, M.
Dogbe, W.
Gbakatchetche, H.
Jaiteh, F.
Kajiru, G.J.
Kalisa, A.
Kamissoko, N.
Sekou, K.
Kokou, A.
Mapiemfu-Lamare, D.
Lunze, F.M.
Mghase, J.
Maiga, I.M.
Nanfumba, D.
Niang, A.
Rabeson, R.
Segda, Zénabou
Sillo, F.S.
Tanaka, A.
Saito, Kazuki
author_browse Abera, B.B.
Akakpo, C.
Allarangaye, M.D.
Baggie, I.
Bakare, S.O.
Bam, R.K.
Bassoro, I.
Cisse, M.
Dieng, I.
Dogbe, W.
Gbakatchetche, H.
Jaiteh, F.
Johnson, J.M.
Kajiru, G.J.
Kalisa, A.
Kamissoko, N.
Kokou, A.
Lunze, F.M.
Maiga, I.M.
Mapiemfu-Lamare, D.
Mghase, J.
Nanfumba, D.
Niang, A.
Rabeson, R.
Rodenburg, J.
Saito, Kazuki
Segda, Zénabou
Sekou, K.
Senthilkumar, Kalimuthu
Sillo, F.S.
Tanaka, A.
Vandamme, Elke
author_facet Rodenburg, J.
Johnson, J.M.
Dieng, I.
Senthilkumar, Kalimuthu
Vandamme, Elke
Akakpo, C.
Allarangaye, M.D.
Baggie, I.
Bakare, S.O.
Bam, R.K.
Bassoro, I.
Abera, B.B.
Cisse, M.
Dogbe, W.
Gbakatchetche, H.
Jaiteh, F.
Kajiru, G.J.
Kalisa, A.
Kamissoko, N.
Sekou, K.
Kokou, A.
Mapiemfu-Lamare, D.
Lunze, F.M.
Mghase, J.
Maiga, I.M.
Nanfumba, D.
Niang, A.
Rabeson, R.
Segda, Zénabou
Sillo, F.S.
Tanaka, A.
Saito, Kazuki
author_sort Rodenburg, J.
collection Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace)
description If future rice production is to contribute to food security for the increasing population of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), effective strategies are needed to control weeds, the crop’s fiercest competitors for resources. To gain better insights into farmers’ access to, and use of, herbicides as part of weed control strategies, surveys were conducted in key rice production locations across SSA. Farm surveys were held among 1965 farmers across 20 countries to collect data on rice yields, farmer’s weed management practices, herbicide use, frequencies of interventions and information sources regarding herbicides. Markets were surveyed across 17 countries to collect data on herbicide availability, brand names and local prices (converted to US$ ha−1). Herbicides are used by 34% of the rice farmers in SSA, but adoption ranges from 0 to 72% across countries. Herbicides are more often used by men (40%) than by women (27%) and more often in irrigated (44% of farmers) than in rainfed lowland (36%) or upland rice growing environments (24%). Herbicides are always used supplementary to hand weeding. Following this combination, yield loss reductions in irrigated lowlands and rainfed uplands are estimated to be 0.4 t ha−1 higher than hand weeding alone. In rainfed lowlands no benefits were observed from herbicide use. Sixty-two percent of the herbicides sold at rural agro-chemical supply markets are unauthorized. These markets are dominated by glyphosate and 2,4-D, sold under 55 and 41 different brand names, respectively, and at relatively competitive prices (below average herbicide price of US $17 ha−1). They are also the most popular herbicides among farmers. For advice on herbicide application methods, farmers primarily rely on their peers, and only a few receive advice from extension services (<23%) or inform themselves by reading the product label (<16%). Herbicide application timings are therefore often (38%) sub-optimal. Herbicide technologies can contribute to reduced production losses in rice in SSA. However, through negative effects on crop, environment and human health, incorrect herbicide use may unintentionally counteract efforts to increase food security. Moving away from this status quo will require strict implementation and monitoring of national pesticide regulations and investment in research and development to innovate and diversify the currently followed weed management strategies, agricultural service provision and communications with farmers.
format Journal Article
id CGSpace100882
institution CGIAR Consortium
language Inglés
publishDate 2019
publishDateRange 2019
publishDateSort 2019
publisher Springer
publisherStr Springer
record_format dspace
spelling CGSpace1008822025-03-13T09:46:40Z Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa Rodenburg, J. Johnson, J.M. Dieng, I. Senthilkumar, Kalimuthu Vandamme, Elke Akakpo, C. Allarangaye, M.D. Baggie, I. Bakare, S.O. Bam, R.K. Bassoro, I. Abera, B.B. Cisse, M. Dogbe, W. Gbakatchetche, H. Jaiteh, F. Kajiru, G.J. Kalisa, A. Kamissoko, N. Sekou, K. Kokou, A. Mapiemfu-Lamare, D. Lunze, F.M. Mghase, J. Maiga, I.M. Nanfumba, D. Niang, A. Rabeson, R. Segda, Zénabou Sillo, F.S. Tanaka, A. Saito, Kazuki herbicides glyphosate farmers markets rice If future rice production is to contribute to food security for the increasing population of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), effective strategies are needed to control weeds, the crop’s fiercest competitors for resources. To gain better insights into farmers’ access to, and use of, herbicides as part of weed control strategies, surveys were conducted in key rice production locations across SSA. Farm surveys were held among 1965 farmers across 20 countries to collect data on rice yields, farmer’s weed management practices, herbicide use, frequencies of interventions and information sources regarding herbicides. Markets were surveyed across 17 countries to collect data on herbicide availability, brand names and local prices (converted to US$ ha−1). Herbicides are used by 34% of the rice farmers in SSA, but adoption ranges from 0 to 72% across countries. Herbicides are more often used by men (40%) than by women (27%) and more often in irrigated (44% of farmers) than in rainfed lowland (36%) or upland rice growing environments (24%). Herbicides are always used supplementary to hand weeding. Following this combination, yield loss reductions in irrigated lowlands and rainfed uplands are estimated to be 0.4 t ha−1 higher than hand weeding alone. In rainfed lowlands no benefits were observed from herbicide use. Sixty-two percent of the herbicides sold at rural agro-chemical supply markets are unauthorized. These markets are dominated by glyphosate and 2,4-D, sold under 55 and 41 different brand names, respectively, and at relatively competitive prices (below average herbicide price of US $17 ha−1). They are also the most popular herbicides among farmers. For advice on herbicide application methods, farmers primarily rely on their peers, and only a few receive advice from extension services (<23%) or inform themselves by reading the product label (<16%). Herbicide application timings are therefore often (38%) sub-optimal. Herbicide technologies can contribute to reduced production losses in rice in SSA. However, through negative effects on crop, environment and human health, incorrect herbicide use may unintentionally counteract efforts to increase food security. Moving away from this status quo will require strict implementation and monitoring of national pesticide regulations and investment in research and development to innovate and diversify the currently followed weed management strategies, agricultural service provision and communications with farmers. 2019-02 2019-04-23T21:20:40Z 2019-04-23T21:20:40Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/100882 en Open Access Springer Rodenburg, J.; Johnson, J.M; Dieng, I. et al. 2019. Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Security. 1876-4517. 11:1. pp. 69-92.
spellingShingle herbicides
glyphosate
farmers
markets
rice
Rodenburg, J.
Johnson, J.M.
Dieng, I.
Senthilkumar, Kalimuthu
Vandamme, Elke
Akakpo, C.
Allarangaye, M.D.
Baggie, I.
Bakare, S.O.
Bam, R.K.
Bassoro, I.
Abera, B.B.
Cisse, M.
Dogbe, W.
Gbakatchetche, H.
Jaiteh, F.
Kajiru, G.J.
Kalisa, A.
Kamissoko, N.
Sekou, K.
Kokou, A.
Mapiemfu-Lamare, D.
Lunze, F.M.
Mghase, J.
Maiga, I.M.
Nanfumba, D.
Niang, A.
Rabeson, R.
Segda, Zénabou
Sillo, F.S.
Tanaka, A.
Saito, Kazuki
Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa
title Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa
title_full Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa
title_fullStr Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa
title_full_unstemmed Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa
title_short Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa
title_sort status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub saharan africa
topic herbicides
glyphosate
farmers
markets
rice
url https://hdl.handle.net/10568/100882
work_keys_str_mv AT rodenburgj statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT johnsonjm statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT diengi statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT senthilkumarkalimuthu statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT vandammeelke statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT akakpoc statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT allarangayemd statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT baggiei statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT bakareso statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT bamrk statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT bassoroi statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT aberabb statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT cissem statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT dogbew statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT gbakatchetcheh statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT jaitehf statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT kajirugj statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT kalisaa statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT kamissokon statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT sekouk statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT kokoua statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT mapiemfulamared statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT lunzefm statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT mghasej statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT maigaim statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT nanfumbad statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT nianga statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT rabesonr statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT segdazenabou statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT sillofs statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT tanakaa statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica
AT saitokazuki statusquoofchemicalweedcontrolinriceinsubsaharanafrica