1 THRIPS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN FRENCH BEAN PRODUCTION AND EFFICACY OF INTEGRATED PESTICIDE APPLICATION REGIEMES IN EMBU EAST Benard Ouma Ogala-University Of Nairobi Dr. James Muthomi University of Nairobi Prof. John Nderitu-Mount Kenya University

2 Acknowledgement We are grateful to Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project(KAPAP) for financially supporting this study.

3 1.0 Introduction Horticultural sector GDP-33% Export earnings-38% Employment-4m Growth rate 20% pa French beans Exports mt Employment-Prod mainly by small scale farmers Rural income

4 2.Challenges 1.Inputs-Not affordable 2.Transport-Production/roads/fuel costs 3.EU regulation-Barriers to trade MRL-10% sample per consignment Ksh per shipment 4. Global GAP: To respond to consumer concerns on food safety, environmental protection, worker health, safety and welfare and animal welfare by: (ii) Providing guidance for continuous improvement and the development and understanding of best practice.

5 3. Objectives 3.1Broad To determine pest management practices among small scale French bean production and efficacy of integrated pesticide regimes in managing thrips. 3.2 Specific To determine pest management strategies used by small scale French bean farmers in Embu To evaluate the efficacy of integrating biological, synthetic and botanical pesticides in management of thrips. Enhance capacity of French bean farmers and extension providers

6 4. Determination of current pest control practices 4.1Sampling procedure  Sample size-70  Multistage sampling technique  Farmers randomly selected from the list of French bean farmers  Structured questionnaire 4.2Data collected Challenges to French beans production Farmers knowledge of pests and their management practices. French bean varieties grown, harvesting and post harvest Marketing, marketing channels and certification status of farmers

7 4.3Results Table 1:Farmers harvesting and post harvest practices in Embu East district Percent farmers Post harvest activities Mwea eastEmbu east Where rejects are taken Mwea eastEmbu east Sorting Sold locally Washing Thrown away Good and reject47.450Used at home Different grades Fed to livestock

8 Table 2:Marketing, marketing channels and certification status of farmers in Embu East district ActivityMeasureMwea eastEmbu east Marketing chanelBrokers Exporters/processors Point of saleSold at home Transported to exporters Transported to central collection point Transported to brokers7.90 Distance to collection point(Kilometers) and more Implementation of market standards Yes Type of standardGlobal GAP Plans for certificationYes Certified03.1

9 5. Effects of integrating biological, synthetic and botanical pesticides on pod quality and yield of French beans 5.1Design-RCBD 5.2 Treatments  chemical plus biological pesticides  chemical plus botanical pesticides  conventional pesticide –  botanical plus biological  Biological pesticide  Control plots - no pesticide application. 5.3 Data collected  Growth parameters  Thrips population  Pod quality  Pod yield

Results Table 3:Effects of pesticide spray regiemes on pod quality of French beans MarketableUnmarketable Season 1Season 2Season 1Season 2 TreatmentMEAN Chemical+Biological 7.69b5.61bc2.30b4.38ab Chemical+Botanical 7.22b5.72bc2.77b4.27ab Conventional 8.58c6.25c1.167a3.75a Botanical+Biological 6.27a4.91a3.72c5.13c Biological 6.55a5.30ab3.69c4.69bc Control 6.27a5.11ab3.72c4.88bc LCD Cv%

11 Table 4:Effect of different pesticide spray regimes on yield of French Season 1Season 2 FineExtra fineRejectsFineExtra fineRejects TreatmentMEAN Chemical+Bio logical 226c 1020b406b 4.38ab 1563ab419.8b Chemical+Bot anical 154ab 744a453bc 4.27ab 1586b364.6ab Conventional 199bc 1347c289a 3.75a 1708b266.6a Botanical+Bio logical 200bc 636a554c 5.13c 1448ab408.3b Biological 116a 609a536c 4.69bc 1425ab382.5ab Control 128a 601a478bc 4.88bc 1279a480.7b LCD Cv%

12 6. Enhancing capacity of French bean farmers and extension service providers 6.1Farmers Field School  Sensitization/awareness creation  33 farmers identified  Training were done once a week from planting to harvesting 6.2Data collected  Gender  Factors affecting attendance

13 6.3:Results Table 5:FFS Attendance DateMaleFemaleTotal 25/10/ /10/ /11/ /11/ /11/ /11/ /12/ /12/12718

14 Training of farmers at the site

15 THANK YOU