Adoption of Integrated Pest Management by
Farmers in Orumba South Local Government
Area of Anambra State, Nigeria
Angela N. Obiajulu Department of Biology Education, School of Sciences/Federal College of Education (Technical), Umunze, Anambra
State, Nigeria
Email: [email protected]
Abstract─The study assessed the level of adoption of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) among the farmers in
Orumba South Local Government Area of Anambra State,
Nigeria. Questionnaire was used to illicit responses from the
140 farmers randomly selected from the area. It was
observed that only 16.43% of the farmers had adopted IPM
approach in their pest control operations in the area. The
results of multiple regression analysis on the socio-economic
characteristics of the farmers revealed that age, among
other factors, positively influenced the farmers’ level of
adoption of IPM. It further showed that years of experience
in pesticide application is one of the factors that had
negative influence on the adoption of IPM technology. Poor
extension services and poor knowledge of 1PM innovation
were among the identified constraints to IPM adoption in
the area. The paper suggested active farmers’ participation
in the on-going FADAMA III project aimed at assisting the
farmers with financial and other agricultural inputs and
vigorous extension practices aimed at disseminating
agricultural innovations like IPM to the farmers.
Index Terms─adoption, agriculture, extension services,
farmers, integrated pest management, orumba
I. INTRODUCTION
Low agricultural productivity has been identified as
the cause of high incidence of food insecurity and
poverty in Nigeria [1]. To solve the dual problems of
food insecurity and high incidence of poverty among the
rural poor in Nigeria, agricultural productivity must be
revived. Pest management is a veritable tool for
achieving sustainable productivity and development in
agriculture.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is one of the
approaches in pest management. IPM is a strategy or
system that combines all available pest control methods
to ensure the healthy growth of crop so that they produce
high yields [2]. In practice, IPM approach judiciously
utilizes all available pest management strategies,
including cultural, physical, biological and chemical
controls to prevent economically damaging pest
outbreaks and to reduce risks to human health, the
environment, economic and social issues. No single pest
Manuscript received September 16, 2014; revised December 1, 2014.
control can guarantee food security and safety especially
in Africa but IPM holds such potential. However, the
impact and adoption of IPM approach in the rural
farming communities is very low [3]. If IPM is to be
practiced to any significant extent in Nigerian, its
technologies must be appropriately disseminated to and
adopted by rural–poor farmers who constitute majority of
the Nigerian farmers. The study assessed the level of
adoption of IPM by the farmers in Orumba South Local
Government Area of Anambra State, Nigeria.
Specifically, the objectives of the study were to:
Determine the level adoption of IPM in the study
area.
Describe the socio-economic characteristics of the
farmers in the area.
Ascertain the effects of the socio-economic
characteristics of the farmers on their level of
adoption IPM.
Identify possible constraints to adequate IPM
adoption by the farmers.
II. HYPOTHESIS
The socio-economic characteristics of the farmers do
not significantly influence their level of adoption of IPM.
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted in Orumba South Local
Government Area of Anambra State, Nigeria. It
comprises of fifteen (15) towns and a total population of
184,548 people [4]. The people are predominantly small-
scale rural farmers and the crops cultivated include
vegetables, yam, maize and cocoyam. Seven out of the
fifteen towns in the area were randomly selected for the
study. From each of these seven towns, twenty (20)
farmers were randomly sampled using the balloting
method. This gave a total of 140 farmers for the study.
Extension agents and local community leaders from the
study area were used to identify and locate the target
respondents.
Questionnaire was used for collecting the data used for
the study. Descriptive and inference statistics were used
to analyze the objectives. Descriptive statistics such as
mean, percentage, and frequency were used to analyze
692014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
Journal of Life Sciences and Technologies Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2014
doi: 10.12720/jolst.2.2.69-73
objectives i and ii, objective iii was analyzed using
multiple regression analysis while objective iv was
analyzed using mean score derived from 4-point Likert
scale.
A. Model Specifications Used
B. Likert Model
�̅�s = 𝛴𝑓𝑥
𝑁 (1)
where:
�̅�s = Mean score.
𝛴 = Summation
f = frequency
x = Numerical/Score value
N= Number of respondents to a problem factor.
C. Model for Multiple Regression Analysis
ү = f (X1,X2,X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8)…. Implicit form. (2)
ү = (a0+a1x1+a2x2+a3x3+a4x4+a5x5+a6x6+a7x7+a8x8
+ut) ……....Explicit form. (3)
ү = Rate of adoption of IPM.
Where X1= Age of the farmers
X2= Gender of the famers.
X3= Marital status of the farmer.
X4= Family size.
X5= Number of people involved in pesticide
application.
X6= Number of years involved in pesticide application
X7=Educational status of the farmers.
X8=Contact with agriculture extension officers
Ut= Stochastic error disturbance.
D. Test of Hypothesis
The null hypothesis was tested using F-test at 5% level
of significance.
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Farmers in
the Area
TABLE I. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FARMERS
Variables Frequency
(n=140) % Mean Variables
Frequency
(n=140) %
Mea
n
Age (years)
21-30
31-40
41-50 51-60
61 & above
17
30
33 50
10
12.14
21.43
23.57 35.71
7.14
46
Years involved
in pesticide
application
0-5
6-10 11-15
Above 15
20
26 27
67
14.29
18.57 19.29
47.86
13
Gender
Male Female
95
45
67.86 32.14
Household
members
involved in
decision making
Traditional rulers
mostly Heads of
households only
Parents & children only
Couples only
All household members
3
15
27
21
74
2.14
10.71
19.29
15.00
52.86
Marital
Status
Single
Married
37
103
26.43
73.57
Family Size
1-5
6-10
11-15
Above 15
45
88 6
1
32.14
62.86 4.29
0.71
7
Contact with
Agric extension
officers
Yes
No
93
47
66.43
33.57
Family
members
involved in
pesticide
application 1-5
6-10
11-15
Above 15
73 56
11
0
52.14 40.00
7.86
0.00
6
Adoption of
IPM
Yes (Adopters)
No (Non
adopters)
23
117
16.43
83.57
Source: Field survey, 2014.
Table I shows that the mean age of the farmers was 46
years with most of the farmers (35.71%) within the age
bracket of 51 – 60 years, followed by those between the
ages of 41 – 50 years (23.57%). This entails that majority
702014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
Journal of Life Sciences and Technologies Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2014
of the respondents (59.28%) were within the age bracket
of 41-60 years which represent the working age and the
most economically active age groups that can venture
into agriculture [5]. The age groups are best suited for
possessing the skills required in adopting innovations,
such as IPM application [6]. Only 7.14% of the famers
were above 60 years. It was pointed out that ability to
withstand stress is low as the famers advance in age [7].
Table I also indicates that 32.14% females and 67.86%
males were involved in pesticide application in the study
area. It had been suggested that application of pesticides
is considered a male task [6], [8]. It could be that women
in most cultures are aware of the danger of exposing their
unborn children to chemicals. Strong evidence links
mother’s occupational exposure to pesticides to birth
defects, fetal death and altered fetal growth [9].
Table I reveals that majority of the respondents
(73.57%) were married. This shows that most of the
respondents were family men and women, who are likely
to influence adoption positively because they have more
family responsibilities and are likely to have more family
labor at their disposal [5] as opposed to their unmarried
counter parts who may depend on hired labor. Table I
further shows that the highest level of education attained
by the farmers was primary education (42.86%) while
25.71% of the farmers had no formal education. Since
majority, (74.29%) of the farmers are literate, it is being
expected that their adoption rate will be high [10]. High
level of education of the farmers makes them to adopt
and implement innovations successfully [11].
Table I also shows that 62.86% of the farmers had 6-
10 household members; 32.14% had 1 -5 members; 4.29%
had 11 – 15 members while only one (0.71%) of the
respondents had a family size of above 15. Probably
those with high household members practice the popular
extended family system where parents live with their
children and other extended family members. Extended
family system of livelihood is prevalent in the study area.
It was also observed from table I that majority of the
farmers (52.14%) in the area have 1 - 5 members of their
household assisting in pesticide application while
majority of the farmers (67.20%) had 11 and above years
of experience in pesticide application. This indicates that
most of the farmers are old enough in pesticide
application [6]. Years of experience in pesticide
application is expected to be positively related to
adoption. Table I also reveals that greatest percentage of
the respondents (52.86%) had all their household
members involved in decision making. This no doubt will
help the farmers to always come up with better decisions.
Table I reveals that only 16.43% of the farmers have
adopted IPM in their pest control operations while
majority of the respondents (83.57%) have not adopted
IPM approach. It could be that poor knowledge of IPM
approach forces them to use other methods of pest
control which they deem cheaper [3], [12]. The high
percentage of farmers (68.56%) with levels of education
lower than secondary education may be a reason for the
high percentage of non-adopters of IPM recorded in this
study. Education is not only an important determinant of
adoption of innovations but also a tool for successful
implementation of the innovation [11], [13].
B. Frequency of Extension Contacts with the Farmers
Table II indicates that majority of the farmers (62.86%)
seldomly had contacts with the extension agents; 3.57%
meet them quite often while 33.57% never had contact
with the extension officers. This shows that contact with
extension officers in the study area is inadequate and
poor [6]. This may be part of the reason why the rate of
adoption of the IPM technology is low in the area. The
reason for this non-contact with extension officers by the
farmers recorded may probably be due to low ratio of
extension officers to farmers.
TABLE II. FREQUENCY OF EXTENSION CONTACTS WITH THE
FARMERS
No of times Frequency (n=140)
Percentage
Quite often
Seldom No contact
5
88 47
3.57
62.86 33.57
Source: Field Survey, 2014.
C. Test of Hypothesis
Table III reveals that the coefficient of multiple
determinants (R2) was 0.198 which indicates that 19.8%
of the total variation in the adoption or use of IPM in the
pest control operations in the study area was explained by
the variables included in the model.
Age had positive influence, though statistically
insignificant, on the adoption of IPM. This shows that the
farmer’s response to IPM adoption will increase as he
grows older. The coefficient of family size was positively
signed, implying that increase in household size will lead
to increase in the rate of adoption of IPM. This is because
more members of the household will be available for
pesticide application leading to increased response to
IPM practices in the area. Contact with agricultural
extension officers was positively related to the adoption
of IPM. Few of the farmers met with the extension
officers quite often and this resulted to low adoption of
the IPM technology. This confirms the a priori
expectation that effective and adequate extension
information delivery to the farmers will increase their
productivity. Marital status had negative influence on IPM adoption.
This is contrary to the a priori expectation that most of
the married respondents will embark on IPM technology.
Years of experience in pesticide application also had
negative influence on the adoption of IPM technology. It
has earlier been reported that increase in the years of
experience did not increase the level of adoption or use of
IPM practice [6]. It might be that the farmers’ view of
IPM as a new technology is at variance with their cultural
/conventional pest control practices. Farmers readily
adopted technologies which are compatible with
traditional management objectives [14]. Educational level
also bore a negative sign but is statistically significant at
5% level. This is at variance with the a priori
expectations for this study and an earlier report that the
712014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
Journal of Life Sciences and Technologies Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2014
efficiency of farmers in adopting innovation increase as
they acquire more education [5].
TABLE III. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF
FARMERS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ON 1PM
ADOPTION
Variables Coefficient Std Error t-value Sig.
Constant 1.951 0.232 8.409 S
Age (X1) 0.028 0.036 0.779 NS
Gender (X2) 0.035 0.066 0.536 NS Marital Status
(X3) -0.051 0.082 -0.631 NS
Family Size (X4)
0.048 0.067 0.719 NS
Family
members
involved in
pesticide
application (X5)
-0.095
0.067
-1.408
NS
No of Years in pesticide
application (X6)
-0.113
0.032
-3.045
S
Educational Level (X7)
-0.086 0.046 -2.075
S
Contact with
agricultural extension
officers (X8)
0.245
0.069
3.569
S
R2 0.198
R-2 0.147
F Statistics 0.000
DW 4.021
Source: SPSS Computed Field Survey, 2014
D. Constraints to IPM Adoption
TABLE IV. MEAN SCORE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ON
CONSTRAINTS TO IPM ADOPTION
Constraints Mean
Score(X) Decision
Lack/ inadequate capital 3.8 Accepted
Poor Extension services 3.4 Accepted
Inadequate Technical know-how 3.4 Accepted
Politicizing of the IPM approach 1.3 Rejected Environmental factors 3.4 Accepted
Cultural norms and belief 1.8 Rejected
High cost of using IPM approach 1.7 Rejected
Source: Field Survey, 2014
Table IV identified lack/inadequate capital (3.8), poor
extension services (3.3), poor knowledge of 1PM
innovation (3.3), inadequate technical know-how (3.4)
and environmental factors (3.4) as constraints to farmers’
1PM adoption. This is in line with some earlier studies
which reported that insufficient use of extension
personnel has resulted in poor extension services in
Nigeria [5], [15].
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IPM has not been appreciably adopted in the study
area. Based on the results of this study, it is suggested
that the promoters of the IPM approach should embark
on aggressive extension activities that will, among others,
help in dissemination current pest management
information like to farmers and crop advisors in the area.
The present FADAMA III project aimed at assisting the
farmers with financial and other agricultural inputs
should be intensified in the area to ensure that more
farmers benefit from the project.
REFERENCES
[1] World Bank, Nigerian poverty in the midst of plenty: The
challenges of growth with inclusion. A World Bank Poverty Assessment, Population and Human Resources Division Report,
No. 14733- UNI, Washington, DC, The World Bank, 1996.
[2] A. Youdeowei, Integrated Pest Management Practice for the production of vegetables. Integrated Pest Management Extension
Guides, N0 4. Accra, Ghana, Ministry of Food and Agriculture,
Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate with the German Development Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
Technische Zusammenarbeit, 2002.
[3] S. C. Eze and B. C. Echezona, “Agricultural pest control programmes, food security and safety,” African Journal of Food,
Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 6582-
6592, 2012. [4] National Population Census (NPC), Official population report of
Orumba South Local Government Area of Anambra State, Nigeria,
2006. [5] M. D. Agbom, “Evaluation of farmers adoption of agricultural
innovation in Oyi Local Government Area, Anambra Stae,
Nigeria,” International Journal of Applied Research and Technology, vol. 1, no. 20, pp. 24-31, 2012.
[6] A. U. Ofuoku, E. O. Egho, and E. C. Enujeke, “Integrated pest
management (IPM) adoption among farmers in Central Agro-Ecological Zone of Delta State,” African Journal of Agricultural
Research, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 852-856, 2008.
[7] M. D. Agbom, “Evaluation of farmers adoption of agricultural innovation in Oyi Local Government Area, Anambra State,
Nigeria,” International Journal of Applied Research and
Technology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 24-31, 2012. [8] D. Prakash, Rural Women, Food Security and Agricultural Co-
Operatives, New Delhi: Rural Development and Management
Centre, 2003, pp. 50. [9] M. Sanborn, K. J. Kerr, L. H. Sanin, D. C. Cole, K. L. Bassil, and
C. Vakil, “Non-cancer health effects of pesticides: Systemic
review and implications for family doctors,” Can Fam Physician, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1712–20, 2007.
[10] C. T. Uwakah, The Agricultural Extension Approach to Rural
Development in West Africa, Nsukka University of Nigeria, Press, 1985, pp. 105.
[11] L. O. Obibuaku, Agricultural Extension as a Strategy for
Agricultural Transformation, University of Nigeria Press, Nsukka, 1983, pp. 3-6.
[12] J. U. Agbamu, Essentials of Agricultural Communication in
Nigeria Lagos, Malthouse Press Ltd, 2006. [13] E. M. Rogers and F. F. Shoemaker, Communication of
Innovations, Free Press, New York, U.S.A., 1971.
[14] M. S. Adams, Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries, Longman Publishers, Singapore, 1987.
[15] B. A. Nwuzor, Agricultural Extension in Economic Development,
Econas Company Enugu, 2009, pp. 7-20.
Angela Ngozi Obiajulu was born in Ihiala
Local Government Area of Anambra State. She had her Nigerian Certificate in Education
(NCE) at Anambra State College of Education Awka between 1985 and 1988. She obtained
her B.Sc. (Ed.) Biology from University of
Nigeria Nsukka in 1998. She bagged her
Master of Philosophy in Entomology in 2006
from University of Ghana, Legon. She is
currently pursuing her Ph.D in Pest Management and Entomology at University of
722014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
Journal of Life Sciences and Technologies Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2014
Port Harcourt. She majors in Integrated Science Education, Biology Education, Pest Management and Entomology.
She has been teaching science subjects since 1989. She has been a staff
of Federal College of Education (Technical), Umunze since 1992 where she has served in different capacities; amongst others as Chief
Executive Officer and now a Lecturer in Biology Education Department,
School of Sciences. She has published many Academic Articles in some renowned Nigerian and International Journals. Her research interest
include innovations in teaching and learning of Sciences, reproductive
strategies of olive baboons, general parasitology, malaria vectors, epidemiology and transmission.
Ms Obiajulu is a member of Entomological Society of Nigeria, Women in Colleges of Education (WICE), Science Teachers’ Association of
Nigeria, Forum for African Women Educationists Nigeria (FAWEN)
and Benedictine Oblates of Nigeria (BON). She had received best staff award from F.C.E. (T), Umunze in Anambra State Nigeria (2001) and
DAAD Scholarship (2004 – 2006). She served as a member of the
Organizing Committees of the 9th National Conference of F.C.E.(T), Umunze in 2009 and the Maiden National Conference of School of
Sciences, F.C.E (T), Umunze in 2013. She was also the Chairperson of
the Organizing Committee of the 2nd National Congress of Benedictine Oblates of Nigeria held in 2012.
732014 Engineering and Technology Publishing
Journal of Life Sciences and Technologies Vol. 2, No. 2, December 2014