lable at ScienceDirect

Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e9

Contents lists avai

Crop Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/cropro

Large-scale sugarcane farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of Eldanasaccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), pushepull and integratedpest management

Jessica Cockburn a,b,*, Hendri Coetzee b, Johnnie Van den Berg b, Des Conlong a,c

a South African Sugarcane Research Institute, Private Bag X02, Mount Edgecombe 4300, South AfricabUnit of Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, P/Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South AfricacDepartment of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, P/Bag X01, Matieland 7602, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 January 2013Received in revised form10 October 2013Accepted 11 October 2013

Keywords:Agricultural extensionEldana saccharinaFarmers’ perceptionsSugarcaneTechnology adoption

* Corresponding author. 18 Dalkeith, 218 Percy OsboDurban, South Africa. Tel.: þ27 72 1022 875; fax: þ27

E-mail addresses: jessicacockburn@gmail.com (J.nwu.ac.za (H. Coetzee), johnnie.vandenberg@nwu.aconlong@sugar.org.za (D. Conlong).

0261-2194/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.014

a b s t r a c t

A pushepull strategy for controlling Eldana saccharina Walker is being promoted as part of an area-wideintegrated pest management (AW-IPM) programme in the South African sugar industry. Understandingfarmers’ perceptions of pests and pest management can improve rates of adoption of pest managementstrategies, in particular for knowledge-intensive practices such as AW-IPM. Fifty-three large-scale sug-arcane farmers were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Respondents recognised thethreat which E. saccharina posed, and 83% had heard of pushepull and IPM. Ecozone delineations playeda more important role in adoption decisions than demographic and general enterprise factors such asfarmer age, experience and land tenure, supporting the suggestion that experiential learning activitieswith small, local groups of farmers are suitable for introducing new pest management strategies.Notwithstanding good basic knowledge of E. saccharina, pushepull and IPM which farmers demon-strated, there is still a need for more detailed and practical knowledge on the implementation of pushepull at farm level. This knowledge should be made available to farmers in a hands-on manner with anemphasis on locally-oriented field days and model farms. Eldana saccharina may not be a priority for allfarmers in the regionwhere surveys were conducted. However, farmers should not be allowed to becomecomplacent about this pest, as its range is increasing. These results will be used to formulate future pushepull and AW-IPM dissemination activities amongst large-scale sugarcane farmers in South Africa.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Despite ongoing control efforts since the 1940s, the sugarcanestem borer, Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) isstill themost damaging insect pest of sugarcane in South Africa. Thegeographical range of this pest is expanding inland from the coastof KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and it is a serious threat to sugarcaneproduction in the cooler areas of the province, where sugarcane isgrown on a 24-month cycle (Webster et al., 2005).

An area-wide integrated pest management (AW-IPM) approachhas been developed to control E. saccharina (Conlong andRutherford, 2009), which incorporates conventional control tactics

rne Road, Morningside 4001,86 775 5987.

Cockburn), Hendri.Coetzee@c.za (J. Van den Berg), des.

All rights reserved.

such as cultural control practices (Carnegie, 1981), resistant sugar-canevarieties (Keeping, 2006) and insecticides (Leslie, 2009), aswellas newer ecologically-based approaches such as habitat manage-ment (Barker et al., 2006). Themore conventional pestmanagementtactics have been implemented to varying degrees in the sugar in-dustry (Webster et al., 2005), however control of E. saccharina is anon-going problem and the pest is considered a serious threat tosugar production in the region (Singels et al., 2012). Implementationof ecologically-based approaches is still in the early phases (Websteret al., 2005, 2009).

Laboratory, cage and field trials on pushepull, a form of habitatmanagement, showed that implementation of this strategy can leadto suppression of E. saccharina numbers and reduction in damage tosugarcane (Kasl, 2004; Barker et al., 2006). Push-pull is an integralpart of IPM recommendations and is currently being implementedon sugarcane farms in the Midlands North area of KZN (Fig. 1)(Webster et al., 2005, 2009). The ‘push’ or repellent plant used ismolasses grass (Melinis minutiflora P. Beauv (Cyperales: Poaceae))

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e92

which has a repellent effect on the egg-laying adults of E. saccharina(Kasl, 2004; Barker et al., 2006). It is also attractive to parasitoids ofthis pest, for example Xanthopimpla stemmator Thunberg (Hyme-noptera: Ichneumonidae) (Kasl, 2004), as was shown for maizestem borers in East Africa (Khan et al., 1997). The ‘pull’ or attractantplants used, which are more favoured for oviposition byE. saccharina, are Bt maize and indigenous wetland sedges. Bt maizeis used as a ‘dead-end trap crop’, because of the toxic effect of thecry protein (cry1Ab) produced by Bt maize plants on E. saccharinalarvae (Keeping et al., 2007). The cry1Ab protein has been shown tokill 100% of E. saccharina larvae in diet assays (Tounou et al., 2005).Furthermore, older maize plants have been shown to be moreattractive than sugarcane to gravid moths (Keeping et al., 2007).The sedge species used as pull plants are Cyperus papyrus L. andC. dives Delile (Cyperales: Cyperaceae). These are indigenous towetlands in KZN and are the natural host plants of E. saccharina(Atkinson, 1980).

The importance of understanding farmers’ knowledge, percep-tions and pest management practices to facilitate successfulimplementation of knowledge-intensive practices such as pushepull and IPM, is widely recognized (Waller et al., 1998; Röling et al.,2004; Meir andWilliamson, 2005; Midega et al., 2012). An exampleof such a study was reported by Khan et al. (2008) who determinedfarmers’ perceptions of pushepull for the management of lepi-dopteran stem borers in small-scale maize farming systems inKenya. High crop losses caused by stem borers and Striga weed(Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth. (Lamiales: Scrophulariaceae)),which are both targeted in the pushepull system, motivatedfarmers to adopt this system. The authors also found that age offarmers, level of education and exposure to numerous extensionactivities influenced the level of adoption. However, in anotherstudy conducted with Australian apple farmers, the local agro-climatic context and pest pressures were more important indetermining which pest management practices farmers used thantheir personal profile (Kaine and Bewsell, 2008). According toUrquhart (1999), farmers’ knowledge and management practicesare an important determinant of IPM adoption, because IPM is acomplex and management-intensive practice and thus under-standing the target audience’s knowledge and current manage-ment practices can assist in the development of suitable extensionprogrammes for IPM implementation. Thus, within a Research,Development and Extension (RD&E) framework, as employed bythe South African Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI) (SASRI,2012), early identification of farmer perceptions, knowledge andmanagement practices can help to focus the RD&E programme. Animproved understanding of the farmers’ context will assist indesigning more effective IPM implementation programmes withfarmers, rather than for farmers (Peshin et al., 2009).

This paper discusses the current knowledge and perceptions ofE. saccharina; understanding of pest management activities for thispest; and knowledge and perceptions of pushepull and IPM as ameans of controlling E. saccharina of large-scale sugarcane farmersin a selected area threatened by E. saccharina in South Africa. Tobetter understand these farmers’ knowledge and perceptions, theeffect of farmers’ personal profiles and farm characteristics on theirresponses was also determined. This paper also reports farmers’suggestions for successful implementation of pushepull.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

This study was conducted in the Midlands North sugarcane re-gion which supplies sugarcane to the Illovo Sugar (South Africa)Limited mill at Noodsberg (29�21038.8300S, 30�41013.3700E) and to

the Union Co-operative Limited mill at Dalton (29�20018.0700S,30�37041.2300E) in KZN, South Africa (SASA, 2011). Approximately50 000 ha of land is used for sugarcane production in this region.According to the Local Pest Disease & Variety Control Committee(LPD&VCC) database, there is a total of 829 sugarcane farmers in theMidlands North, 211 of which are large-scale commercial farmersi.e. 25% (Webster pers. comm., 2012). Only large-scale commercialfarmers, who farm on freehold land larger than 30 ha, wereincluded in this study, as they farm 95% of the area under cane inthe Midlands North (Fig. 2).

Since 1998, farmers in the Midlands North region have beeninvolved in implementation of environmentally sustainable sug-arcane management practices. The Noodsberg Cane Growers As-sociation (NCGA), representing large-scale commercial sugarcanefarmers in this region, drew up an environmental managementsystem where farms were grouped into ecozones with similarclimate and potential for producing sugarcane (Fig. 2)(Maher,2003). Furthermore, this region had already embarked on an AW-IPM programme against E. saccharina which included a compo-nent of pushepull (Webster et al., 2005, 2009).

2.2. Survey method

Using a random stratified sampling approach (Fink, 2009), 53farmers were selected for interviews from across the MidlandsNorth region. The sample was stratified by ecozones. All farmers inthe ecozone were listed numerically and respondents wererandomly selected within each ecozone using a random numbergenerator, with proportionate representation according to thenumber of farmers per ecozone. This sample represents 30% oflarge-scale farmers currently registered on the LPD&VCC database.According to Delport and Roestenberg (2011), a minimum samplesize of 10% is widely used in social research, however this dependson the total size of the population and with a population ofapproximately 200, a sample size of 32% is recommended.

Farmers were interviewed individually using a semi-structuredquestionnaire. They were asked their age, level of education (pri-mary school: year 1e7, secondary school: year 8e12, tertiary: postschool education), years of farming experience and their landtenure (manager, owner or owner-manager of the farm). They werealso asked whether or not they had completed the SASRI SeniorCertificate Course in Sugarcane Agriculture (the SASRI sugarcourse), a six-week course on sugar cane farming, hosted by SASRI(SASA, 2011). Open-ended and closed questions were used todetermine their knowledge and perceptions on the followingtopics: sugarcane management and constraints, insect pests ingeneral as well as E. saccharina, pest management including pushepull and IPM, and dissemination of information on pests and pestmanagement.

The survey design followed guidelines from Fink (2009). Closedquestions were either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions, or used categoricalrank order scales or Likert-type ordinal scales. For rank order scales,respondents were given five to six factors per question: the topranked was to be assigned number 1, the bottom rank 5 or 6. Forexample, in ranking the economically most damaging sugarcaneinsect pests, respondents were given the names of five such pestsand asked to rank them from 1 to 5with 1 being themost damagingand 5 being the least damaging. Respondents were asked to expresstheir opinions on a specific topic on a Likert-type ordinal scale, in arange from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Guidelines foreffective survey interviews, including pre-testing of the question-naire, were followed to ensure that reliable, quality data wascollected and that correct social research ethics were followed(Babbie, 2010). Responses to questionswere coded prior to analysis.A content analysis was completed on open-ended questions to

Fig. 1. Diagram showing possible pushepull planting arrangement on a sugarcane farm (adapted from Conlong and Rutherford, 2009).

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e9 3

identify recurrent themes which could be quantified to determinefarmers’ perceptions (Fink, 2009).

2.3. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, such as frequency distributions and per-centages, were used to analyse and report responses to questions(Fink, 2009). For categorical survey data, contingency tables (alsocalled cross-tabulations) were used to display and evaluate twovariables at the same time, and to determine the effect of farmcharacteristics and farmers’ personal profiles on response variables.For example, the effect of respondents’ level of education, their landtenure or their ecozone on their responses to questions wasdetermined in this way (Babbie, 2010). To determine whether theproportions of the categorical survey data presented in contingencytables were significantly different or not, the Pearson’s Chi-squaredtest was used (c2) (Babbie, 2010). Effect sizes (measured by the teststatistic w) (Ellis and Steyn, 2003), were determined for variablesanalysed in contingency tables. When w ¼ 0.1, the effect is small,when w ¼ 0.3 the effect is medium and when w � 0.5, the effect islarge and considered practically significant (Ellis and Steyn, 2003).

The Wilcoxon signed rank test (the non-parametric alternativeto the dependent t-test) was conducted to determine whetherthere was a significant difference between median rank scores forpairs of variables. A Bonferroni correction was applied to the p-values from the Wilcoxon signed rank tests because multiplecomparisons inflate the Type I error rate (Olsen, 2003). To deter-mine effects of farmers’ personal profiles and farm characteristicson their responses to ranking questions, ManneWhitney U-testsand KruskaleWallis tests were performed. Significance for statis-tical tests was set at the 5% level unless otherwise stated. Statisticalanalyses were performed using STATISTICA computer software(StatSoft, 2011).

3. Results

3.1. Farmers’ profiles

All the farmers interviewed in this survey were men and themajority was between 40 and 60 years of age (Table 1). Of the re-spondents, 77% had completed tertiary education, 53% of thesestudied agriculture at tertiary level and 57% had completed theSASRI sugar course. This group of farmers also had a high level ofsugar cane farming experience, with 42% having 20 years or moreexperience. Most farmers were owners andmanagers of their farms(72%), indicating high land tenure security (Table 1).

3.2. Farmers’ perceptions of production constraints and pests

When asked to rank five production constraints according totheir importance, respondents ranked abiotic factors, i.e. rainfall,soil quality and frost as the most important (median rank score forsoil and rainfall ¼ 2.0). Biotic factors were ranked as less importantconstraints (insects and disease median rank score¼ 5.0, sugarcanevarieties ¼ 4.0) (Fig. 3A). The median rank scores of the abioticproduction constraints were all statistically different from the bi-otic constraints (Table 2). Insect pests were also ranked a signifi-cantly lower constraint than the available choice of sugarcanevarieties (p ¼ 0.004, Z ¼ 3.629). Furthermore, insect pests anddiseases were ranked significantly lower than any of the abioticconstraints (Table 2).

When farmers were asked which were the most economicallydamaging pests or diseases on their farm, 37% responded that theyhad no problems with pests or diseases (Fig. 4). Ratoon stunt dis-ease (RSD) and sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) were listed mostoften as the most damaging diseases, and E. saccharina and whitegrub (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) were listed as the most damaginginsect pests (Fig. 4). Only 8% of respondents mentionedE. saccharina as the most damaging pest or disease on their farmand diseases were mentioned more often than insect pests. In theranking question for insect pests, E. saccharinawas ranked themostdamaging (Fig. 3B). However, there was no significant differencebetween the median ranks of any of the insect pests (Table 2).

3.3. Farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of Eldana saccharina, IPMand pushepull

Farmers were aware of E. saccharina and the threat it posed tosugarcane production, despite the fact that only 40% of respondentshad records of E. saccharina on their farms (Fig. 5). The majority(70%) of farmers rated the threat level of E. saccharina on theirfarms as low, i.e. they gave it a score of one out of a possiblemaximum of five (Fig. 5). Ninety-one percent of respondents werehowever concerned about E. saccharina possibly affecting theirsugarcane yields in the future and 89% agreed that this pest was athreat to sugarcane production in the region (Fig. 5). Almost two-thirds of respondents could identify E. saccharina correctly from aphotograph (Fig. 5).

Results of the ranking questions on E. saccharina pest manage-ment activities (Fig. 3C) indicate that farmers rely mostly on cul-tural control, i.e. correct cutting cycle and good field hygiene, forpest management (median rank score ¼ 1.0). The least used pestmanagement activity was insecticide application (median rank

Fig. 2. Map of the Midlands North sugarcane farming region indicating farm (grey) and ecozone boundaries (black).

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e94

score ¼ 5.0) (Fig. 3C). It was ranked significantly lower than bothmonitoring (p ¼ 0.077, Z ¼ 2.666) and cultural control (p ¼ 0.077,Z ¼ 2.666) at a 10% level of significance. None of the respondentsreported using insecticides against E. saccharina.

Awareness of pushepull and IPM among respondent farmerswas high and they demonstrated a largely positive attitude towardsthese strategies (Table 3). Eighty-three percent of respondents hadheard of pushepull. The majority (76%) of farmers were confidentthat pushepull and IPM were a good method for controllingE. saccharina and 59% indicated that they had sufficient knowledgeto implement pushepull on their farms (Table 3).

Despite showing a good awareness and basic knowledge ofpushepull and IPM, most respondents did not have a thoroughunderstanding of the details of pushepull plants used andwhere toaccess these plants. Furthermore, most respondents did not

understand how Bt maize works (76%) and only 9% had a basicunderstanding of its mechanism and effect on stem borers. Only49% of farmers knew where to purchase Bt maize seed. Between50% and 72% indicated that they were familiar with the specificpushepull plants i.e. Bt maize, molasses grass, C. papyrus andC. dives. Only 42% of respondents knew where to source molassesgrass. Similarly, only 40% knew where to source sedges, eventhough these are growing on some local farms and are readilyavailable.

3.4. Effects of farm characteristics and farmer profile on knowledgeand perceptions

The presence of E. saccharina on farms influenced farmers’perceptions of its importance (Table 4). Of the farmers who had a

Table 1Farmers’ personal profiles.

Characteristics Response frequency (N ¼ 53) Response percentage

Age (years)18e30 9 1731e40 10 1941e50 16 3051e60 16 3060þ 2 4

Sugarcane farming experience (years)5 5 95e10 11 2111e20 15 2821e30 19 3630þ 3 6

Land tenureManager 9 17Owner 6 11Owner and manager 38 72

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e9 5

history of E. saccharina on their farms, 70% ranked it as the mostdamaging pest. They also ranked it as the first or second mostimportant pest significantly more often, compared to those farmerswho had no history of E. saccharina on their farms (Table 4).

The ecozone in which farms were located also influenced therespondents’ perception of the E. saccharina threat (Table 4). Mostfarmers who “strongly agreed” that “E. saccharina is currently athreat to sugarcane production” were from an ecozone with highE. saccharina risk (more than 30% of farms affected). Conversely,significantly more respondents from low E. saccharina risk eco-zones (<30% of farms affected) chose to “agree” rather than“strongly agree” with the statement (Table 4).

Fig. 3. Box and whisker plots showing median rank scores for various questions A: sugarcmanagement activities, D: preferred extension methods (Note: low rank score: most importa‘eldana’, and S. calamistis Hampson to ‘sesamia’).

Whether farmers had completed tertiary education or not alsohad a significant effect on their knowledge of and attitude towardspushepull and IPM (Table 4). Significantly more farmers with ter-tiary education had heard of pushepull and IPM. Tertiary educationhad an effect on respondents’ discussions of pushepull with otherfarmers and almost all of those who had no tertiary education alsohad no discussions with other farmers about pushepull. Mostfarmers with tertiary education considered pushepull a goodmethod for controlling E. saccharina, compared to those withouttertiary education (Table 4).

Respondents who had completed the SASRI sugar course weremore likely to correctly identify E. saccharina from a photographthan those who had not (borderline statistical significance at the 5%level, Table 4). Similarly, completing the SASRI sugar course had asignificant effect on respondents’ knowledge of pushepull and IPM.Significantly more farmers who had attended the sugar course hadheard of pushepull and IPM (Table 4).

3.5. Farmers’ preferences for pest management extension methods

When respondents were asked to rank five different extensionmethods for disseminating information on pest management,model farms and field days were ranked highest (model farmmedian rank¼ 1.0, field daymedian rank¼ 1.0), and pamphlets andworkshops lowest (pamphlets median rank ¼ 4.0, workshops me-dian rank ¼ 4.0) (Fig. 3D). There was a significant difference be-tween the ranks for both model farms and field days compared toboth pamphlets and workshops. Model farms, where pushepulldemonstration fields were established, were ranked significantlyhigher than pamphlets (Z ¼ 3.75, p ¼ 0.002) and workshops

ane production constraints, B: most damaging insect pests, C: Eldana saccharina pestnt factor, high rank score: least important factor; E. saccharina has been abbreviated to

Table 2Details of Wilcoxon signed rank tests for all ranking questions. (Note: E. saccharina has been abbreviated to ‘eldana’ and Sesamia calamistis Hampson (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)to ‘sesamia’).

Pairs of variables compared p-value Bonferroni corrected p-value Z Statistic

A. Sugarcane production constraintsSoil and rainfall 0.137 1.000 1.486Soil and insect pests* <0.001 <0.001 5.182Soil and disease* <0.001 <0.001 4.481Soil and frost 0.945 1.000 0.070Soil and varieties* <0.001 0.003 3.725Rainfall and insects* <0.001 <0.001 5.386Rainfall and disease* <0.001 <0.001 4.219Rainfall and frost 0.149 1.000 1.443Rainfall and varieties* <0.001 0.002 3.852Insect pests and disease 0.010 0.153 2.570Insect pests and frost* <0.001 <0.001 4.873Insect pests and varieties* <0.001 0.004 3.629Disease and frost* <0.001 0.003 3.713Disease and varieties 0.075 1.000 1.781Frost and varieties* 0.001 0.015 3.283B. Worst insect pestsEldana and white grub 0.069 0.691 1.817Eldana and sesamia 0.444 1.000 0.765Eldana and thrips 0.575 1.000 0.560Eldana and aphids 0.499 1.000 0.676White grub and sesamia 0.335 1.000 0.965White grub and thrips 0.148 1.000 1.448White grubs and aphids 0.059 0.592 1.887Sesamia and thrips 0.125 1.000 1.533Sesamia and aphids 0.124 1.000 1.540Thrips and aphids 0.529 1.000 0.629C. Eldana pest management activitiesInsecticides and monitoring** 0.008 0.077 2.666Insecticides and cultural control** 0.008 0.077 2.666Insecticides and pushepull 0.012 0.117 2.521Insecticides and varieties 0.018 0.178 2.369Monitoring and cultural control 0.058 0.585 1.892Monitoring and pushepull 0.455 1.000 0.747Monitoring and varieties 0.889 1.000 0.140Varieties and cultural control 0.026 0.263 2.221Varieties and pushepull 0.313 1.000 1.010Pushepull and cultural control 0.022 0.217 2.296D. Favoured extension methodsFarm days and model farms 0.988 1.000 0.015Farm days and pamphlets* <0.001 0.001 4.031Farm days and workshops* <0.001 <0.001 4.098Farm days and personal visit 0.046 0.461 1.994Model farms and pamphlets* <0.001 0.002 3.751Model farms and workshops* <0.001 <0.001 4.412Model farms and personal visits 0.017 0.165 2.397Pamphlets and workshops 0.606 1.000 0.516Pamphlets and personal visits** 0.005 0.047 2.828Workshops and personal visits* 0.001 0.014 2.467

*significant p-values at the 5% level, **significant p-values at the 10% level.

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e96

(Z ¼ 4.412, p < 0.001) and field days were also ranked significantlyhigher than pamphlets (Z ¼ 4.03, p < 0.001) and workshops(Z ¼ 4.10, p < 0.001).

The farmers were asked in an open-ended question to makesuggestions for how best to implement pushepull. The largestresponse category (49%) suggested model farms and field days(Fig. 6A). The respondents also indicated that more direct inter-vention from the LPD&VCC, and possibly also stricter interventionwith non-compliant farmers, could be helpful. Furthermore,farmers wanted more detailed information on implementingpushepull, improved access to material inputs and needed evi-dence of the method working successfully.

When asked what they thought might be barriers to adoption ofpushepull, respondents recognised that their mind sets or atti-tudes towards the pest and pushepull could possibly be a barrier(33%) (Fig. 6B). They also mentioned cost and time constraints, andinsufficient knowledge as potential barriers to successful imple-mentation of pushepull.

4. Discussion

Farmers’ awareness and general knowledge of E. saccharina,pushepull and IPM was good, especially considering that only 25%of farms in the region have so far been affected by this pest(Webster pers. comm., 2012). However, respondents did notperceive insect pests in general, nor E. saccharina specifically, as apriority production constraint and farmers did not perceive any oneinsect pest as particularly problematic. Abiotic constraintsappeared to be more of a concern in this region than biotic con-straints such as insect pests and diseases. Most farmers rated thethreat level of E. saccharina on their farm as low because it has notyet been found on their farms, and according to the LPD&VCC database for the Midlands North, 75% of farms have, as yet, no record ofE. saccharina occurring on them.

The respondents’ level of farming experience, tertiary educationand completion of the SASRI sugar course all had an effect onvarious aspects of their knowledge and perceptions of E. saccharina,

Fig. 4. Farmers’ perceptions of the most damaging pests or diseases on their farm(N ¼ 53; note that E. saccharina has been abbreviated to ‘eldana’, and S. calamistis to‘sesamia’).

Fig. 5. Summary of key descriptive statistics illustrating farmers’ knowledge andperceptions of E. saccharina reported in percentages (N ¼ 53; note that E. saccharinahas been abbreviated to ‘eldana’).

Table 3Farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of pushepull and IPM.

Farmers’ responses Response frequency(N ¼ 53)

Responsepercentage

Have discussed pushepull and IPM with othersYes 23 43No 30 56

Discussions about pushepull and IPM were (n ¼ 23)Positive 18 78Positive and negative 5 22

Opinion on the efficacy of pushepull for eldana controlEffective 40 76Maybe effective 9 17Do not know enough about it 4 7

Respondents who say they know how to implement pushepullYes 31 58No 22 42

Respondents who would like to learn more about pushepullYes 48 91No 5 9

Respondents who would be willing to be involved in pushepull researchYes 45 85No 8 15

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e9 7

pushepull and IPM. The significant effect of higher education andcompletion of the SASRI sugar course on farmers’ knowledge andperceptions is a positive indicator since it has been shown thatinformation, knowledge and learning are important adoptiondrivers, especially for agricultural innovations which are integratedand complex in nature, as pushepull and IPM are (Llewellyn, 2011).Farmers with high land tenure security who own, rather than leaseor manage farms, have been shown in some cases to more readilyadopt environmentally sustainable practices with long-term ben-efits (Soule et al., 2000). The fact that the majority of farmers in thissurvey are either owners or owner-managers of their farms alsoindicates a higher likelihood of adoption.

The agro-climatic location of the respondents, i.e. the ecozonewhich they farm in, affected their perception of the pest. Thisemphasizes the importance of a local approach to disseminatingthis technology. Kaine and Bewsell (2008) argued that localcontext, i.e. agro-climatic and soil factors, such as those whichdetermine the ecozone delineations in the Midlands North, play amore important role in adoption decisions than do demographicand general enterprise factors such as farmer age, experience andland tenure. This also supports the suggestion that experientiallearning activities with small, local groups of farmers are suitablefor introducing new pest management strategies.

The respondents’ high levels of farming experience, educationand training in sugarcane agriculture indicate that they arecompetent to adopt a complex, knowledge-intensive pest man-agement strategy such as pushepull. Furthermore, their stronglinkages to the LPD&VCC and SASRI extension staff mean that theyare involved in a learning network which is conducive to theimplementation of new agricultural innovations (Llewellyn, 2007).These farmers also have a high level offinancial capacity, as they runlarge-scale sugarcane farms which provide good financial returns.According to Baumgart-Getz et al. (2012), a meta-analysis of adop-tion literature in the United States of America revealed three vari-ables which have the largest impact on adoption of bestmanagement practices, i.e., 1) access to quality information, 2)belonging to a group or being connected to an agency or network,and 3) financial capacity. Our study showed that the farmers in theMidlands North do indeed have the capacity to adopt pushepull aspart of an IPMprogrammebased on these three important variables.

The farmers in this survey suggested that ‘farmers’ mindsets’may be a key barrier to adoption of pushepull (Fig. 6B), and thatthey may need to change their mindsets or perceptions ofE. saccharina and pushepull. This could also point to an opportunityfor learning, since Llewellyn (2011) indicated that when potentialadopters have different perceptions of a practice compared to thosewho already use the practice, there is potential for learning.

For learning more about pushepull and IPM, respondentsindicated a preference for farm-based, experiential, hands-onmethods such as model farms and field days (Figs. 3D and 6).This is consistent with literature on effective IPM disseminationpractices (Peshin et al., 2009) and highlights the importance ofsocial and experiential learning for dissemination of IPM (Meir andWilliamson, 2005). Leeuwis (2004) describes how Kolb’s model ofexperiential learning (Kolb, 1984) can be used as a basis for sociallearning in agriculture. According to this model, conclusions whichpeople draw based on their own experiences tend to have a biggerimpact than knowledgewhich has been formulated by others basedon experiences that the learners cannot identify with (Leeuwis,2004).

Farmers are the final decision makers on their farms and theirpriorities may not always match those of the agricultural re-searchers or extension staff. Röling et al. (2004) pointed out howagricultural researchers can sometimes be unaware of the phe-nomenon of ‘farmer’s veto’. By this they mean that farmers, as the

Table 4Cross-tabulations and Chi-squared tests showing the effect of farm and farmer characteristics on various indicators of farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of E. saccharina, IPMand pushepull (Note: E. saccharina has been abbreviated to ‘eldana’).

Farm & farmer characteristics Indicators of knowledge & perceptions (%) Statistical values df Effect size w

Pearson c2 p-value

Eldana is ranked in the top 2 of worst pests?Eldana present on farm? Yes No 26.821 <0.001 1 0.720Yes 70 30No 3 97

Considers eldana a threat?Farm in high eldana risk ecozone? Strongly agree Agree Other 8.880 0.031 3 0.409Yes 70 20 10No 36 52 12

Heard of IPM & pushepull?Completed tertiary education? Yes No 6.705 0.010 1 0.356Yes 90 10No 58 42

Has had discussions about IPM & pushepull?Completed tertiary education? Yes No 7.833 0.020 2 0.384Yes 42 58No 8 92

Considers IPM & pushepull a good control method?Completed tertiary education? Yes Maybe 9.625 0.008 2 0.426Yes 85 15No 42 58

Can identify eldana correctly?Completed SASRI sugar course? Yes No 3.605 0.058 1 �0.261Yes 48 52No 73 27

Has heard of IPM & pushepull?Completed SASRI sugar course? Yes No 5.220 0.022 1 0.310Yes 93 7No 70 30

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e98

owners and/or managers of the farm, have the final say in whethera certain agricultural innovation is accepted or not, and that theyhave the ability to ‘veto’ innovations which theymay not perceive aneed for. Considering the farmers’ current production constraints,they may indeed not perceive adoption of pushepull for control ofE. saccharina as a top priority at the moment.

Despite positive indicators for the successful implementation ofpushepull in this study, high adoption rates in the near future arenot likely. Not only does adoption of new agricultural innovationshave a time lag (D’Emden et al., 2006), but the current threat level

Fig. 6. A: Farmers’ suggestions for successful implementation of pushepull, B: Farmers’ p

of E. saccharina in the Midlands North region may not yet warrantadoption of this technology by some farmers in lower risk areas, asit may not be perceived as economically necessary. Khan et al.(2008) found that high pest pressure was a strong motivation foradoption, and Barker et al. (2006) showed that pushepull forcontrolling E. saccharinawas only economically feasible at high pestpressures. This also points to the fact that further extension andlearning activities for pushepull and IPM should be focused inareas where this pest is currently the most threatening anddamaging.

erceptions of possible barriers to successful implementation of pushepull (N ¼ 53).

J. Cockburn et al. / Crop Protection 56 (2014) 1e9 9

5. Conclusions and recommendations

Notwithstanding good basic knowledge of E. saccharina, pushepull and IPM which farmers demonstrated, there is still a need formore detailed and practical knowledge on the implementation ofpushepull at farm level. This should also include information onaccess to plants and seed. This knowledge should bemade availableto farmers in a hands-on manner with an emphasis on locally-oriented field days and model farms within ecozones. Modelfarms should be used to illustrate practically how to implementpushepull and demonstrate cost- and time- efficient imple-mentation approaches. Farmers should be encouraged to form localgroups in which they experiment with implementing pushepulland adapt the technology to suit the conditions on their farms.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the 53 sugarcane farmers inthe Midlands North region who participated in this survey. DaveWilkinson (SASRI Extension Specialist), and Tom Webster and Jür-gen Witthöft from the Midlands North LPD&VCC are thanked fortheir support. Thanks to Suria Ellis for her help with data analysis.Thanks to Stuart Rutherford, Sagie Doorsamy and Keshia Pather atSASRI for assistance in preparing images. Funding was provided bythe National Research Foundation of South Africa: NRF IncentiveGrant for Rated Researchers (Conlong IFR2008041400013), theNRF-DAAD in-country scholarship programme, North-West Uni-versity, the Ernst and Ethel Eriksen Trust and the South AfricanSugarcane Research Institute (SASRI).

References

Atkinson, P.R., 1980. On the biology, distribution and natural host-plants of Eldanasaccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Entomol. Soc. South. Africa 43,171e194.

Babbie, E., 2010. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning,Belmont.

Barker, A.L., Conlong, D.E., Byrne, M.J., 2006. Habitat management using Melinisminutiflora (Poaceae) to decrease the infestation of sugarcane by Eldanasaccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Proc. South Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc. 80,226e235.

Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., 2012. Why farmers adopt best man-agement practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption litera-ture. J. Environ. Manage. 96, 17e25.

Carnegie, A.J.M., 1981. Combatting Eldana saccharina Walker: a progress report.Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. Assoc. 55, 116e119.

Conlong, D.E., Rutherford, R.S., 2009. Conventional and new biological and habitatinterventions for integrated pest management systems: review and case studiesusing Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). In: Peshin, R.,Dhawan, A.K. (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-developmentProcess. Springer ScienceþBusiness Media B.V., Dordrecht, pp. 241e260.

D’Emden, F.H., Llewellyn, R.S., Burton, M.P., 2006. Adoption of conservation tillage inAustralian cropping regions: an application of duration analysis. Technol.Forecast. Social Change 73, 630e647.

Delport, C.S.L., Roestenberg, W.J.H., 2011. Sampling in the qualitative paradigm. In:De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouché, C.B., Delport, C.S.L. (Eds.), Research atGrassroots. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria, pp. 222e235.

Ellis, S.M., Steyn, H.S., 2003. Practical significance (effect sizes) versus or in com-bination with statistical significance (p-values). Manag. Dyn. 12, 51e53.

Fink, A., 2009. How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-step Guide. Sage Publications,Inc., Thousand Oaks.

Kaine, G., Bewsell, D., 2008. Adoption of integrated pest management by applegrowers: the role of context. Int. J. Pest Manag. 54, 255e265.

Kasl, B., 2004. Stimulo-deterrent Diversion Approaches to Decrease Eldana Sac-charina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Infestation in Sugarcane. University ofthe Witwatersrand Johannesburg, p. 215.

Keeping, M.G., 2006. Screening of South African sugarcane cultivars for resistance tothe stalk borer, Eldana saccharinaWalker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Afr. Entomol.14, 277e288.

Keeping, M.G., Rutherford, R.S., Conlong, D.E., 2007. Bt-maize as a potential trapcrop for management of Eldana saccharina Walker (Lep., Pyralidae) in sugar-cane. J. Appl. Entomol. 131, 241e250.

Khan, Z.R., Ampong-Nyarko, K., Chiliswa, P., Hassanali, A., Kimani, S., Lwande, W.,Overholt, W.A., Pickett, J.A., Smart, L.E., Woodcock, C.M., 1997. Intercroppingincreases parasitism of pests. Nature 388, 631e632.

Khan, Z.R., Amudavi, D.M., Midega, C.A.O., Wanyama, J.M., Pickett, J.A., 2008.Farmers’ perceptions of a ‘push-pull’ technology for control of cereal stem-borers and Striga weed in western Kenya. Crop Prot. 27, 976e987.

Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning andDevelopment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking AgriculturalExtension. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Leslie, G.W., 2009. Estimating the economic injury level and the economicthreshold for the use of a-cypermethrin against the sugarcane borer, Eldanasaccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Int. J. Pest Manag. 55, 37e44.

Llewellyn, R.S., 2007. Information quality and effectiveness for more rapid adoptiondecisions by farmers. Field Crops Res. 104, 148e156.

Llewellyn, R.S., 2011. Identifying and targeting adoption drivers. In: Pannell, D.J.,Vanclay, F. (Eds.), Changing Land Management: Adoption of New Practices byRural Landholders. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 87e94.

Maher, G.W.S.L., 2003. An environmental management system for sugarcane in theNoodsberg area of South Africa. Proc. South Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc. 7,189e195.

Meir, C., Williamson, S., 2005. Farmer decision-making for ecological pest man-agement. In: Pretty, J.N. (Ed.), The Pesticide Detox: towards a More SustainableAgriculture. Earthscan, London, pp. 83e96.

Midega, C.A.O., Nyang’au, I.M., Pittchar, J., Birkett, M.A., Pickett, J.A., Borges, M.,Khan, Z.R., 2012. Farmers’ perceptions of cotton pests and their management inwestern Kenya. Crop Prot. 42, 193e201.

Olsen, C.H., 2003. Review of the use of statistics in infection and immunity. Infect.Immun. 71, 6689e6692.

Peshin, R., Vasanthakumar, J., Kalra, R., 2009. Diffusion of innovation theory andintegrated pest management. In: Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K. (Eds.), Integrated PestManagement: Dissemination and Impact. Springer ScienceþBusiness MediaB.V., Dordrecht, pp. 1e30.

Röling, N.G., Hounkonnou, D., Offei, S.K., Tossou, R., Van Huis, A., 2004. Linkingscience and farmers’ innovative capacity: diagnostic studies from Ghana andBenin. NJAS e Wageningen J. Life Sci. 52, 211e235.

SASA, 2011. Sugar Industry Directory 2011e2012. South African Sugar Association,Mount Edgecombe.

SASRI, 2012. Annual Progress Report 2011/2012. South African Sugarcane ResearchInstitute, Mount Edgecombe.

Singels, S.A., Leslie, G.W., McFarlane, S.A., Sithole, P., Ferrer, S., Maher, G.W.,2012. Review of South African sugarcane production in the 2011/2012 sea-son from an agricultural perspective. Proc. South Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc.85, 30e46.

Soule, M.J., Tegene, A., Wiebe, K.D., 2000. Land tenure and the adoption of con-servation practices. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 82, 993e1005.

StatSoft, 2011. STATISTICA 11. StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa.Tounou, A.K., Gounou, S., Borgemeister, C., Goumedzoe, Y.M.D., Schulthess, F., 2005.

Susceptibility of Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Busseola fusca andSesamia calamistis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxinsand potential side effects on the larval parasitoid Cotesia sesamiae (Hymenop-tera: Braconidae). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 15, 127e137.

Urquhart, P., 1999. IPM and the Citrus Industry in South Africa, Gatekeeper SeriesNo. 86. International Institute for Environment and Development, SustainableAgriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme, London.

Waller, B.E., Hoy, W.C., Henderson, J.L., Stinner, B., Welty, C., 1998. Matching in-novations with potential users, a case study of potato IPM practices. Agric.Ecosyst. Environ. 70, 203e215.

Webster, T.M., Brenchley, P.G., Conlong, D.E., 2009. Progress of the area wide inte-grated pest management plan for Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) in the midlands north region of KwaZulu-Natal. Proc. South Afr.Sugar Technol. Assoc. 82, 471e485.

Webster, T.M., Maher, G.W., Conlong, D.E., 2005. An integrated pest managementsystem for Eldana saccharina in the Midlands North region of KwaZulu-Natal.Proc. South Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc. 79, 347e358.