Do synthetic insecticides offer a promising solution to control the fall army worm invasion in Ghana? perception and determinant analyses

Abstract

Since the declaration of the fall armyworm (FAW) pandemic across sub-Saharan Africa in 2016, the polyphagous insect has threatened food security and livelihoods in the sub-region, particularly among farmers producing maize for sustenance. To mitigate the worm infestation, synthetic insecticides are used as a promising solution to effectively manage the threat of the worms, despite the negative consequences such as effects on human health, ecosystem sustainability, and overall societal and economic costs. This study, therefore, uses a structured questionnaire to collect primary data on 250 maize farmers to assess their perceptions and determinants of synthetic insecticides used to manage FAW in the Ejura-Sekyedumase municipality in the Ashanti region of Ghana. The findings showed that emamectin-benzoate, chlorpyrifos, and lambda-cyhalothrin-based insecticides were the dominant chemicals used to manage FAW infestations. Farmers' overall perceptions are indifferent, which raised doubts about the sustainability and efficacy of applying synthetic insecticides. The findings highlight farmers' concerns about the effects of synthetic insecticides on human health and the environment, which calls for the investigation of less expensive, low-risk alternatives to insecticides such as microbial and botanical insecticides that are safer for humans and enhance ecosystem sustainability. Results from a Heckman selection model which corrects sample selection bias showed that three institutional covariates, three perception attributes, and five personal factors significantly influence the adoption of synthetic insecticides to control FAW in the study area. The study's findings imply that if proper measures are put in place to encourage the use of prescribed and environmentally friendly insecticides to counteract FAW's attack, maize productivity and production will be improved in a more sustainable manner.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1 partial budget analysis of FAW control with synthetic insecticide (in Gh₵)

Items	Synthetic Insecticide users	Non-users of control measures
Benefits
Additional returns (A)
- Additional output (150 kg/acre)	1.04	-
- Unit price	110.3	-
- Total additional returns	114.7	-
Reduced costs (B)
- Labor cost for spraying/acre	-	19.08
- Cost of insecticide purchase/acre	-	24.72
Total benefit (C) = (C = A + B)	114.7	43.80
Costs
Reduced revenue (D)
- Output lost	-	1.04
- Unit price	-	110.3
- Total reduce revenue	-	114.7
Extra costs (E)
- Labor costs (spraying)	19.08	-
- Insecticide purchase costs	24.72	-
Total costs (F) = (F = D + E)	43.80	114.7
Total net benefit (G) = (C-F)	70.9	(70.9)

1. *2021 official exchange rate: US$1 = GH₵5.92

Appendix 2 whole budget analysis of FAW control with synthetic insecticide (in Gh₵)/hectare

	Insecticide Users	Non-Users
Item	(n = 198)	(n = 34)
Quantity of maize harvested (150 kg)	6.53 bags	5.49 bags
Average Price (GHC)	110.3	110.3
Total Revenue (GHC)	720.2	605.55***
Variable Cost
Seed cost	18.00	16
Fertilizer cost	95.64	100.50
Insecticide cost	19.08	-
Labour cost for;
Land clearing	17	16.98
Ploughing and harrowing	107	101
Planting	50.2	53
Weeding	10.50	10.38
Fertilizer application	20.00	20.08
Harvesting	98.75	94.30
Dehusking	27.00	43.4
Insecticide application	24.72	-
Marketing cost
Transport	38	30
Storage	6.00	5.40
Sack	7.00	5.50
Packaging	12	10.48
Total Variable Cost (GHC)	532.89	507.02**
Gross Margin (GHC)	187.11	98.53***

1. ** denotes significance at 5% using Student T-test