Chapters 6.6: Difference between revisions

From Farmpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(Replaced content with "{{Chapters 6.6}}")
Tag: Replaced
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div>
{{Chapters 6.6}}
<div class="title"><h1>6.6 - Striga weed suppression using Desmodium intercropping</h1><br><h3 class="ch-owner">Mitchell van Schepen, University of Guelph, Canada</h3></div>
<div class="ch-navber" style="display: flex; justify-content: space-between;">
<div class="center-side" style="max-width: 100%;margin-right: 3%;">
      <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 class="title-bg">Background</h3>
        <div class="cont-bg">
          <p>The world’s 1 billion women and girls participating in subsistence farming pull weeds by hand to improve their crops and also collect firewood for cooking, resulting in their hands becoming rough and sore (Figure 1). This can be caused by wood splinters being lodged into their skin (Schaffner, 2013). Pulling weeds for hours on end can peel away layers of skin (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016). The hands of those farmers can also become dirty and smelly from planting seeds in the soil or spreading manure by hand. To avoid the common aforementioned problems as well as hand injuries, such as cuts and scrapes, they could wear gloves on their hands, see the second picture, (Schaffner, 2013). Gloves are very common in the modern world and can be used for construction, farming, and medical practices. Gloves provide a durable layer between the skin on your hands and whatever you are working with (Espasandín-Arias & Goossens, 2014). There are a few different materials used to make gloves, along with different sizes and grips. With over one billion women and girls working on farms around the world, this grueling work can be made safer and more efficient when wearing gloves.</p>
 
          <p>Rubber and cloth are the two main kinds of gloves produced (Melco, 2016). They both have their own benefits and drawbacks respectively. A benefit from rubber gloves is their ability to resist water from coming in contact with a farmer's skin, see part two, (Espasandín-Arias & Goossens, 2014). While cloth gloves can be beneficial because they can draw moisture away from their hands and can be easily washed to be cleaned. Because rubber gloves are usually meant to be disposed of after single use they tend to be cheaper to make and thus cheaper to buy. Yet some rubber gloves can be made thicker to reuse and are slightly more durable (Melco, 2016). Cloth gloves are designed to be washed after being used and last a long time under normal working conditions.</p>
 
          <p>Along with the different materials gloves are made of, there are also different arm lengths. Some gloves are cut off just in front or around the wrist. While others can be up to and over the elbow and everywhere in between (Melco, 2016). The benefits of the shorter gloves is comfort, no bunching around wrist or elbow, and they can be quickly put on or removed. The benefits of the long gloves are more protection, the entire forearm will be covered. All the while there is less of a chance of getting debris in their gloves because the opening is farther away from what you are working with. Farmers can also work in deeper water or mud with the long rubber gloves without getting your hands wet.</p>
 
          <p>When working with smooth items such as hoes and some fruits and vegetables they can be slippery (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016). A way to help farmer's hold on to the tools is to get gloves with grips (Melco, 2016). Both rubber and cloth gloves can have grips. Rubber gloves will have ridges in the molds to form grips and granular materials can be added to the outside before drying (Melco, 2016). Another option is to make the rubber gloves out of a non-slip rubber (Melco, 2016). Because cloth alone does not provide grip, cloth gloves must be dipped in liquid rubber to be able to grip smooth objects. The rubber used for grips on cloth gloves can either be non-slip smooth rubber or be rigid (Melco, 2016). </p>
    </div>
  </div>
 
  <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 class="title-bg">Physical Protection</h3>
        <div class="cont-bg">
          <p>Protection is the main benefit from using gloves. Repetitive motions, such as when pounding grain, can cause irritation to the skin. When collecting firewood the sticks and logs can scratch or cut the skin (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016). Weeds can be rough and by scratching their hands many times they can become cut and sore (Espasandín-Arias & Goossens, 2014). By lifting and pulling heavy items the top layer of your skin will separate from the next, causing a blister, by wearing gloves they now will prevent blistering because the glove will act as the top layer of skin and prevent the actual skin from separating (Schaffner, 2013).  Manure has a lot of bacteria in it which are harmful if they are swallow, so keeping them away from the hands used to eat with is very beneficial (Furlong, et al., 2015). If farmers are working with firewood or in construction the cloth gloves will work better because they are more durable (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016). The disposable rubber gloves would be the worst to use in this scenario because they are so thin, stick to jobs were the main goals are to keep hands dry and dirt free when using disposable rubber gloves.</p>
    </div>
  </div>
 
  <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 style="background: #FBB03B;padding: 15px;font-weight: 600;color: #000;font-size: 22px;margin:unset;text-align:center;">Defense Against Moisture and Chemicals</h3>
        <div style="background: #FFD8A4;padding: 15px;font-weight: 400;color: #212529;font-size: 16px;margin:unset;line-height: 1.5;">
          <p>Moisture blocking is a way gloves can prevent your skin from drying out and from getting too wet and dehydrating farmer's hands. By keeping the moisture from the hands inside the gloves they will prevent the skin from cracking and becoming infected (Schaffner, 2013). As well when working in wet conditions your hands can shrivel and become dehydrated if they are constantly in contact with water.</p>
          <p>Pesticides can be absorbed by your skin and become harmful to the body, gloves provide an extra barrier to block them from entering in a farmer's body (Furlong, et al., 2015). Fertilizers such as nitrogen can also be caustic, and these are usually spread through broadcasting by hand. Mud can get under your nails and into cracked or cut skin and can infect a farmer's hands. Gloves will keep the mud out and keep hands clean. Both liquid pesticides and dry fertilizers can irritate skin if they come into contact with it (Kim, et al., 2013). Wearing the proper gloves, rubber ones in this case, can save their hands from becoming itchy (Keeble et al., 1996). Human skin can also absorb the pesticides which are harmful to your body, wearing gloves would prevent the pesticides from ever touching your skin.</p>
    </div>
  </div>
 
  <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 class="title-bg">Wearable</h3>
        <div class="cont-bg">
          <p>Comfortable gloves help farmer's work longer because their hands will not hurt from completing your task. Sizing is very important when finding comfortable gloves (Melco, 2016). Make sure gloves are the proper length and width, as not to restrict movement. There will be less pain from pulling weeds and they will be able to pull more weeds because they would not have to wait a long for the pain to subside between pulling each weed, because there will be no pain if wearing gloves (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016). If farmer's find they are working hard and their hands start to sweat the gloves should be removed , dry your hands, and put on a new pair. Cloth gloves are more breathable then rubber ones, using them is another way to prevent hands from getting sweaty. The cloth gloves can also be softer and easier to clean, but are more restricting to movement due to their durability and tougher material. Since children will also be farming, smaller glove sizes can be found. Gloves are designed to fit a farmer's hand snugly, so children should not wear adult sized gloves when working. </p>
    </div>
  </div>
 
  <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 class="title-bg">Constraints To Adoption</h3>
        <div class="cont-bg">
          <p>Gloves are very useful to farmers, but there can still be some drawbacks. Possible culturable taboos might vary from location to location. Gloves might seem feminine and not easily adopted by men in the community. Gloves act as a second, tougher skin, but they are not a farmer's skin and can slide around while working. This may feel odd and uncomfortable but farmers can get used to the new feeling over time. Gloves can come in many colours and thicknesses, which may make a farmer's hands look funny or larger. Human skin is very stretchy and flexible, while glove materials tend to be tougher than skin and will reduce movement, but not enough to hinder work. Rubber gloves can stretch well, but make hands sweat, while cloth gloves are breathable but reduce dexterity.</p>
          <p>Farmers can find gloves to use and get started from local vendors (European Commission For The Control Of Foot-And-Mouth Disease, 2016). Once you have completed your work for the day you can clean them are reuse them, or dispose of them if they were ripped or torn (Kim, et al., 2013). You can get gloves made of rubber and like materials as well as ones made of durable cloths. The thin rubber gloves tend to be made for a single use only. A trick that the European Commission For The Control Foot-And-Mouth Disease mentions that you can wear two pairs of rubber gloves at the same time for extra protection (European Commission For The Control Of Foot-And-Mouth Disease, 2016).</p>
    </div>
  </div>
 
  <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 class="title-bg">Helpful Links To Get Started </h3>
        <div class="cont-bg">
          <p>Here are websites to find more information about how to obtain gloves:</p>
          <p>[https://www.alibaba.com/ Alibaba]</p>
          <p>[https://www.indiamart.com/ Indiamart]</p>
          <p>[http://www.store.nzfarmsource.co.nz/ Store Nzfarmsource]</p>
          <p>[https://www.adenna.com Adenna]</p>
          <p>[https://www.farmcity.co.za/ Farmcity]</p>
          <p>[https://www.crazystore.co.za/ Crazystore]</p>
    </div>
  </div>
 
  <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 class="title-bg">Usefull Images</h3>
        <div class="cont-bg">
            <div class="row" style="display:flex; justify-content: space-between;padding:35px 25px;">
              <div class="column" style="max-width: 28%;">
                <div class="card">
                  <div class="fakeimg fakeimg-use">[[File:1.jpg]]</div>
                </div>
              </div>
 
              <div class="column" style="max-width: 28%;">
                <div class="card">
                  <div class="fakeimg fakeimg-use">[[File:2.jpg]]</div>
                </div>
              </div>
 
              <div class="column" style="max-width: 28%;">
                <div class="card">
                  <div class="fakeimg fakeimg-use">[[File:3.jpg]]</div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
 
            <div class="row" style="display:flex; justify-content: space-between;padding:35px 25px;">
              <div class="column" style="max-width: 28%;">
                <div class="card">
                  <div class="fakeimg fakeimg-use">[[File:4.jpg]]</div>
                </div>
              </div>
 
              <div class="column" style="max-width: 28%;">
                <div class="card">
                  <div class="fakeimg fakeimg-use">[[File:5.jpg]]</div>
                </div>
              </div>
 
              <div class="column" style="max-width: 28%;">
                <div class="card">
                  <div class="fakeimg fakeimg-use">[[File:6.jpg]]</div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
        </div>
    </div>
 
  <div style="margin-top: 30px;">
      <h3 class="title-bg">References</h3>
        <div class="cont-bg">
          <p>Espasandín-Arias, M., & Goossens, A. (2014). Natural rubber gloves might not protect against skin penetration of methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis, 70(4), 249-251. doi:10.1111/cod.12221</p>
          <p>European Commission For The Control Of Foot-And-Mouth Disease. Suggested FMD PPE guidelines - Food and Agriculture, (2016)
          Food and Agriculture Organization. Rural women in household production: Increasing contributions and persisting drudgery. (2016).
          </p>
          <p>Furlong, M., Tanner, C. M., Goldman, S. M., Bhudhikanok, G. S., Blair, A., Chade, A., . . . Kamel, F. (2015). Protective glove use and hygiene habits modify the associations of specific pesticides with Parkinson's disease. Environment International, 75, 144-150. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.002</p>
          <p>Keeble, V. B., Correll, L., & Ehrich, M. (1996). Effect of Laundering on Ability of Glove Fabrics to Decrease the Penetration of Organophosphate Insecticides Through in vitro Epidermal Systems. J. Appl. Toxicol. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 16(5), 401-406. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1263(199609)16:53.3.co;2-6</p>
          <p>Kim, J., Kim, J., Cha, E., Ko, Y., Kim, D., & Lee, W. (2013). Work-Related Risk Factors by Severity for Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Male Farmers in South Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(3), 1100-1112. doi:10.3390/ijerph10031100</p>
          <p>Melco, M. (2016). Gardening Gloves. Retrieved from [http://garden.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Gardening_Gloves Garden Lovetoknow]</p>
          <p>Schaffner, A. D. (2013). Minimizing Surgical Skin Incision Scars with a Latex Surgical Glove. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 37(2), 463-463. doi:10.1007/s00266-013-0071-y</p>
    </div>
  </div>
  </div>
</div>
</div>

Latest revision as of 14:01, 4 September 2024

4.jpg

Related video(s): Integrated approach against striga, Striga biology, Joining hands against striga, Composting to beat striga, (Source: Access Agriculture)

https://www.accessagriculture.org/integrated-approach-against-striga?cat_id=1499

https://www.accessagriculture.org/striga-biology?cat_id=1499

https://www.accessagriculture.org/joining-hands-against-striga?cat_id=1499

https://www.accessagriculture.org/composting-beat-striga?cat_id=1499

Suggested citation for this chapter.

Muileboom,J. (2022) Striga weed suppression using Desmodium intercropping. In Farmpedia, The Encyclopedia for Small Scale Farmers. Editor, M.N. Raizada, University of Guelph, Canada. http://www.farmpedia.org

The Problem: Striga

For over 100 million farmers in Africa, food insecurity and crop failure is sealed by the sudden appearance of a few brightly flowered plants nestled between their cereal crop (Hooper et al., 2010). These flowers while visually attractive are an indicator of a Striga infestation. Striga, an overarching term used to describe a Genus of parasitic weeds, is by far one of the most destructive weeds in Eastern Africa which causes annual economic losses of over 132 million dollars (Woomer and Savala, 2008). The most common variety S. hermonthica can be identified by its bright green stems and leaves and small purple, pink or white flowers, and grows to around 1m in height (CTA, 2007). Striga, as a parasitic weed, needs to exploit a host plant, stealing its nutrients in order to complete its life-cycle. Studies have found it can reduce crop yields well over 50% or in certain cases cause complete crop failure (Khan et al., 2016).

Striga can be difficult to recognize early as it penetrates the crop roots and feeds off a plant for several weeks before any stems appear above ground, and once it has emerged it is quick to produce flowers and seeds. Effected host plants may at first show signs of various nutrient deficiencies, appearing stunted or of below average biomass, ultimately leading to severely reduced grain yield (khan et al., 2016). Corn, sorghum, rice and sugarcane are generally the greatest victims of the weed, though other grains like millets are affected as well (Midega et al., 2010).

Rooting out striga is made more difficult by the nature of its seeds. Striga is a prolific producer of thousands of tiny black seeds, commonly called “black dust” by locals. These seeds germinate in response to root exudates (or signals) from nearby planted cereal crops, but can also persist dormant in the soil for over 15 years (Khan et al., 2016). Therefore, it is no surprise that striga currently infects more than 40% of arable land in Sub-Saharan Africa (Hooper et al., 2010).

The Intervention: Desmodium

Despite the concern of striga’s prevalence in countless cropping systems, there is great potential to eliminating not only the plants themselves, but also their seed bank in the soil through the use of desmodium. Desmodium, is a sprawling, perennial legume variety, indigenous to South America, that can be used as a forage, green manure and cover crop. Therefore, it can be used to add nitrogen to the soil, reduce erosion, and increase the health and milk production of livestock such as goats and cattle. Additionally, it has been observed to not cause bloat when fed to ruminants, even in large quantities (FAO, 2016). However, its arguably most important aspect is its impact on striga. Intercropping desmodium with striga-infested cereal crops, reduces the weed population dramatically. For instance, one study found striga counts were reduced up to 95% (Kifuko-Koech et al., 2012).

This feat can be explained by the release of various phytochemicals by the plant roots into the soil. Some of which cause the dormant striga seeds to germinate followed by others which then inhibit the striga root growth, preventing those seeds from attaching to a host plant and ultimately causing death. (Khan et al., 2008). This suicidal germination offers a proactive solution to the problem, targeting striga seeds before they can fully grow while clearing out the seed bank. Some researchers estimate that by incorporating desmodium into cropping systems one could eliminate striga seed entirely from a field within 6 years (Khan et al., 2008). As a cover crop, it reduces opportunities for other weed varieties to spread through the soil and complete with the main crop as well. It has also been found to repel stem borers which in combination with reduced striga prevalence has shown to increase cereal yields (Midega et al., 2010). Two main species of desmodium are used for intercropping and push-pull systems, D. uncinatum (Silverleaf) and D. intortum (Greenleaf).

Capture 93.JPG

Field Prep, Planting and Maintenance

Desmodium can be planted from seed or cuttings. If planted from seed, desmodium will grow best in finely textured soil, enriched with phosphorus fertilizer. However, if fertilizer is too expensive or unavailable mixing the seed a handful of seed with fine sand at a 1:2 ration is recommended (Khan et al., 2005). Around 1 kg of seed is needed for a 0.4 ha field, which should be drilled into 1-2 cm deep furrows between the maize rows, and then gently covered with a small amount of soil (Khan et al., 2005). If desmodium cuttings can be obtained from neighbouring farms or local agricultural extension services, they can be an easier and quicker method to establish desmodium. Provided the cuttings have at least two internodes and adequate soil moisture, desmodium cuttings can be an effective mode of propagation.

Maize and desmodium should be planted at the same time during the first season in alternating parallel rows. Also during the first season (around 4 months) it is recommended that desmodium be left to establish and that no cuttings of the plants foliage be done (Kifuko-Koech et al., 2012). In following seasons, the plants should be cut at the start of every season, again 4 weeks after the cereal crop was planted (to ensure proper crop establishment) and then a third time 18 weeks after planting for optimal striga reduction (though a range between 12-18 is acceptable) (Kifuko-Koech et al., 2012). The process of trimming desmodium is important in preventing it from outcompeting its companion crop.

Challenges

While Desmodium offers many opportunities for improving the livelihoods of subsistence farmers there remain some challenges in integrating this plant into current agricultural systems. Desmodium has shown to have varying results growing in soils that are either too dry or too acidic (below a pH of 5) (FAO, 2016). Desmodium can also be victim to other pests like the herbivorous bister beetles whom if left to feed on its flowers could negatively affect seed production (Lebesa et al., 2012). These pests are concerning as desmodium is not a prolific seed producer, which while adding value to the sale of its seeds, makes the loss of these potential profits a concern. Initial access to the desmodium seeds can also be a limiting factor as currently they are often not stocked in commercial seed enterprises.

Also, while desmodium has shown to increase the net profits of the farmers that intercrop it, there is a greater initial cost and labour requirement than mono-cropping systems. However, these costs (which include the initial purchase of desmodium seeds, and the labour required for planting and weeding) have been shown to significantly decrease after the first year, as it does not need to be replanted (Kifuko-Koech et al., 2012). Some further maintenance will be required to maintain the desmodium’s sprawl, taking cuttings to keep the spread contained, but the plant is not known to spread uncontrollably (rather one must be careful not to overcut or graze upon it). These cuttings can offer new economic prospects as well for farmers who choose to use them for fodder or sell to others for similar purposes. It should also be noted that some studies have found that during the first couple seasons the impacts of desmodium regarding striga suppression, increased yields and financial returns were not always pronounced, though in subsequent seasons they became much more evident and consistent (with striga being reduced by 76% and then 90%) (Kifuko-Koech et al., 2012).

Picture Based Lesson to Train Farmers

Click on the image to access a higher resolution image as well as lessons adapted for different geographic regions.

Further Practical Resources and Useful Reading

1). The CTA Practical Guide Series, No. 2: How to control Striga and stemborer in maize https://publications.cta.int/media/publications/downloads/1361_PDF.pdf

2). The Striga Technology Extension Project: Long Rains 2008 Report

3). Tropical Seeds LLC About: A potential source for desmodium seeds, while currently desmodium seeds are not in stock, they hope to have a supply for 2018. www.tropseeds.com

4). Dr. Samuel T. Ledermann Project Coordinator and Scientific Advisor for Biovision About: For more information regarding local organizations, providers or farmer co-ops with a desmodium material supply. Biovision has implemented previous projects focused on integrating desmodium into farming systems in Sub-Saharan Africa in partnership with ICIPE. Email: s.ledermann@biovision.ch Tel: +41 44 512 58 58 Website: http://www.biovision.ch/en/projects/sub-saharan-africa/push-pull/

References

1. Amudavi, D. M., Khan, Z. R., Wanyama, J. M., Midega, C. A. O., Pittchar, J., Nyangau, I. M., … Pickett, J. A. (2009). Assessment of technical efficiency of farmer teachers in the uptake and dissemination of push–pull technology in Western Kenya. Crop Protection, 28(11), 987–996. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.04.010

2. FAO. (2017). Desmodium intortum. Retrieved January 26, 2017

3. FAO. (2017). Desmodium uncinatum. Retrieved January 26, 2017

4. Hooper, A. M., Tsanuo, M. K., Chamberlain, K., Tittcomb, K., Scholes, J., Hassanali, A., … Pickett, J. A. (2010). Isoschaftoside, a C-glycosylflavonoid from Desmodium uncinatum root exudate, is an allelochemical against the development of Striga. Phytochemistry, 71(8–9), 904–908. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2010.02.015

5. Khan, Z., Midega, C. A. O., Hooper, A., & Pickett, J. (2016). Push-Pull: Chemical Ecology-Based Integrated Pest Management Technology. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 42(7), 689–697. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-016-0730-y

6. Khan, Z. R., Midega, C. A. O., Njuguna, E. M., Amudavi, D. M., Wanyama, J. M., & Pickett, J. A. (2008). Economic performance of the “push–pull” technology for stemborer and Striga control in smallholder farming systems in western Kenya. Crop Protection, 27(7), 1084–1097. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2008.01.005

7. Khan, Z. R., Muyekho, F. N., Njuguna, E., Pickett, J. A., Wadhams, L. J., Pittchar, J., … Lusweti, C. (2005). A Primer on Planting and Managing “Push-Pull” Fields for Stemborer and Striga Weed Control in Maize. Kenya.

8. Kifuko-Koech, M., Pypers, P., Okalebo, J. R., Othieno, C. O., Khan, Z. R., Pickett, J. A., … Vanlauwe, B. (2012). The impact of Desmodium spp. and cutting regimes on the agronomic and economic performance of Desmodium–maize intercropping system in western Kenya. Field Crops Research, 137, 97–107. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.08.007

9. Lebesa, L. N., Khan, Z. R., Krüger, K., Bruce, T. J. A., Hassanali, A., & Pickett, J. A. (2012). Farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of blister beetles, Hycleus spp. (Coleoptera: Meloidae), as pest herbivores of Desmodium legumes in western Kenya. International Journal of Pest Management, 58(2), 165–174. http://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2012.673032

10. Midega, C. A. O., Bruce, T. J. A., Pickett, J. A., Pittchar, J. O., Murage, A., & Khan, Z. R. (2015). Climate-adapted companion cropping increases agricultural productivity in East Africa. Field Crops Research, 180, 118–125. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.05.022

11. Midega, C. A. O., Salifu, D., Bruce, T. J., Pittchar, J., Pickett, J. A., & Khan, Z. R. (2014). Cumulative effects and economic benefits of intercropping maize with food legumes on Striga hermonthica infestation. Field Crops Research, 155, 144–152. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.09.012

12. Midega, C., Khan, Z., Amudavi, D., Pittchar, J., & Pickett, J. (2010). Integrated management of Striga hermonthica and cereal stemborers in finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.) through intercropping with Desmodium intortum. International Journal of Pest Management, 56(2), 145–151. http://doi.org/10.1080/09670870903248843