Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 8, Issue 1–2, pp 99–113 | Cite as

Tradition and change in postharvest pest management in Kenya

  • Abe Goldman


The hazard of postharvest pest losses is ubiquitous in peasant farming systems; as a result, farmers invariably have some response to the threat of these losses. Responses to postharvest pests may be more extensive than to field pests, even when, by statistical measures, the usual levels of losses are comparable. In studies of pest management practices in three contrasting areas in Kenya, it was found that farmers virtually always rely on an array of techniques and strategies, usually including both older and more modern practices. There is considerable variation among regions in the techniques used, due not only to climatic and socioeconomic factors, but also to variations in cultural history and preferences. The ways in which management practices have changed over time also vary by region. The major changes have been related to overall system change. Four main sources of change have been paramount: (1) population growth and the intensification of land use; (2) the introduction of new cash crops; (3) the introduction of new marketing infrastructure; and (4) the perception of increased environmental risk. Their effect on the replacement of older practices by newer ones is often interrelated. Traditional techniques are often based on materials derived from bushland, but increasing population density makes these difficult to continue as bushland and its common property resources disappear. Simultaneously, tolerance for losses is reduced as land availability is constrained. With the introduction of a cash crop infrastructure, new methods of pest management, especially pesticide use, become more readily available and may spread rapidly. Areas with good market infrastructure but varying population density may still differ considerably because with abundant land it is possible to compensate for expected losses by additional planting.

A study of an FAO project to improve postharvest management through earlier harvesting and a redesigned storage crib indicate some reasons for its lack of widespread acceptance. Little or no attempt was made to adapt techniques to varying circumstances; instead, a single “solution” was meant to be applied across areas of vastly different conditions. In many cases, this project represented a radical response to a problem farmers considered they were coping with acceptably using existing methods. Although it probably represents an improvement over traditional storage methods in purely technical terms, the new technique also often involved major costs, readjustments, and cultural disruptions that may not have been anticipated by its designers. More likely to succeed would be a strategy that begins with some of farmers' existing practices and whose objective is to develop and offer a range of possible improvements from which farmers could select individual components appropriate to their conditions and needs.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bodholt, Ole. 1985.Construction of Cribs for Drying and Storage of Maize. Rome: FAO. (FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin #66.)Google Scholar
  2. Connelly, W. Thomas. 1988. “Insect and weed control in subsistence farming systems: Western Kenya.” In Anthropology of Development and Change in East Africa, ed. by David Brokensha and Peter D. Little. Boulder, CO.: Westview. pp. 121–135.Google Scholar
  3. De Lima, C.P.F. 1976. “An ecological study of traditional on-farm maize storage in Kenya and the effects of a control action.”Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Congress on Entomology, Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Development Planning and Research Associates. 1980.Kenya National Crop Storage Study. Manhattan, Kansas: Development Planning and Research Associates. (Report prepared for USAID.)Google Scholar
  5. FAO. 1977.An Analysis of an FAO Survey of Post-Harvest Crop Losses in Developing Countries. Rome: FAO. (AGP document. AGP: MISC/27.)Google Scholar
  6. ——. 1980. On-Farm Maize Drying and Storage in the Humid Tropics. Rome: FAO. (FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin #40.)Google Scholar
  7. --. 1982.Socioeconomic Survey of Postharvest Methods and Problems in Swaziland. FAO Action Programme for the Preservation of Food Losses in Swaziland. Field Document No. 25.Google Scholar
  8. ——. 1984.Post-Harvest Losses in Quality of Food Grains. Rome: FASO. (FAO Food and Nutrition Paper, 29.)Google Scholar
  9. FAO/DAnida. n.d. (ca. 1980). “Drying and Storage of Maize in the Husk.” African Rural Storage Center, Document No. 3 (TF/AFR/45 [DEN]).Google Scholar
  10. Giles, P.H. and F. Ashman. 1971. “A study of pre-harvest infestation of maize bySitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) in the Kenya highlands.”Journal of Stored Products Research 7 69–83.Google Scholar
  11. Goldman, A.C. 1986. “Pest Hazards and Pest Management by Small Scale Farmers in Kenya.” PhD dissertation, Clark University.Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, Wayland J. 1982. Pesticides Studied in Man. Baltimore, London: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  13. Jaetzold, Ralph and Helmut Schmidt. 1982. Farm Management Handbook of Kenya. Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  14. Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture. 1976. Murang'a District Annual Agricultural Report, 1975. Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  15. ——. 1979. Yields, Costs, Prices, 1979. Nairobi: Land and Farm Management Division, Ministry of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  16. ——. 1982. Murang'a District Annual Agricultural Report, 1981. Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  17. ——. [various years, 1970s–1981].South Nyanza District Annual Agricultural Reports. Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  18. Kenya, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. 1981. Kenya Population Census, 1979. Volume 1. Nairobi: Government Printers.Google Scholar
  19. Kenya Colony. 1958. Machakos District Gazeteer. Google Scholar
  20. Kranz, J., H. Schumeterer, and W. Koch, eds. 1977.Diseases, Pests, and Weeds in Tropical Crops. New York, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Machakos District Co-operative Union. 1982. (District cotton production data [unpublished].Google Scholar
  22. National Academy of Sciences [NAS]. 1978.Post-Harvest Losses in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: NASGoogle Scholar
  23. Ofuya, T.M. 1986. “Use of wood ash, dry chilli pepper fruits and onion scale leaves for reducingCallosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius) damage in cow-pea seeds during storage.”Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge).107: 467–468.Google Scholar
  24. Pepke, F.M. 1982. “The Improved Maize Crib: A guide to small farm grain storage.” FAO Final Report. Nakuru, Kenya: Rural Structures Unit, Land Development Division, Ministry of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  25. SIDA. 1981. “Report of the Swedish Agricultural Mission to Kenya, 21 Sept.–16 Oct. 1981.” Stockholm: SIDA.Google Scholar
  26. Walker, P.T. 1983. “Crop losses: the need to quantify the effects of pests, diseases, and weeds on agricultural production.” Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 9: 119–158.Google Scholar
  27. —— and M.J. Hodson. 1976. “Developments in maize stem-borer control in East Africa, including the use of insecticide granules.” Proceedings of the Association of Applied Biologists 84: 111–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abe Goldman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations