Demographic characteristics of cocoa farmers
Table 2 presents the results of the demographic characteristics of cocoa farmers in the study area. The domination by male respondents among the farmers could be the result of males having greater access to farm land than females. It could also be due to the fact that cocoa farming is more labour-intensive. Therefore, women are not able to meet the needed effort to cultivate the crop. The minimum age of the cocoa farmers was 20 years, maximum age was 68 years and the mean age was 44 years. This is comparable to that of the national average (Danso-Abbeam et al. 2014). The mean age indicates good quality of labour in cocoa production. This would have positive effects on productivity since younger farmers are more energetic and tend to adopt new technologies. The result on education shows that literacy level in the study area is high, although, very few farmers had tertiary education. Married farmers dominating cocoa farming means that individuals who engage in cocoa farming are married. This result is consistent with Bammeke (2003) who states that individuals who undertake agricultural activities are married. The average number of years of farming experience in the study area was 22 years. This means that people engaged in cocoa production are experienced in the study area.
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of respondents
Types and sources of pesticides used by cocoa farmers
Majority (85 %) of the respondents indicated they depend on chemicals to control pests and diseases while 15 % of the farmers used other forms of pest control such as IPM and ICM. The cocoa farmers (85 %) who depended on chemicals to control pests and diseases, used both COCOBOD approved and recommended pesticides and pesticides that are not approved by Ghana COCOBOD. The use of unapproved pesticides by cocoa farmers in the study area was attributed to the fact that the Ghana COCOBOD approved and recommended pesticides for cocoa production are not for sale, hence, are not readily available in the market or input shops. In Ghana, the only way a cocoa farmer can have access to the Ghana COCOBOD approved and recommended pesticides for cocoa production is through the Ghanaian government free “cocoa mass spraying” exercise.
It was however interesting to note that some cocoa farmers who benefited and used the approved and recommended Ghana COCOBOD pesticides indicated that pesticides in the open market (unapproved pesticides) were more effective than the approved ones. Although cocoa farmers claim unapproved pesticides are more effective compared to the approved and recommended Ghana COCOBOD pesticides, research by the Ghana COCOBOD reveals that approved and recommended pesticides are not harmful to pollinator insects of cocoa, for example, midges (Forcipomyia spp.) (COCOBOD 2014). Also, unapproved pesticides used in the cocoa industry are not screened at the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana, to ensure that they comply with EU, Japanese and other markets requirements for food safety, maximum residual level (MRL) limits and sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards before they are used on cocoa, which could lead to the rejection of cocoa beans exported to these markets when traces/residues of these chemicals are found in the beans (Ghana News 2013). There is therefore, the need to educate cocoa farmers on the harmful effects of these unapproved pesticides on cocoa production.
Among the Ghana COCOBOD approved and recommended pesticides, Confidor, Akatemaster, Nordox, Kocide, Actara, Champion, Funguran, Metalm and Ridomil were mostly used by farmers in the study area. Table 3 presents the list of approved and recommended insecticides and fungicides by Ghana COCOBOD for the management of cocoa insect pests and diseases in Ghana and their main characteristics (i.e. active ingredient, main use and hazardous class) according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification (WHO 2005).
Table 3 Insecticides and fungicides approved by Ghana COCOBOD for use by cocoa farmers in Ghana
The pesticides that are not approved by Ghana COCOBOD for cocoa production but were used by the cocoa farmers in the study area includes: Akatesuro, Argine, Buffalo-Super, Lamtox, Sunpyrifos, Sumitox, DDT, Dursban, Pyrethroids-Decis, Kombat, Consider, Okumakete, Lambda-M, Condifor, Thiodan, Super-gro, Sumico-200EC, Confidence, Actala and Controller-super. Table 4 presents the most commonly used unapproved pesticides by the cocoa farmers and their main characteristics (i.e. active ingredient, main used and hazardous class) according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification (WHO 2005).
Table 4 Commonly used unapproved pesticides by cocoa farmers in the study area
Majority (85.8 %) of cocoa farmers who used the unapproved pesticides purchased their pesticides from agro-chemical shops whiles the rest (14.2 %) obtained their pesticides from other cocoa farmers. The farmers’ choice of unapproved pesticides was based on its effectiveness in controlling pest and disease (43.1 %), availability in the market (25.5 %), affordability (18.1 %) and recommendations by fellow famers (13.2 %).
Frequency of pesticide application by cocoa farmers using pesticides
The frequency of pesticide application by cocoa farmers using pesticides ranged from one to nine times per growing season with a mean frequency of application of five times per growing season. This exceeds the Ghana COCOBOD recommended frequency of pesticide application (i.e. four times per season) (Adu-Acheampong et al. 2007; Danso-Abbeam et al. 2014). Cocoa farmers in the study area were found to have in-depth knowledge of the Ghana COCOBOD recommended and approved pesticides for use in cocoa production than the recommended frequency of pesticide application. The lack of knowledge of the Ghana COCOBOD recommended frequency of pesticides application per growing season could result in farmers using chemicals improperly. This can increase the issue of chemical residues in soils, harvested cocoa beans, water sources near cocoa farms as well as pesticide resistance and pest resurgence (Antwi-Agyakwa et al. 2015).
Out of the 204 (85 %) cocoa farmers who used pesticides, 95 of them (46.6 %) indicated they apply pesticides more than four times in the year under review whilst 24.5 % applied four times, 14.7 % applied three times, 9.3 % applied two times and 4.9 % applied once. Cocoa farmers applied pesticides based on different reasons. It was interesting to note that majority (52.5 %) of cocoa farmers indicated that the presence of insect pest and disease on cocoa informed them on when to apply pesticides whiles 17.6 % did routine (calendar) application of pesticides to control insect pests and diseases on their cocoa. Furthermore, 14.7 % of cocoa farmers depended on agrochemical dealers, 9.8 % consulted extension officers and 5.4 % depended on fellow farmers to apply pesticides. This confirms the report by Padi et al. (2000) which states that few cocoa farmers used the recommended pesticides at the recommended dosage, time and frequency. Cocoa farmers did not follow the recommended frequency of pesticide application as a result of increased pest and insect infestation. Ntow et al. (2006) note that during the wet season, farmers increased frequency of pesticide application, because pests and diseases proliferate during this period and increased wash-off by rainfall necessitated further application of pesticides.
Probit result on the factors influencing pesticide use among cocoa farmers
Table 5 presents the probit result on the factors influencing cocoa farmers’ decision to use pesticide. The result reveals that seven variables out of nine variables estimated were significant. The significant variables were gender, age, educational level, years of farming experience, access to extension service, availability of agrochemical shop and access to credit. The result showed that the Wald Chi square value of 76.15 was significant at 1 % with log pseudolikelihood value of −61.132.
Table 5 Probit result on the factors influencing pesticide use among cocoa farmers
Gender was found to be positive and statistically significant at 5 %. This conformed to the a-priori expectation. This indicates that male farmers are more likely to use pesticide. This could be due to the fact that female farmers have higher health risk when they come in contact with pesticides and other chemicals (Engel et al. 2005; Goldner et al. 2010). In the northern part of Ghana, women are advised not to engage in pesticide application. Therefore, male farmers take up the activities of pesticide application. Again, Matlon (1994) and Nkamleu and Adesina (2000) have shown that agricultural technologies are more likely to be adopted by men compared to women.
Age was statistically significant at 1 % and negatively influenced the use of pesticide among cocoa farmers. This did not conform to the a-priori expectation. The result indicates that as the age of a farmer increases by 1 year, the probability that a farmer would use pesticide decreases. The result contradicts the findings of Alavalapati et al. (1995) which assert that young farmers are more likely to adopt new technologies than older farmers. The result could be explained by the fact that older farmers might have experienced possible health effects over the years from the use of pesticides. It is noted that farmers who have experienced health related issues from pesticide use are more concerned about health effects of pesticides than those who have not experienced such problems (Lichtenberg and Zimmerman 1999; Hashemi et al. 2012).
Educational level of a farmer positively influenced pesticide use and was statistically significant at 5 %. This did not conform to the a-priori expectation which indicates that educational level of a farmer negatively influences pesticide use. However, the result on educational level is in line with the findings of Nkamleu and Adesina (2000). This could be explained by the fact that other alternative pest control methods or technologies may not be readily available, hence, educated farmers would have no option than to use pesticide. Anang and Amikuzuno (2015) assert that farmers use inputs which are readily available to them, in order to save time and money in search of alternatives.
The result revealed that years of farming experience was statistically significant at 1 % and had a positive relationship with pesticide usage. This means that a year increase in farming experience increase the probability of pesticide use by a farmer. It was expected that years of farming experience would have a negative influence on pesticide usage since farmers with more years of farming experience are expected to have better skills and access to new information about improved technologies (Yasin et al. 2003; Idrisa et al. 2012). However, the result revealed otherwise. Again, the result could be due to unavailability of alternative technologies in controlling insect pests, therefore, making farmers to use pesticide. The result is in line with the findings of Idris et al. (2013).
Access to extension service was statistically significant at 5 % and negatively influenced pesticide use. This conformed to the a-priori expectation which showed that access to extension service decrease the probability to use pesticide. The result is in line with the findings of Anang and Amikuzuno (2015) which assert that access to extension service influence farmers to less likely adopt pesticides to control pest and disease on their farms. This is because extension agents may introduce new technologies other than pesticides to farmers. Therefore extension service could be used as an effective tool for reducing pesticide use among farmers.
Availability of agrochemical shop decreases the probability of a farmer to use pesticide. This did not conform to the a-priori expectation which indicates that the use of pesticide by farmers is positively influenced by availability of agrochemical shop. Availability of agrochemical shop was negative and statistically significant at 1 %. The result is surprising because it was expected that availability of chemical shop will positively influence cocoa farmers’ use of pesticides (Anang and Amikuzuno 2015). However, the result could be due to the fact that although agrochemical shops may be available to cocoa farmers, the cost of pesticides does not warrant them to use pesticides. Idris et al. (2013) and Adejumo et al. (2014) revealed that cost of pesticides reduce pesticide use among farmers.
Access to credit was statistically significant at 5 % and had a positive relationship with pesticide use. This means that a farmer’s access to credit increases the probability of a farmer to use pesticide. The result was at par with the a-priori expectation and could be explained by the fact that farmers may tend to afford and purchase more pesticide when they have access to credit. This is because they would be able to purchase the chemicals regardless of the cost (Abu et al. 2011).
Tobit result on the factors influencing frequency of pesticide application
Table 6 presents the Tobit regression result on the factors influencing frequency of pesticide application. The Tobit model was significant at 1 % level with log pseudolikelihood value of −398.647. The significant factors which influenced frequency of pesticide application are years of farming experience, educational level of a farmer, access to credit, access to extension service, membership of farmer based organisation and cocoa income.
Table 6 Tobit result on the frequency of pesticide application
Years of farming experience was statistically significant at 1 % and had a negative relationship with frequency of pesticide application. This conformed to the a-priori expectation which shows that years of farming experience negatively influenced frequency of pesticide application. This means that as farming experience increase by one year, the frequency of pesticide application by a farmer reduces. Although years of farming experience positively influence use of pesticide among farmers, it reduced the frequency of pesticide application. This means that even though farmers purchase pesticide for use, they do not apply the pesticide indiscriminately or above the recommended frequency of pesticide application as this is likely to cause health and environmental hazards. According to Lichtenberg and Zimmerman (1999) and Hashemi et al. (2012), farmers who have experienced health problems from pesticide use are more concerned about health effects of pesticides.
Educational level of a farmer was statistically significant at 1 % and had a positive relationship with frequency of pesticide application. This did not follow the a-priori expectation which indicates that educational level of farmers would negatively influence frequency of pesticide application. The result is surprising but could be as a result of proliferation of insect pest and diseases on their cocoa farms. Ntow et al. (2006) revealed that farmers increased frequency of pesticide application because of proliferation of insect pests and diseases.
Membership of farmer based organisation was statistically significant at 5 % and negatively influenced frequency of pesticide application. This conformed to the a-priori expectation which indicates that FBOs negatively influenced frequency of pesticide application. The result means that farmers are becoming increasingly aware of insect pests thresholds as a result of being members of farmer based organizations. This indicates that farmer based organizations are reliable source of information to farmers.
Access to extension service was statistically significant at 1 % and negatively influenced frequency of pesticide application. This conformed to the a-priori expectation which indicates that access to extension service negatively influenced frequency of pesticide application. This means that as a farmer gains access to extension service, the frequency of pesticide application decreases. Hashemi et al. (2009) revealed that extension service is an effective method to promote rational use of pesticide.
There was a negative relationship between access to credit and frequency of pesticide application and this was statistically significant at 5 %. It was expected that access to credit would positively influence frequency of pesticide application, since cocoa farmers would have more purchasing power from the credit they obtain. However, the result revealed otherwise. This could be explained by the fact that although credit helps farmers to purchase more pesticides regardless of the price, they follow the recommended frequency of pesticide application, and hence, reduce the frequency of application or do not apply pesticide above the recommended frequency of application. This result contradicts the findings of Kebede et al. (1990) and Adesina (1996).
Cocoa income had a negative influence on frequency of pesticide application and was statistically significant at 1 %. This means that as a farmer’s income from sale of cocoa increases, the frequency of pesticide application reduces. The result is surprising, since it was expected that cocoa income would increase frequency of pesticide application. This contradicts the findings of Khan et al. (2015). The result indicates that cocoa farmers do not increase pesticide application as a result of higher income from sale of cocoa.