Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:13:25.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent developments in the application machinery for insect pest management, with particular reference to small scale farmers in the tropics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

G. K. C. Nyirenda
G. K. C. Nyirenda
Affiliation:
Makoka Research Station, Private Bag 3, Thondwe, Malawi
Get access

Abstract

A diverse number of insects cause damage and loss to crops in the tropics. Timely and appropriate control measures are necessary if crop losses and hardship to both farmers and the population at large are to be avoided.

To many farmers one of the most effective control measures is often the application of insecticides. The efficiency of insect control with insecticides is largely influenced by a judicious choice of the insecticide and the application equipment. There is therefore a need for the development of appropriate and evaluation of new and existing spray application equipment. Developments of some spray equipments since the late 1960s and their efficacy in the field are discussed. The main advantages of ultra-low volume (ULV) over some electrostatic sprayers are the application of a wide range of insecticides and formulations and better penetration to lower plant parts. The main advantages of electrostatic sprayers are the application of insecticides at extremely low volumes and low energy requirements with some sprayers. The advantages of the hydraulic nozzle sprayers are the even deposition of spray over all plant parts, although logistically the system is inefficient compared to the other systems.

All systems contaminate spray operators during spraying but the exact level of contamination will depend on the concentration, droplet size and formulation of the insecticide.

Résumé

Un divers nombre d'insectes occasionne des dommages et pertes aux rećoltes dans les zones tropicales. Des mesures ponctuelles et appropriées de contrôle sont nécessaires si les pertes de récoltes et le problème que rencontrent les agriculteurs et la population en général doivent être évités.

La plupart des fermiers croient que l'une des mesures de contrôle les plus efficaces est souvent l'application d'insecticides. L'efficacité du contrôle des insectes avec des insecticides est largement influencée par un choix judicieux de l'insecticide et de l'utilisation de l'équipement. Il y a donc un besoin de développer une évaluation des équipments d'arrosage nouveaux et appropriés. Des développements de quelques équipements d'arrosage depuis les années '60 et leur efficacité sur le terrain sont discutés. Les avantages majeurs des ULV sur des arrosoirs électrostatiques sont l'application d'un choix considérable d'insecticides et des formulations et la pénétration meilleure aux parties inférieures des plantes. Les avantages majeurs des arrosoirs électrostatiques sont l'application des insecticides à des volumes extrêmement réduits et le fait que certains arrosoirs requièrent peu d'énergie. Les avantages des arrosoirs hydrauliques à lance sont le fait que l'arrosage couvre toutes les parties de la plante, bien que le système soit logistiquement inefficace par rapport aux autres systèmes.

Tous les systemes contaminent ceux qui manient les arrosoirs pendant l'arrosage mais le niveau de contamination dépendra de la concentration, du volume de la goutte et de la formulation de l'insecticide.

Keywords

Small scale farmerstropicsinsect pest managementpesticide application machinerylow volume sprayersultra-low volume sprayersvery low volume sprayersultra-low volume atomizercharged sprayershydraulic sprayersspinning disc sprayersElectrodyn sprayersspray depositionspray penetrationoperator safetyrecent developments
Type
Symposium VII: Conventional and Novel Pesticides in Tropical Pest Management
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 8 , Issue 4-5-6: Recent Advances in Research on Tropical Entomology , December 1987 , pp. 723 - 729
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anonymous (1976) Cotton Handbook of Malawi. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Extension Aids Branch, Lilongwe.Google Scholar
Arnold, A. C. (1983) An evaluation of fourteen hand held battery operated spinning disc sprayers. Trop. Pest Manage. 29, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, A. J. and Pye, B. J. (1980) Spray application with charged rotary atomisers. Brit. Crop Prot. Monogr. 24, 109–117.Google Scholar
Arnold, A. J. and Pye, B. J. (1981) Electrostatic spraying of crops with the Ape 80. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf.—Pests and Diseases, pp. 661–666.Google Scholar
Arnold, A. J., Cayley, G. R., Dunne, Y., Etheridge, P., Griffiths, D. C., Jenkyn, J. F., Phillips, F. T., Pye, B. J., Scott, G. C. and Woodcock, C. M. (1984) Biological effectiveness of electrostatically charged rotary atomisers II. Trials with cereals, 1982. Ann. Appl. Biol. 105, 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bals, E. J. (1970) Ultra low volume and ultra low dosage spraying. Cott. Grow. Rev. 47, 217–221.Google Scholar
Bals, E. J. (1982) The principles of and developments in ULV spraying—some reflections. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds, pp. 1033–1038.Google Scholar
Beeden, P. (1974) ULV techniques on cotton in the Northern States of Nigeria. Brit. Crop Prot. Monogr. No. 11, 197–203.Google Scholar
Cayley, G. R., Etheridge, P. E., Goodchild, R. E., Griffiths, D. C., Hulme, P. J., Lewthwaite, R. J., Pye, B. J. and Scott, G. C. (1985) Review of the relationship between chemical deposits achieved with electrostatically charged rotary atomisers and their biological effects. British Crop Prot. Monogr. No. 28, 87–96.Google Scholar
Coffee, R. A. (1979) Electrodynamic energy—a new approach to pesticide application. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf.—Pests and Diseases, pp. 777–789.Google Scholar
Coffee, R. A. and Kohli, A. (1982) Electrodynamic spraying to control pests of tropical crops. Proceedings of the International Conference of Plant Protection in Tropics, 681–694, Kuala Lumpur.Google Scholar
Gledhill, J. A. (1975) A review of ultra-low volume spray usage in Central Africa since 1954 and some recent developments in Rhodesia. Proc. ent. soc. sth. Africa, pp. 259–267.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. C., Cayley, G. R., Etheridge, P. E., Goodchild, R. E., Hulme, P. J., Lewthwaite, R. J., Pye, B. J., Scott, G. C. and Stevenson, J. H. (1984) Application of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides to cereals with charged rotary atomisers. Proc. Brit. Crop. Prot.—Pests and Diseases, pp. 1021–1026.Google Scholar
Gunn, D. L., Graham, J. F., Jaques, P., Perry, F. C., Semour, W. G., Telford, T. M., Ward, J., Wright, E. N. and Yeo, D. (1948) Aircraft spraying against the Desert Locust Schistocerca gregaria in Kenya, 1945. Anti-locust Bull. No. 4.Google Scholar
Johnstone, D. R., Huntington, K. A. and King, W. J. (1973a) Battery operated ultra low volume hand sprayers. Part I. Effect of voltage variation on droplet size characteristics. Part II. Discharge characteristics and service life of batteries. COPR Misc. Report No. 7.Google Scholar
Johnstone, D. R., Huntington, K. A. and King, W. J. (1973b) A visit to Malawi to study spray application in cotton and other crops. January to March, 1973, COPR Country Visit Report No. CVR/73/5.Google Scholar
Jowah, P. (1983) A review of ground ultra low volume crop spraying in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe agr. J. 80, 61–65.Google Scholar
King, W. J. (1976) Ultra low volume application of insecticides to cotton in the Gambia. COPR Misc. Report No. 27.Google Scholar
Maas, W. (1971) ULV application and formulation techniques. N. V. Phillips-Duphar Crop Protection Division, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Marchant, J. A. and Green, R. (1982) An electrostatic charging system for hydraulic spray nozzles. J. Agro. Engng, Res. 27, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G. A. (1971) Ultra low volume spraying of cotton. Amendment 2/71, Cotton Handbk. of Malawi.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. A. (1984) Pest Management 1st Edn.Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Mercer, P. C. (1976) Ultra-low-volume spraying of fungicides for the control of Cercospora leaf spot of groundnuts in Malawi. PANS 22, 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, N. (1981) The “Electrodyn” sprayer. Control of Heliothis spp. in cotton. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf.—Pests and Diseases, pp. 891–901.Google Scholar
Morton, N. (1982) The “Electrodyn” sprayer: First studies of spray coverage in cotton. Crop Prot. 1, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, E., Ganzelmeier, H. and Schmidt, K. (1982) Deposition behaviour of electrostatically charged droplets in ground and bush crops. Nachrultenbl. Deaut. Ptlanzenschutzd 34, 57–64.Google Scholar
Mowlam, M. D., Nyirenda, G. K. C. and Tunstall, J. P. (1975) Ultra low volume application of water based formulations of insecticides to cotton. Cott. Gr. Rev. 52, 360–370.Google Scholar
Nyirenda, G. K. C. (1985) Field assessment of insecticides and swath width of using carbaryl against the African armyworm Spodoptera exempta on maize (Zea mays) in Malawi. Intern. Pest Control 27, 97–99.Google Scholar
Nyirenda, G. K. C. (1986) Studies of the effects of insecticide application on cotton in Malawi. A Ph.D. thesis of Philosophy in the University of London.Google Scholar
Quinn, J. G. and Johnstone, D. R. (1979) Further evaluation of very low volume captafol sprays to control tomato diseases in Northern Nigeria PANS 25, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodageneh, A. and Matthews, G. A. (1981a) The addition of oil to pesticide sprays—effect on droplet size. Trop. Pest Manage. 27, 121–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodageneh, A. and Matthews, G. A. (1981b) The addition of oil to pesticide sprays—downwind movement of droplets. Trop. Pest Manage. 27, 501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrigley, G. (1973) Mineral oils as carriers for ultra low volume (ULV) spraying. PANS 19, 54–61.Google Scholar