Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38434028›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Smallholder farmers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding agricultural inputs with a focus on agricultural biologicals.

Tewodros Mulugeta, Mesia Ilomo, Allan Mueke, Cecillia Onyango, Lerato Matsaunyane, Quenton Kritzinger, Erik Alexandersson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Tewodros MulugetaDepartment of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Kotebe University of Education, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mesia IlomoDepartment of Plant and Soil Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Allan MuekeDepartment of Animal Health and Production, School of Pure and Applied Science, Mount Kenya University, General Kago Rd PO BOX 342-01000, Thika, Kenya.
Cecillia OnyangoDepartment of Plant Science and Crop Protection, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Lerato MatsaunyaneDepartment of Plant Breeding, Agricultural Research Council-Vegetable and Ornamental Plants, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
Quenton KritzingerDepartment of Plant and Soil Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Erik AlexanderssonDepartment of Plant Breeding, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE-23053, Lomma, Sweden.
University of Pretoria · ZAAgricultural Research Council of South Africa · ZAKotebe University of Education · ETMount Kenya University · KESwedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SEUniversity of Nairobi · KE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a general drive to reduce pesticide use owing to the potential negative effects of pesticides on the environment and human health. The EU Commission, for example, through its "Farm to Fork Strategy," has proposed to decrease the use of hazardous chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030. In addition, smallholder farmers in low-income countries do not always follow pesticide safety precautions. This necessitates the introduction of low-risk crop protection strategies also suited for these farmers. Agricultural biologicals can substitute for, or at least partially replace hazardous chemical pesticides. While the market for and use of biologicals is growing quickly in industrialized countries, this practice remains limited in sub-Saharan Africa. To understand the reason behind the low adoption of biologicals, this study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward biologicals among 150 smallholder farmers in the Chole district in Ethiopia. All farmers used chemical pesticides and/or inorganic fertilizers to protect crops, improve yields, and comply with government regulations. The use of biologicals was, however, restricted to one group of biologicals, bio-fertilizers, which approximately 60% of farmers used, and no use of biologicals for plant protection was reported. Even though the understanding of the concept of biologicals was deemed high among respondents, the majority (90%) did not identify biologicals as safer alternatives to conventional agricultural inputs. More than half of the respondents (54%) did not recommend biologicals as safer alternatives to their colleagues. Nevertheless, even if the responding farmers did not perceive biologicals as risk-free, they had a positive attitude towards biologicals when it came to producing healthy food and increasing crop yields and incomes. In comparison to the positive attitude, farmers' knowledge and practice of biologicals were generally low; thus, efforts are needed to create awareness among farmers.

Indexed as

Agricultural inputsBiofertilizersBiologicalsBiopesticidesBiostimulantsKnowledge attitudes and practices (KAP)Smallholder farmersSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID38434028
PMCPMC10906418
OpenAlexW4391986249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.