Farmer participation and motivation for repeat plant clinic use: Implications for delivery of plant health advice in Kenya

Figures & data

Table 1. Distribution of study respondents (#)

Variable	Category	Trans Nzoia	Nyeri	Total
Sub-County	Trans Nzoia East	74	0	74
	Trans Nzoia West	44	0	44
	Mukurweini	0	141	141
Clinic user	None	40	48	88
	One-time	30	38	68
	Repeat	48	55	103
Gender	Male	75	83	158
	Female	43	58	101
Total respondents	Total	118	141	259

Table 2. Respondent characteristics

Variable	None clinic users	One-time clinic users	Repeat clinic users	Combined sample
Sex of respondent (male = 1)	0.54 (0.07)	0.67 (0.07)	0.70 (0.05)	0.64 (0.04)
Age of respondent (years)	50.74 (2.25)	55.76 (2.27)	53.23 (1.28)	53.11 (1.07)
No formal education (yes = 1)	0.06 (0.03)	0.07 (0.04)	0.03 (0.02)	0.05 (0.02)
Primary education (yes = 1)	0.44 (0.07)	0.40 (0.07)	0.30 (0.05)	0.37 (0.04)
Secondary education (yes = 1)	0.37 (0.07)	0.38 (0.07)	0.44 (0.06)	0.40 (0.04)
Tertiary education (yes = 1)	0.13 (0.05)	0.16 (0.05)	0.23 (0.05)	0.18 (0.03)
Distance to plant clinic (km)	N/A	2.62 (0.44)	2.80 (0.37)	2.64 (0.21)
Av. land size (acres)	4.22 (0.90)	3.38 (0.78)	4.23 (0.53)	4.01 (0.41)
Cultivated land (acres)	2.62 (0.61)	1.88 (0.26)	3.11 (0.42)	2.65 (0.27)
Off farm income (Yes = 1)	0.11 (0.04)	0.16 (0.05)	0.10 (0.04)	0.12 (0.02)
Access to credit (yes = 1)	0.59 (0.07)	0.64 (0.07)	0.70 (0.05)	0.65 (0.04)

Figures in parentheses are standard error.

Table 3. Most common problems encountered by farmers

Pest/symptom of problem	Pest problems experienced by farmers (%)
	Non-clinic users	One-time clinic users	Repeat clinic users	Combined sample
Caterpillars on the plant	49	56	72	60
Frass outside the fruit or leaves	29	30	37	32
Drying of leaves/drying of plant	20	19	32	25
Brown patches on leaves	12	15	25	18
Wilting of leaves	6	11	20	14
Leaves curling/shrinking/rolling	12	8	17	14
Fruit abortion	9	11	12	11
Holes on fruits	3	4	17	9
Stunted growth	6	8	5	5
Spider webs	0	0	10	4
Rotting stem	3	4	7	4
Mould under the leaves	0	4	5	2
Transparent marks on the leaves	3	0	0	2
Pest pressure (# of pests reported/season)	1.8	1.7	2.1	1.9

Table 4. Common pest problems by crop

Pest problem	Maize	Coffee	Banana	Kales	Beans	Cabbage	Tomato
Caterpillars	84	6	–	–	–	4	1
Frass on fruit/leaves	90	6	–	–	3	–	–
Drying of leaves	8	43	–	3	3	8	8
Brown patches on leaves	15	25	5	10	10	15	8
Leaves curling/rolling	–	17	–	28	22	–	6
Wilting of leaves	15	15	4	8	–	4	27
Fruit abortion	–	42	–	–	–	–	17
Holes on fruits/grain	16	20	–	4	4	12	8
Stunted growth	25	–	13	–	13	25	–
Spider webs	–	9	–	27	36	–	9
Rotting stem	–	–	23	15	23	23	8

Figure 1. Pest management practices employed by farmers by clinic use

Table 5. Farmer sources of agricultural information and advice by clinic user

Source of agricultural information	Farmers receiving information from various sources (%)				Sig
	Non-clinic users	One-time clinic users	Repeat clinic users	Combined sample
Plant doctor/plant clinic	0	85	93	59	***
Radio/TV programs	36	43	30	36	ns
Neighbours, friends & family	38	34	29	33	ns
Government extension officers	36	29	33	33	ns
My own experience	40	21	23	28	***
Demo. plots/field days	14	35	27	25	***
Farmer cooperative	22	18	17	19	ns
Agro-dealers/input suppliers	15	15	15	15	ns
Agricultural trade fairs	7	19	16	14	**
Magazine, newspaper	7	6	13	9	ns
Exposure/exchange visits	6	7	9	7	ns
Farmers field schools (FFS)	6	3	5	5	ns
Internet	6	3	3	4	ns
Lead farmer	7	4	0	3	**
Mobile SMS & voice services	5	1	3	3	ns

Note: ***, **, *, denote 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively by clinic user. ns = not significant

Figure 2. Pest management advice received by farmers at plant clinics

Figure 3. Trend in pest management practices by farmers (PD = Plant doctor)

Table 6. Farmer reasons for repeat and one-time clinic use/visit

Clinic participation	Reason	Percent
Repeat use/visit	To seek more clarification on recommendations	50
	Previous recommendation(s) worked and I brought a different problem	41
	The pest problem is recurrent on my farm	4
	I did not implement the recommendation(s) the first time	1
One-time use/visit	Recommendation worked and I adapted it to other crops	43
	Did not get the pest problem again	34
	No longer grows the crop for which I had sought advice	6
	Plant clinic is too far	4

Table 7. Estimated coefficients of the mixed multinomial logistic regression of factors affecting farmer participation at plant clinic

Variables	One-time clinic users		Repeat clinic users
	Coef.	Std. Err.	Coef.	Std. Err.
Sex of respondent (male = 1)	−0.228	0.427	−0.464	0.392
Age of respondent (Years)	0.039**	0.018	0.031**	0.016
No formal education (yes = 1)	−1.717*	1.104	−2.111**	1.039
Primary education (yes = 1)	−0.738	0.696	−0.884	0.613
Secondary education (yes = 1)	0.161	0.663	−0.169	0.588
Access to credit (yes = 1)	0.030	0.431	0.413	0.400
Farmed land (acres)	−0.041	0.045	−0.037	0.040
Distance to plant clinic (km)	−0.051*	0.105	0.052	0.085
Off farm income (Yes = 1)	0.568	0.632	0.152	0.623
Constant	−1.409	1.251	−0.492	1.107
Number of observations	171
LR chi2(18)	17.74
Prob > chi2	0.473
Log likelihood	−176.437
Pseudo R2	0.048

Base category—Never participated at a plant clinic

Note: ***, **, * denote 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively

Table 8. Multivariate logit model estimates of adoption of pest management practices

Independent variable	Pesticide		Cultural		Pesticide + cultural
	Coef.	Std. Err.	Coef.	Std. Err.	Coef.	Std. Err.
Clinic use/visit (yes = 1)	5.667**	2.643	3.082	2.733	3.738*	2.754
Pest pressure (# of pests observed)	−0.221	0.279	0.481*	0.293	0.328	0.288
Area planted (acres)	0.298**	0.154	−0.14	0.248	0.213	0.181
Sex of respondent (male = 1)	−0.166**	0.077	0.012	0.024	0.03	0.040
Age of respondent (years)	−0.025	0.018	−0.057***	0.023	0.005	0.036
Primary activity farming (yes = 1)	1.104*	0.708	1.410	1.009	−1.466	1.184
Education (ordinal, none = 0)	0.240	0.236	−0.435	0.351	−0.319	0.303
Access to credit (yes = 1)	0.139	0.444	−0.540	0.611	0.767	0.922
Off farm income (yes = 1)	15.697***	0.707	16.614***	0.871	1.122*	0.694
Constant	0.876	1.451	1.939	1.738	−1.138	3.022
Number of observations		176
Wald chi^2(27)		1246.71
Prob>chi^2		0.000
Pseudo R^2		0.276
Log pseudo likelihood		−133.39

Base category—Did not apply anything

Significance: ***<0.001, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.