Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:33:22.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The use of pyrethrum formulations to control Antestiopsis on coffee in East Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

T. J. Crowe
Affiliation:
Coffee Research Station, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya
G. D. Glynne Jones
Affiliation:
The Pyrethrum Board of Kenya Research Laboratories, Nakuru, Kenya
Ruth Williamson
Affiliation:
The Pyrethrum Board of Kenya Research Laboratories, Nakuru, Kenya

Extract

The history of the use of pyrethrum formulations to control Antestiopsis spp. on arabica coffee in Kenya is reviewed.

The material with which the present work was done comprised three distinct forms of Antestiopsis of doubtful taxonomic status; these were not observed to differ in their response to the insecticidal treatments used.

Laboratory experiments showed that Antestiopsis was highly susceptible to pyrethrum and that the addition of piperonyl butoxide, a pyrethrum synergist, did not affect this response.

Preliminary field experiments showed that concentrations of pyrethrins higher than those found effective in the laboratory were required. A hypothesis is advanced and established that this was due to a variable proportion of insects becoming paralysed and falling off the tree before acquiring a lethal dose.

These observations and experiments suggested a two-phase method of control, using pyrethrum as a non-persistent foliage spray at an economical but effective concentration of 0·005–0·006 per cent, pyrethrins, coupled with a 5 per cent. DDT or 0·5 per cent, dieldrin dust applied to the bole of the tree to form a persistent toxic barrier. The spray removed the bugs from the tree whilst the dust prevented the return of or killed those that had only received a sub-lethal dose of pyrethrum. It seemed unlikely that such a localised application of the persistent insecticide would have any appreciable effect on beneficial insects.

This two-phase treatment has been used successfully both in trials and in commercial practice for the control of Antestiopsis. When the initial population is in excess of 20 per tree, two spray applications and one dusting are necessary to effect control.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Glynne, Jones G. D. (1960). Studies on the photolysis of pyrethrum.—Ann. appl. Biol. 48 pp. 352362.Google Scholar
Le Pelley, R. H. (1932). Coffee capsid bug (Lygus simonyi, Eeut.) and the use of kerosene extracts of pyrethrum for the control of Lygus and Antestia.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Kenya 1932 no. 22, 18 pp.Google Scholar
Le Pelley, R. H. (1934). Pyrethrum-extract spraying for the control of Antestia on coffee…Bull. Dep. Agric. Kenya 1934 no. 8, 15 pp.Google Scholar
Le Pelley, R. H. (1942). The food and feeding habits of Antestia in Kenya.—Bull ent. Res. 33 pp. 7189.Google Scholar
Le Pelley, R. H. (1959). Agricultural insects of East Africa.—307 pp. Nairobi, E. Afr. High Comm.Google Scholar
Notley, F. B. (1933).The control of Antestia in wether districts.—Bull. Dept. Agric. Kenya 1933 no. 4, 12 pp.Google Scholar
Notley, F. B. (1936a). New method against a coffee pest.—E. Afr. Standard 10th Jan. 1936.Google Scholar
Notley, F. B. (1936b). Differences in the resistance of the instars of a Pentatomid bug to pyrethrum powder.—Bull. ent. Res. 27 pp. 607609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Notley, F. B. (1941). Antestia in the Northern Province of Tanganyika.—E. Afr. agric. J. 6 pp. 194198.Google Scholar
Potter, C. (1952). An improved laboratory apparatus for applying direct sprays and surface films…Ann. appl. Biol. 39 pp. 128.Google Scholar
Wallace, G. B. (1931). A coffee bean disease.—Trap. Agriculture, Trin. 8 pp. 1417.Google Scholar
Wallace, G. B. (1932). Coffee bean disease.—Trop. Agriculture, Trin. 9 p. 127.Google Scholar