Abstract
Development of resistance against phosphine in stored grain insect pests in Pakistan is the result of whole godown improper fumigation of bagged wheat over the past several years. Trials were conducted in 338 godowns in 8 districts of upper Sindh. Out of these, 169 godowns were selected for fumigation with phosphine inside and under polyethylene sheets, while the others for indoor space fumigation in godowns without covering wheat stack with a sheet. Samples of wheat at the baseline and at two-monthly intervals after fumigation were collected for physical examination. It was observed during the 8 month storage trials that the average moisture content increased by 3%, grain damage increased by 12% -1 and grain weight decreased by 6 kghl in whole godown fumigations compared to similar treatment carried out under the cover of polyethylene sheet. The cost effectiveness of the treatments was determined, considering the cost of the materials and labour. It was estimated that a single fumigation treatment in under-sheet stacks was around Rs. 1.05 million less than the whole godown fumigation, even though it involved extra cost of polyethylene (PE) sheet. This cost may be partially recovered by recycling the used PE sheet. This is mainly because whole godown treatments required two to three extra fumigations due to heavy re- infestation of insect pests. Compared to this, sheeted stocks showed no sign of insect activity during the 8 months storage. From the study, it is concluded that under-sheet fumigation of stacks of bagged wheat is a very cost effective and feasible method for protection of stored cereals, and need to be implemented at the provincial and national levels.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Whole godown fumigation raised the average moisture content of stored wheat by 3% relative to under-sheet fumigation.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- whole godown fumigationse1
- Outcome
- average moisture contente1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 3%e1
- Comparator
- under the cover of polyethylene sheete1
- Setting
- upper Sindhe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“the average moisture content increased by 3%, grain damage increased by 12% -1 and grain weight decreased by 6 kghl in whole godown fumigations compared to similar treatment carried out under the cover of polyethylene sheet”
e2“Trials were conducted in 338 godowns in 8 districts of upper Sindh”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole godown fumigation increased grain damage by 12% relative to under-sheet fumigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- whole godown fumigationse1
- Outcome
- grain damagee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 12%e1
- Comparator
- under the cover of polyethylene sheete1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“the average moisture content increased by 3%, grain damage increased by 12% -1 and grain weight decreased by 6 kghl in whole godown fumigations compared to similar treatment carried out under the cover of polyethylene sheet”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole godown fumigation decreased grain weight by 6 kg/hl relative to under-sheet fumigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- whole godown fumigationse1
- Outcome
- grain weighte1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 6 kghle1
- Comparator
- under the cover of polyethylene sheete1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“the average moisture content increased by 3%, grain damage increased by 12% -1 and grain weight decreased by 6 kghl in whole godown fumigations compared to similar treatment carried out under the cover of polyethylene sheet”
Claim · model-written summary
A single under-sheet fumigation treatment was about Rs. 1.05 million cheaper than a whole godown fumigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- under-sheet stackse1
- Outcome
- a single fumigation treatmente1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- Rs. 1.05 millione1
- Comparator
- whole godown fumigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“It was estimated that a single fumigation treatment in under-sheet stacks was around Rs. 1.05 million less than the whole godown fumigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole godown treatments needed two to three extra fumigations because of heavy re-infestation by insect pests.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- whole godown treatmentse1
- Interactor
- insect pestse1pest
- Outcome
- extra fumigationse1
- Value
- two to threee1
- Qualifier
- heavy re- infestatione1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“This is mainly because whole godown treatments required two to three extra fumigations due to heavy re- infestation of insect pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Sheeted stocks showed no sign of insect activity during the 8 months of storage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- sheeted stockse1
- Interactor
- insecte1pest
- Outcome
- insect activitye1
- Qualifier
- during the 8 months storagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“Compared to this, sheeted stocks showed no sign of insect activity during the 8 months storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Under-sheet fumigation of bagged wheat stacks is a very cost effective and feasible method for protecting stored cereals.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- under-sheet fumigatione1
- Outcome
- cost effective and feasible method for protection of stored cerealse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“under-sheet fumigation of stacks of bagged wheat is a very cost effective and feasible method for protection of stored cereals”
Claim · model-written summary
Under-sheet fumigation should be implemented at provincial and national levels.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- implemented at the provincial and national levelse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cost effectiveness of under-sheet and whole godown fumigation of bagged wheat”
e1“need to be implemented at the provincial and national levels”
The same questions in other papers
solarization · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
solarization · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →solarization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.