The adoption of integrated pest management techniques by vegetable growers in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand | |
| Author | Sirada Timprasert |
| Call Number | AIT Diss. no.AS-15-01 |
| Subject(s) | Pest control, Integrated--Econonic aspects--Thailand Vegetables--Diseases and pests--Integrated control--Thailand |
| Note | A Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School of Environment, Resources and Development |
| Publisher | Asian Institute of Technology |
| Series Statement | Dissertation ; no. AS-15-01 |
| Abstract | Vegetable crops are highly vulnerable for pest attacks, which are mostly being controlled by pesticides in Thailand. Although integrated pest management (IPM) practices have been adopted for several decades, many vegetable farmers prefer to use pesticides which often adversely affect people’s health and the environment. This study investigated the possible reasons for continuing with high pesticide use against IPM practices by vegetable farmers in order to reduce pesticide based pest management for better human health and farmingenvironments in Nakon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. The study was conducted in 2008–2009 through a survey by interviewing 110 IPM and 110 non-IPM vegetable farmers from three districts in Nakorn Ratchasima Province, Thailand.The results revealed that diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) was a serious pest (99.3%) for the IPM farmers followed by flea beetle (Phyllotreta sinuate)(97.7%) and common cutworm (Spodoptera litura)(95.7%). In contrast, the non-IPM growers considered flea beetle as a serious pest (96.7%) followed by diamondback moth (94.7%) and common cutworm (85.7%). In case of yard long bean (Vignaunguiculatasubsp. sesquipedalis), almost all of the IPM and the non-IPM respondents considered aphid (Aphis craccivora)and pod borer (Maruca vitrata)were the most serious insect pests. Synthetic insecticides were the most popular among the non-IPM farmers (100%) whereas about 77% of the IPM farmers applied insecticides to control insect pest. Over 83% of the IPM farmers used plant extracts as botanical insecticides to reduce insect pest incidences whereas only 7% of the non-IPM growers used plant extracts.Farmers’ knowledge on IPM was the key for the successful management of insect pests in crops. A comparison between the IPM and the non-IPM farmers showed a significant difference (P< 0.01) in farmers’ knowledge of pest management, which influenced IPM adoption or non-adoption. The IPM farmers had greater knowledge about identifying natural enemies and their beneficial role in controlling insect pests, about plant extracts and their efficacy in controlling insect pests, and about sticky traps and their efficacy in monitoring natural enemies and controlling insect pests. Overall, 24% of the IPM farmers had knowledge of natural enemies whereas it was only 4% for the non-IPM farmers. About 80% of the IPM farmers had better knowledge on the formulation and preparation of plant extracts for pest management compared with only 49% for the non-IPM farmers (P< 0.01). There was a greater percentage of farmers having knowledge of using sticky traps in the IPM users (78%) compared with the non-IPM users (66%) (P< 0.01).The IPM farmers’ adopted IPM practices to avoid higher costs of insecticides (91%), to prevent the negative effects of insecticides on human health and the environment (80%) and to minimize the development of insecticide resistant insect populations (28%). The IPM farmers’ had greater access to extension support and training on IPM, which positively influenced farmers’ to adopt IPM practice.The non-IPM farmers’ did not adopt IPM practices because they felt that IPM practices were not suitable for a large scale commercial crop (91%) followed by implementation difficulty (80%), unsuitability for a large farm (52%) and greater efficacy of synthetic insecticides against target pests (39%). The non-IPM farmers’ had very ivlimited access to extension support and training on IPM, which influenced their non-adoption of IPM.There were three variables which positively contributed to the adoption of IPM by the IPM farmers: reduced cost of insect pest management, knowledge gained on IPM, and availability of extension services. Of these variables, availability of extension service was highly significant at P< 0.01, whereas the other two variables had significance at P< 0.05. The Nagelkerke’s R2value was 0.794, which indicated that 79.4% of the variation was explained by the three variables. The three most important variables which contributed to the non-adoption of IPM included yield of vegetables, effectiveness of natural enemies to control insect pests, and availability of extension services. Out of those variables, only the availability of extension services had a positive significant effect on the adoption of IPM (P< 0.01), whereas the effectiveness of natural enemies and yield of vegetables had negative but significant contribution (P< 0.05) to the adoption of IPM. The Nagelkerke’s R2value was 0.554 indicating that 55.4% of the variation was explained by the three variables. The findings of this study will enable the Thai Department of Agricultural Extension to device suitable mechanism(s) to facilitate and promote the adoption of IPM in vegetable cultivation in Nakon Ratchasima Province in particular and to overall Thailand in general through policy formulation and implementation.The paper from this research has been published in Crop Protection by Elsevier, and can be cited as Timprasert S, Datta A, Ranamukhaarachchi SL. (2014). Factors determining adoption of integrated pest management by vegetable growers in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Crop Protection 62:32–39 |
| Year | 2015 |
| Corresponding Series Added Entry | Asian Institute of Technology. Dissertation ; no. AS-15-01 |
| Type | Dissertation |
| School | School of Environment, Resources, and Development (SERD) |
| Department | Department of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (Former title: Department of Food Agriculture, and BioResources (DFAB)) |
| Academic Program/FoS | Agricultural and Aquatic Systems (AS) |
| Chairperson(s) | Datta, Avishek; |
| Examination Committee(s) | Shrestha, Rajendra P. ;Ana, Anil K. ;Peshin, Rajinder; |
| Scholarship Donor(s) | Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives(MOAC),Thailand ;Asian Institute of Technology Fellowship; |
| Degree | Thesis (Ph.D.) - Asian Institute of Technology, 2015 |