Figure 1 shows the gender of the respondent that presented by the percentage of the total number of 239 farmers. The majority of the respondent were male which contribute 91.6% of total survey with actual number is 219 where is the female respondent number were only 20 which contribute 8.4% of total survey.
Figure 2: Group of Ages
Figure 3: Marital Status
Figure 2 shows the age group of the respondent. Majority of the respondent were group of 51 to 60 years old with 38% of the total respondent. This followed by respondent age above 60 with 30% and 19% were presented by the age group of 41 to 50 years old. The 31 to 40 age group was carried 10% respondent. The smallest percentage is shown by 20 to 29 age groups with only 3% of total number of respondent. Figure 3 shows the marital status of the respondent. About 90% of respondents were married, 5% were single, 3% were divorce and 2% others.
From table 1, most of the respondent had formal education. Where 135 respondents had secondary education and 65 respondents had primary education. Followed by 34 respondents never had formal education and 5 respondents had college or university education.
All the respondent were rice farmer, where 75.3% were full time rice farmer, 11.3% involve in agriculture business, 10% involved in non agriculture business, 8.8% work in government sector and 0.4% work in private sector. About 40.6% land both were owned and rent by the farmer, 34.8% of land was rent land and 24.7% was owned by the farmer.
About 89.5 or farmer cultivated on 0-9 acre of land which is gives the highest portion. There were 8% farmers cultivated on 10-19 acre of land, 2% cultivated on 20-29 acre, 1% on 30-39 acre and 0.5% more than 40 acres. The respondents' farming experience included 28.1% of 21 to 30 years, 19.7% of 1 to 10 and 31 to 40 years, 12.1% of 41 to 50 years and 2.5% over 50 years.
Characteristic
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Farm area (acre)
0 - 9
10 - 19
20 - 29
30 - 39
>40
214
18
4
2
1
89.5
8
2
1
0.5
Land status
Own
Rent
Own and rent
59
83
97
24.7
34.7
40.6
Cultivation type
Small farmer
Center management
Individual entrepreneurship
33
202
4
13.8
84.5
1.7
Education attainment
Primary
Secondary
College / university
None
65
135
5
34
27.2
56.5
2.1
14.2
Occupation
Full time rice farmer
Agriculture business
Non-agriculture business
Government officer
Private sector
180
27
21
7
1
75.3
11.3
10
8.8
0.4
Farming experienced (years)
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
>51
47
43
67
47
29
6
19.7
18
28.1
19.7
12.1
2.5
Table 1: Farmers' Background
4.2 Pest and disease infestation
Figure 4: Infestation of Pest in Farmers' Rice field
Figure 4 indicates the infestation of pest in farmers' rice field. Most of the farmers observed brown leafhopper, black bug, Golden Apple Snails, rat, rice bug, army worm, leaf folder, stem borer, grasshopper and others pest such as eel attacked their rice field. Most of the farmers choose rat infestation is the highest in their rice field, followed by leaf folder, brown leafhopper, stem borer, army worm, rice bug, black bug, others, grasshopper and GAS with 97.1%, 95.8%, 95.4%, 90%, 87.4%, 91.5%, 31.8, 13%, 10% and 2.1%, respectively.
Figure 5: Percentage of Pest Seriousness.
Figure 5 show that the percentage of pest seriousness according to level of damages. Farmers choose leaf folder (50.2%) as extremely serious pest in their filed, follow by rat (7.7%).
In the serious level of damages, brown leafhopper (42.7%) contributes the highest level of damages, followed by army worm, GAS, leaf folder, black bug and stem borer with 40.4%, 33%, 21.3%, 12.4% and 9%, respectively. In moderate level of damages, farmers choose stem borer (63.8%), follows by black bug (62.8%), grasshopper (55.2%), brown leafhopper (45.9%), rat (45.9%), rice bug (44.8%), army worm (39.8%), GAS (34%), leaf folder (28.5%) and eel (28.3%).
Pest that are in less serious level are rat (46.4%), others (43.3%), stem borer (27.1%), black bug (24.8%), grasshopper (22.7%), rice bug (22.1%), army worm, (19.9%), GAS (16.5%) and brown leafhopper (8.1%). For level of not serious, farmer choose rice bug (33.1%), others (28.3%), grasshopper (22.1%) and GAS (16.5%)
Figure 6: Infestation of Disease in Farmers' Rice Field.
Figure 6 shows the infestation of disease in farmers' rice field. Most of the farmers observed blast, sheath blast, tungro virus, neck rot, brown spot, bacterial blight and black pod disease in their rice field. Most of the farmers choose blast (78.8%) disease as the highest in their rice field, follow by sheath blast (71.5%), tungro virus, neck rot and brown spot (57.3%), bacterial blight and black pod (28.9%)
Figure 7: Percentage of disease seriousness.
Figure 7 shows the percentage of disease seriousness according to level of infestation. 8.3% of farmers' ranked neck rot as extremely serious disease. In the serious level of damages, neck rot (33.2%) contributes the highest level of damages, which followed by blast (21.3%), bacterial blight (11%) and brown spot (9.2%).
In moderate level of damages, farmers choose sheath blast (66.3%) as the highest compared to other disease. Follow by tungro virus, brown spot, bacterial blight, blast, neck rot and black spot with 49.7%, 45.2%, 33.1%, 28.5%, 24.9% and 12.4%, respectively. The less serious disease is black pod (62.8%) disease, and followed by brown spot (36.7%), bacterial blight (33.8%), neck rot (33.7%), tungro virus (30.4%), blast (28.9%) and sheath blast (17.1%).
Figure 8: Infestation of Weed in Farmers' Rice Field.
In figure 8 most of the farmers observed weedy rice, cogon grass, wire grass, water hyacinth and others in their rice field. All of the farmers choose weedy rice as the highest weeds population in their rice field, followed by wiregrass, water hyacinth , others and cogon grass with 92.9%, 92.5%, 14.6% and 7.1%, respectively.
Figure 9: Percentage of Weed Seriousness.
Figure 9 shows the percentage of weed seriousness according to level of infestation on rice, most of them mention wiregrass (14.2%) and weedy rice (7.1%) as extremely serious weed. In the serious level of infestation, weedy rice (64.4%) contributes the highest level of infestation, follows by wiregrass (35.6%) and water hyacinth (33.2%).
Moderate infestation reported wiregrass (43.1%) as the highest level of infestation, which followed by water hyacinth (33.7%), others (33%), weedy rice (21.3%), and cogon grass (16.5%). The less serious infestation is cogon grass and others, both of the weed contributes 34%. Follow by water hyacinth (24.9%), wiregrass and weedy rice (7.1%).
For level of not serious, farmer choose rice cogon grass, others and water hyacinth with 49.5%, 33% and 8.3%, respectively.
4.3 Farmers' Pest Management Practices
Figure 9: Percentage of Farmers' Practices.
Figure 9 show the number of farmers' practicing pest control by using four control method which were chemical control, biological control, cultural control and mechanical control method. Most of the farmers use chemical control method (87.5%) more than other control. Followed by biological control (50.7%), cultural control (25.7%), mechanical control (19.1%) and 12.1% did not response to this question.
For chemical control method, most of the farmers' use legal pesticide (85.8%), followed by using pheromone (7.1%) and illegal pesticide (5.9%). For biological control method, there are 95.8% farmers use barn owl as biological control, follows by natural enemy (2.9%) and fish and duck (7.1%).
Cultural control that mostly used is burning paddy straw (86%), and followed by soil management (71.5%), water management (57%), nutrition management (51.2%) and weed management (42.3%). For the mechanical control, 50.2% of the farmer destructing pest with their own hand and only 49.8% of farmer apply rat trap in their rice field.
Practices
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Chemical control
Pheromone
Legal pesticide
Illegal pesticide
No response
17
205
14
16
7.1
85.8
5.9
6.7
Biological control
Barn owl
Duck
Fish
Natural enemy
218
17
17
69
95.8
7.1
7.1
28.9
Cultural control
Weed management
Burning paddy straw
Water management
Soil management
Nutrition management
101
202
134
168
120
42.3
86
57
71.5
120
Mechanical control
Rat trap
Destructing by hand
119
120
49.8
50.2
Table 2: Farmers' Pest Management Practices
Figure 10: Percentage of Farmers' Knowledge
Figure 10 show the percentage of farmers' knowledge about natural enemy and beneficial organism. 43.1% of the farmers choose no as their answer and 20.5% of them not sure about natural enemy and beneficial organism. There are 20.5% of farmers have knowledge about natural enemy and beneficial organism. About14.6% of farmers did not answer this question.
4.4 Pesticide application
Figure 11: Percentage of Pesticide Application
Figure 11 indicates the percentage of pesticide application by the farmer. 70.3% of farmer use pesticide at their field and 1.7% of farmer did not use pesticide. There are 28% of farmer did not response to the question.
Type of Pesticide
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Insecticide
KARATE
TAPISAN
REGENT
LEBAYSID
FASTAC
SILATOP
LANMERTIN
PADAN
181
175
162
144
120
109
91
82
75.7
73.2
68.7
60.3
50.2
45.6
38.1
34.2
Fungicide
SCORE
ARMURE
FUJI ONE
145
108
84
60.7
45.2
35.1
Herbicide
SOLITO
BASTA
NOMINEE
ROUNDUP
179
154
126
30
74.9
64.4
52.7
12.6
Rodenticide
TIKUMIN
MATIKUS
121
97
50.6
40.6
Table 3: Type of Pesticide
Table 3 shows the type of pesticide that been used by the farmer. There are four types of pesticide that been used by the farmer, which is insecticide, fungicide, herbicide and rodenticide. There are 17 types of pesticide used by the farmer and most of the farmer use insecticide more than other pesticide.
The most commonly used insecticide was Karate® (lambda-cyhalothrin) with 75.7%, follow by Tapisan® (buprofezin) (73.2%), Regent® (fipronil) (68.7%), Lebaysid® (fenthion) (60.3%), Fastac® (alfasipermetrin) (50.2%), Silatop® (silafluofen) (45.6%), Lanmertin® (buprofezin) (38.1%) and Padan® (cartap hydrochloride) (34.2%).
Fungicide that been used by farmer was Score® (difenoconazole) with 60.7%, 45.2% of Armure® (difenolconazole + propiconazole) and 35.1% of Fuji One® (isoprothiolane).
The most common herbicide use was Solito® (pretilachlor + pyribenzoxin) (79.9%), follow by Basta® (glufosinate ammonium), Nominee® (isoprothiolane) and Roundup® (glyphosate isopropylamine) with 64.4%, 52.7% and 12.6%, respectively. To control the population of rats, farmer used Tikumin® (warfarin) (50.6%) and Matikus® (brodifacoum) (40.6%) as rodenticide to control the rats population.
Figure 12: Factor Using Pesticide
Figure 12 indicates the factor of using pesticide among the farmers. Most of the farmers choose fast action as their answer, follows by effective and cheap, with 50%, 33% and 12%, respectively. 5% of the farmers did not answer to this question.
Figure 13: Percentage of Farmers' Decision on Spraying Frequency
Figure 13 shows, the high percentage is farmer decides to spray if they notice any presence of pest in their field (75.7%), follows by farmer decide to spray based on spraying schedule, spraying when free time, spraying at level of economic threshold with 63.6%, 49% and 33.9%, respectively. There are 9.2% of farmer did not response to this question.
Figure 14: Percentage of Farmers' Spraying per Season
Figure 14 show the number of spraying per season. Result shows that farmers spraying at 5 to 8 times per season (75.3%). About 22.6% spray 9 to 12 times per season, 0.4% spray less than 4 times per season and more than 13 times per season. 1.3% of farmer did not response to this question.
Figure 15: Percentage of Farmers' Spraying Frequency per Season.
Figure 15 indicates the percentage of farmers' spraying frequency per season. The highest number of frequency is twice a week, follow by three times per month and once a week which 83.3%, 7.9% and 7.5%, respectively. There are 1.3% of farmer did not answer this question.
Figure 15: Percentage of Farmers' Mixing Pesticide in Sprayer.
Figure 15 show the percentage of farmer that mixes pesticide in sprayer. 70.8% of farmer answered that they did not mix pesticide in sprayer. Only 29.2% of farmer answered that that mixed pesticide in spryer.
Figure 16: Percentage of Pesticide Mixed in Sprayer.
Figure 16 show the percentage of pesticide mixed in sprayer. The highest number of pesticide mixed was 3 to 4 types of pesticide, follows by below 2 types of pesticide and above 5 types of pesticide with 68.5%, 23.3% and 8.2%, respectively.
Figure 17: Factors Mixed of Pesticide
Figure 17 indicates the factor of mixing pesticide among the farmers. Most of the farmers choose save time as their answer, follows by save labor and fast action, with 37%, 34% and 29%, respectively.
4.5 Safety handling
Figure 18: Percentage of Farmers' Safety Handling of Pesticide.
Figure 18 indicates the percentage of farmers' safety handling of pesticide when preparing and spraying. 85.4% of famer used safety tools when preparing and spraying the pesticide. About 13.8% choose sometimes and 0.8% of farmer did not answer the question.
Figure 19: Percentage of Farmers' Using Safety Tools.
Figure 19 show the percentage safety tools used when preparing and spraying the pesticide. The safety tools used were mask (97.5%), glove (90.8%), but (84.1%), long sleeves (83.7%), trouser (69.9%), hat (69.5%), goggle (41.4%), apron (27.6%) and protection coat (13.8%).
Figure 20: Percentage of Important Safety Tools.
Figure 20 show the important of using safety tools among the farmers when mixing the pesticide, spraying the pesticide and cleaning the sprayer. Farmers ranked spraying as the most important time to wear safety tools follows by mixing the pesticide and cleaning pesticides' sprayer with 78.5%, 28.3% and 27.9%, respectively.
Some farmers choose mixing as the important time to wearing safety tools, followed by cleaning the pesticides' sprayer and spraying the pesticide with 43.9%, 21.9% and 21.5%, respectively. The less important time to wearing safety tools is cleaning the sprayer (43.3%) and mixing the pesticide (7.2%). There are 20.7% and 6.9% of farmer choose mixing and cleaning the sprayer as not important time to use safety tools.
Figure 21: Percentage of Farmers' Using Safety Tools.
Figure 21 show the important of safety tools used when the spraying the pesticide. The safety tools used were mask (100%), glove and apron (93.1%), goggle (87.8), hat (71.2%), but, long sleeves and trouser (64.8%), and protection coat (36.1%).
Figure 22: Disposal of Used Pesticide Containers
Figure 22 show the percentage of farmers' disposal of used pesticide container. About 57% of the farmer disposed of used pesticide container by leaving them scattered in the field and some (43%) buried used container in the soil.
Figure 23: Percentage of Place for Washing Pesticide Sprayers among the Farmers.
Figure 23 show the percentage of place for washing pesticide sprayer. After pesticide spraying, farmers usually wash their sprayers right away. Sprayer washing was commonly done in the fields by using available stored water (78.5%) or washing at the edge of house wells (13.9%). However, a few farmers (7.6%) washed their sprayers at a nearby river.
Respondent farmers generally knew that pesticide use can cause negative impacts on human health. Most farmers (78.2%) answered 'yes' when asked whether pesticides could cause negative effect to human, environment and other animals (Table 4). There are a few farmer (13.4) % answered 'no' as their answer and 8.4% of farmers did not answer the question.
In this survey, respondent farmers were asked whether they have ever experienced any pesticide poisoning after applying pesticides. The commonest symptom of pesticide poisoning experienced by respondent farmers was headache, which was reported by 50.6 % of respondents. Other common symptoms were itchy eyes (29.3%). Fewer farmers reported that they have ever experienced pesticide poisoning with the following symptoms: itchy skin, nausea, teary eyes, vomiting, and difficulty in breathing.
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Negative impacts of pesticides
Yes
No
No responses
187
32
20
78.2
13.4
8.4
Symptoms of pesticide poisoning
Headache
Vomiting
Nausea
Itchy skin
Itchy eyes
Difficulty to breath
Teary eyes
No response
121
19
39
48
70
13
30
21
50.6
7.9
16.3
20.1
29.3
5.4
12.6
10
Table 4: Impact of Pesticide and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning.
4.6 Source and channel of information
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Source of information on pesticide type and rate
Agriculture officer
Relative
Friend
Own experience
Instruction on bottle
Pesticide seller
Promotion
184
38
115
100
217
98
34
77
15.9
48.1
41.8
90.8
41
14.2
Pest management consultant
Yes
No
238
1
99.6
0.4
Source of information on pest control
Agriculture office
KADA
KETARA
MARDI
BERNAS
PELADANG
FAMA
Pesticide company
8
43
194
5
8
48
3
11
3.3
18
81.2
2.1
3.3
20.1
1.3
4.6
Farmer attended pest control courses
Yes
No
173
66
72.4
27.6
Farmer owning manual / pamphlet on pest control
Yes
No
28
211
11.7
88.3
Source of manual / pamphlet on pest control
Department of Agriculture
Pesticide seller
Mardi
16
9
3
57.1
32.1
10.7
Level of understanding
Yes
No
23
6
82.1
17.9
Agriculture officer give enough information
Yes
No
178
61
74.5
25.5
Table 5: Source of Information
Farmers' access of information is shown in table 5. Most of the farmers (90.8%) get information of pesticide type and rate on the bottle and follows by getting information from agriculture officer, friends, own experience, pesticide seller, relative and promotion from pesticide company with 77%, 48.1%, 41.8%, 41%, 15.9% and 14.2%, respectively.
Majority farmer (99.6%) answered yes when asked whether receive consultation on pest management in their rice field. Major source of information from KETARA (81.2%), follows by PELADANG (20.1%), KADA (18%), pesticide company (4.6%), agriculture officer and BERNAS (3.3%) and FAMA (1.3%).
From 239 respondents', only 28% of the farmers owned manual or pamphlet on pest control, which they obtained from Department of Agriculture (57.1%), pesticide seller (32.1%) and MARDI (10.7%). Only 74.5% of farmers understand the content of the manual or pamphlet that they have. About 74.5% of farmers claimed that agriculture officer gives enough information on pest control practices and the rest answered no.
4.7 Economic aspect
Figure 24: Percentage of Farmers' Income per Season
Figure 24 show the percentage of farmers' income per season which is 69.9% obtained income between RM 0 to RM5000. Follows by farmer obtained income between RM5000 to RM10000, RM 10000 to RM 15000, RM 15000 to RM 20000 and more than RM20000 with 16.7%, 5.9%, 4.2% and 3.3%, respectively.
Figure 25: Percentage of Farmers' Gross Yield per Season
According to figure 25, 86.6% of famers obtained below 10 tons per season. Follows by obtained 11 to 20 tons (9.6%), obtained 21 to 30 tons (2.5%) and obtained more than 31 tons (1.3%).
Figure 26: Percentage of Farmer's Subsidy
From figure 26, 71% of farmers get incentive or subsidy from government, while 6% of the farmers choose no as their answer. 23% of farmer did not response to this question.
Figure 27: Percentage of Farmers' Quality Discount
Figure 27 show the percentage of farmers' that receive quality discount. Majority (36.8%) of the farmer receive 20% of quality discount. Follow by 22% of quality discount and 18% of quality discount with 24.3% and 19.2%, respectively. 19.2% of farmers did not response to this question.
The production cost of rice includes seedling, fertilizer, pesticide, labor and land rental. There are 5.4% of farmer did not response to this question. Majority of the farmer (49.8%) paid less than RM 200 for seed, 15.5% paid between RM 201 to RM 400, 13.8% paid between RM 401 to RM 600, 6.7% paid more than RM1001, 5.4% paid between RM 601 to RM 800 and 3.3% paid between RM 801 to RM 1000.
For extra fertilizer, 74.5 % of farmer paid below RM 200, follows by paid between RM 201 to RM 400, more than RM 1001, between RM 601 to RM 800, between RM 801 to RM 1000 and between RM 401 to RM 600 with 15.1%, 2.1%, 1.7%, 0.8% and 0.4 %, respectively. Majority of the farmer (43.5%) paid below RM 200 for pesticide, 30.5% paid between RM 201 to RM 400, 10.4% paid between RM 401 to RM 600, 8% paid more than RM 1001 and 1.3% paid for between RM 601 to RM 800 and between RM 801 to RM 1000.
About 14.4% of farmer did not pay for labor cost, 75.3% paid less than RM 500, 4.6% paid more than RM 1001 and 1.3% paid between RM 501 to RM 1000. There are 23.8% of farmer did not pay for rent because they own the land. 60.2% paid less than RM1000 and 10.4% paid more than RM 1001.
Cost (RM)
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Seed
<200
201 - 400
401 - 600
601 - 800
801 - 1000
>1001
119
37
33
13
8
16
49.8
15.5
13.8
5.4
3.3
6.7
Fertilizer
<200
201 - 400
401 - 600
601 - 800
801 - 1000
>1001
178
36
1
4
2
5
74.5
15.1
0.4
1.7
0.8
2.1
Pesticide
<200
201 - 400
401 - 600
601 - 800
801 - 1000
>1001
104
73
24
3
3
19
43.5
30.5
10.4
1.3
1.3
8
Labor
None
<500
501 - 1000
>1001
32
180
3
11
14.4
75.3
1.3
4.6
Rent
None
<1000
>1001
57
144
24
23.8
60.2
10.4
No response
13
5.4
Table 6: Cost of Production per Season
4.8.1 Relationship between farmers' background and pest control adoption and practices
The result shows relationship between education attainments with pest control practices and pesticide use which is significant difference at (p = 1.554, X2 = 0.67) and (p = 1.672, X2 = 0.643) (appendix 2 and 3). There is significant difference between education attainment with biological, cultural and mechanical method of practices at (p = 3.074, X2 = 0.38), (p = 1.687, X2 = 0.64) and (p = 1.91, X2 = 0.591), with secondary school (52.2%), (54.3%) and (59.6%) (Appendix 4, Appendix 5 and appendix 6).
4.8.2 Relationship between pest control adoptions with pest control method
There is significant different between pest control adoption and chemical control method at (p = 1.59, X2 = 0.00) (Appendix 7). 58.2% of farmers that adopting pest control by using biological control with significant difference at (p = 2.756, X2 = 0.97) (Appendix 8). Only 11.0% of farmer owned manual or pamphlet given by agriculture officer or pesticide company (Appendix 9).
4.8.3 Relationship between pest control adoptions with pesticide application.
There is no significant different between pest control adoptions with pesticide application by farmers.
4.8.4 Relationship between seriousness of pest, disease and weed with pest control adoption
The result show significant difference between pest control adoption and seriousness of pest, disease and weed infestation. Brown leafhopper (p = 8.556, X2 = 0.03), black bug (p = 4.163, X2 = 0.41), rat (p = 58.237, X2 = 0.00), army worm (p = 2.712, X2 = 0.10), leaf folder (p = 10.560, X2 = 0.001), eel (p = 6.555, X2 = 0.010) and water hyacinth (p = 5.223, X2 = 0.022), respectively (Appendix 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and16).
4.9 Discussion
From the result showed 91.6% males and 8.4% females. Majority of respondents are married that aged between 51 to 60 years old. The respondents in this sample have a very high frequency in secondary level of education with 56.5%. Majority of the farmers farm scale was less than 9 acres and most of them work as full time farmer. About 40.6% of famers own and rent the farm and 84.5% of them were in group of center management. Farmers in this group were lead by block leader whom act as mediator between farmers and agriculture officer.
Brown leafhopper, blast and weedy rice infestation were the most threat to the farmers. Even though brown leafhopper, blast and weedy rice infestation were high, leaf folder, neck rot and wiregrass extremely serious threat to the farmers. Majority of the farmers used chemical control method in their farm and most of them used legal pesticide.
The types of insecticide that used by most farmers were Karate® and Tapisan®. Both of the insecticides were used to control leaf folder. For fungicide, majority of the farmers use Score® and Armure® to control disease infestation. 74.9% of farmer used Solito® as herbicide. There are farmers still using Paraquat as herbicide, even though it has been banned by Ministry of Agriculture.
Half of the farmers using pesticide in their farm because of fast action, and 33% of them choose effective as their answer. Majority of the farmers decided to spray the pesticide when they notice the presence of pest in their field with frequency of twice a week. They also decided to spray according to spraying schedule which was 5 to 8 times per season. Only 9.2% decided to spray according to economic threshold level. That's mean, farmer's knowledge on threshold was very poor and they need guidance from agriculture officer.
Only 29.2% of farmers apply mix pesticides, they usually apply 3 to 4 types of pesticide in a sprayer to save time, labor and saving time. Rest of the farmers did not mixed pesticide because they think, if they mix the pesticide, the mixture will be poisonous and harmful.
Majority of farmers aware of safety handling of pesticide, they usually wear safety mask when preparing and mixing the pesticide. All the farmers choose safety mask as the most important tools when preparing and mixing the pesticide. Majority of the farmer washed the pesticide spryer in the field by using available stored water and buried used pesticide container in the soil.
Majority of farmer aware of negative impact of pesticides and the commonest symptom of pesticide poisoning experienced by respondent farmers was headache. Most of the farmers treated any sickness which may have been due to pesticide poisoning by themselves by eating sardine and drinking coconut water and lime juice. It is noted that farmers have learned that pesticides can cause chronic health problems in addition to acute poisoning.
Most respondents receive information about type and rate of pesticide from instruction on the bottle and agriculture officer. Majority of the farmer received consultancy on pest control practices from IADA KETARA (Terengganu) and KADA (Kelantan).
Surprisingly, only 11.7% of farmer owned manual or pamphlet on pest control practices and 82.1% of the farmers understand the content of the manual or pamphlet. They received manual or pamphlet mostly from Department of Agriculture, pesticide seller and MARDI. Most of the farmer attending pest control courses organized by agriculture officer. Even though attending pest control practices course, only 74.5% claimed that agriculture officer give enough information.
CHAPTER 5
Conclusion
5.1 Conclusion
The general objective of this study is to determine farmers' attitude and source of information towards pest control practices. To achieve this objective, a survey has been conducted at IADA KETARA and KADA. This study has shown that by using questionnaire method, it is a reliable and valid tool that could determine farmers' attitude and source of information towards pest control practices. By using high reliability and validity questionnaires, the researcher could understand better the farmers' attitude towards pest control practices.
The sample comprises 91.6% males and 8.4% females. Majority of respondents are married that consist of 90%, 5% still single, 3% divorced and only 2% others. The age group was divided to 20 to 30 years old, 31 to 40 years old, 41 to 50 years old, 51 to 60 years old and over 61 years old. Majority of the farmers aged between 51 to 60 years old. The respondents in this sample have a very high frequency in secondary level of education with 56.5%. Majority of the farmers farm scale was less than 9 acres and most of them work as full time farmer. From total respondents, 69.9% of them earn between RM 0 to RM 5000.
From the research, 5.9% of farmers still used illegal pesticide and majority of the farmers using chemical pesticide to control pest, disease and weed population in their field. Most of the farmers aware about negative impacts of pesticide but they still lack of knowledge about economic threshold. Most of the farmers wore some kind of protective clothing during pesticide spraying and they also aware about negative impact of pesticide and common symptom of pesticide poisoning.
Most respondents receive information about type and rate of pesticide from instruction on the bottle and agriculture officer. IADA KETARA and KADA play an important role to ensure farmers receive information about pest control practices. Most of the farmers attending pest control practices course, but only 11.7% owned manual or pamphlet on pest control practices. According to the respondents, most of them think agriculture officer is the most responsible person to ensure the successful of pest control practices among the farmers, because they receive all the information about pest control practices from agriculture officer.
5.2 Limitation of the study
During this survey, there were some limitation occurs, include sample size and honesty and consistency of answer.
5.2.1 Sample size
A total number of 239 respondents were surveyed at selected block at both IADA KETARA and KADA by using survey method. So, it is not wise to say that this result represented the total farmer in Kelantan and Terengganu due to it is only represented farmers in selected block. The data or information may not be applicable for others farmers situated in another places due to variance in location, size and farmer practices which influence by culture, history background, demographic and other factors.
Desirably, a larger sample size of respondents will be enable researcher to get a better result, as more people from other block will be analyzed, therefore, enhancing a more accurate and tangible results can be used more widely.
5.2.3 Honesty and consistent answer
Another limitation to this study was the possibility of respondents' bias, which cannot control the respondents providing honest and consistency data, where information provided by the respondents were either pure sincerity or just to facilitate this survey. Sometimes, answers are not provided under unwilling circumstances or situation. Besides, some respondents did not take the questionnaire seriously by simply filling up the questionnaire, which resulted in the inaccuracy findings of this research. Some respondents even refused filling up the questionnaire, which cause a low respond rate.
5.3 Recommendation
5.3.1 Government intervention
Malaysian government, especially Ministry of Agriculture should play an important rule on the implementation of pest control practices. Government should use a vast array of communication tools ranging from the mass media to educational seminar to explore the information about pesticide and pest control practices. Government also should organize a pest control course that requires famers to attend it before starting new season.
5.3.2 Pesticide company
Pesticide company plays an important rules to educate the farmers on pesticide application. They should provide right information on rate of pesticide and safety measure when handling the pesticide.
