An experiment was conducted at Nagari union in Kaligonj Upazila of Gazipur district to determine the impact of Integrated Pest Management practices on tomato cultivation. Data were collected by using pre-designed interview schedule from 1 st March to 5 th August, 2014. The results of the study showed that in the study area farmers cultivated tomato in 14.6% of their land and there are eight IPM practices which are generally used by the farmers in their tomato fields. Regarding the overall adoption of IPM practices in tomato cultivation, 65.0% respondent farmers were in medium to high adoption category. The IPM Practice Use Index (IPUI) was found significantly higher in case of IPM adopters than in case of IPM non-adopters. But “use of pheromone trap”, “setting up the bamboo stick in the field” and “cultivation and use of green manure” were ranked as 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd, respectively in case of IPM adopters whereas “setting up bamboo stick in field”, “cultivation and using green manure” and “use quality and resistant seeds” obtained 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd rank, respectively in case of IPM non-adopters. The average infestation of insect and disease was found significantly lower in the fields of IPM adopter (9.7%) than IPM non-adopter (11.8%). The average frequency of chemical use in the season was also significantly lower in the fields of IPM adopter (2.14 times) than IPM non-adopter (3.44 times). The marketable yield was found significantly higher in the fields of IPM adopter (51.34 t/ha) than in the fields of IPM non-adopter (42.24 t/ha). The average gross return was also significantly higher in case of IPM adopter (526,143 taka/ha) than IPM non-adopter (472,647 taka/ha). The Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of IPM adopter (2.41) was also found significantly higher than the BCR of IPM non-adopter (1.44).
Tomato is the most consumable vegetable crop after potato and sweet potato occupying the top of the list of canned vegetables and plays an important role in providing balanced nutrition. Its consumption quantity in recent years increased at an average rate of 3% annually [
The study was conducted at Nagari union in Kaligonj Upazila of Gazipur district. Out of 14 villages, two villages namely Birtul and Ulukhola were selected randomly on the basis of the intensity of IPM practices in tomato cultivation.
The data were collected from 1st March to 5th August, 2014 through interview schedule by the researchers on some selected characteristics of the respondents which were treated as independent variable viz. age, educational qualification, family size, farm size, farming experience, Annual income, Extension agency contact, Organizational participation, Innovativeness and Cosmopoliteness. Adoption of IPM practices was treated as dependent variable of the study. The descriptive and diagnostic research design was used in the present study. 80 farmers who cultivated tomato were randomly selected as the sample for the study. Tomato growers of the selected union were the main unit of analysis of the present study. Data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations) were used for data analysis to accomplish the objectives.
A survey was designed in order to adopt the IPM practices by the farmers. An index was considering its eight practices. Four point rating scale was used for each of the item statement viz. frequently, occasionally, rarely and not at all and the corresponding score 3, 2, 1 and 0 were assigned, respectively. [
IPUI = N 1 × 3 + N 2 × 2 + N 3 × 1 + N 4 × 0
where,
IPUI = IPM Practice Use Index, N1 = Number of farmers used IPM practices frequently, N2 = Number of farmers used IPM practices occasionally, N3 = Number of farmers used IPM practices rarely and N4 = Number of farmers used IPM practices not at all.
Performance of IPM field was measured on the basis of different particulars on 2011-12 and 2012-13 tomato production year. Tomato growers were asked different questions to estimate the value of the particulars like frequency of insecticide use, frequency of fungicide use, damping off, cutworm, fruit borer, leaf blight, leaf miner, white fly, wilting and marketable yield.
The important impact indicators used were yield, cost of cultivation, cost of production and net returns and benefit-cost ratio (BCR). The significance of difference in the indicators between IPM and non-IPM adopters was studied using the t-test. The IPM technology was considered superior if the profits were higher compared to those in farmers’ practice. This could be written symbolically as:
T R ( I ) − T C ( I ) > T R ( N ) − T C (N)
where, TR(I) = Total returns from IPM practices, TR(N) = Total returns from non IPM practice, TC(I) = Total cost incurred by IPM farmers, TC(N) = Total cost incurred by non-IPM farmers.
T R = ∑ P i ⋅ Y i , T C = ∑ P j ⋅ X j + a
where, Pi = Price of the ith output ( i = 1 , ⋯ , n ), Yi = Quantity of the ith output ( i = 1 , ⋯ , n ).
Pj = Price of the jth input ( j = 1 , ⋯ , m ), Xj = Quantity of the jth input ( j = 1 , ⋯ , m ).
a = Fixed costs like rental value of land, depreciation, etc.
BCR = { Goss returns ( tk / ha ) ÷ Total operational cost ( tk / ha ) } × 100
where, Gross returns (tk) = Actual per ha yield of vegetables × market price (tk/t),
Net returns (tk) = Gross returns (tk/ha) − total operational cost (tk/ha),
BCR = benefit cost ratio (operational cost).
Four point rating scale was applied for each the advantages namely high, medium, low and not at all and the corresponding score 3, 2, 1 and 0 were assigned, respectively. Total score of each advantage by different components of IPM practices could range from 0 to 240; 0 indicating no advantage and 240 indicating very high advantage of IPM practices.
Mean score of each advantage by IPM practices = ( ∑ i = 1 N S i ) ÷ 3 N
where, S = score given by each farmer, N = total number of farmers.
i = ith advantage, 3 = the maximum score for each advantages.
Eight problems were selected and arranged in order to real feelings of tomato growers by marking. Four types of rating scale was applied for each problem namely; high, medium, low and no and the corresponding score 3, 2, 1 and 0 were assigned, respectively. Each farmer was given a total score consisting of the sum of the scores for the problems of IPM practicing in tomato field. Thus, importance score of a respondent could range from 0 to 18, while “0” indicating no problem and “18” indicating very high problem. For easy understanding of the problem, the importance score (IS) of each of the problems was expressed in percentage by using the following formula:
Important Problem Score Index ( IPSI ) = ( Possible Problem Score ÷ Observed Score ) × 100
The IPSI for each of the problems range from 0 to 100; 0 indicating nobody faced the problem and 100 indicating all the respondents faced the problem frequencies.
To find out solution for overcoming problems in use of IPM practices, several consultation discussions were held with tomato grower. Ten solutions were selected and arranged in order to real feelings of tomato growers by marking. The same procedure used for measuring problems, was adopted to measure the importance of suggestions received from the respondents. Four types of rating scale were applied for each suggestion namely; high, medium, low and no and the corresponding score 3, 2, 1 and 0 were assigned, respectively. Thus the importance score (IS) of suggestions was computed by summing up the weights for each responses of all the respondents and the importance score of any suggestions could, therefore, range from zero (0) to 240. The importance score (IS) of each of the suggestion was then expressed in percentage by using the following formula:
Important Solution Score Index ( ISSI ) = ( Possible Solution Score ÷ Observed Score ) × 100
where, zero indicated no important suggestion for encouraging the IPM practices and 100 indicated very high encouraging suggestion for practicing IPM in rice cultivation by the farmers.
In the study area, age of the farmers was ranged from 25 years to 61 years above with an average of 42.19 years and the highest proportion (63.70%) of the respondents felt in middle age. The majority (57.60%) of the respondents was secondary level of education and the highest proportion (71.20%) of the respondents had medium family size. The farm size of the respondents was varied from 0.246 to 1.23 hectares and majority (65%) of the respondents was medium farm size. The highest proportion (71.2%) of the respondents had medium farming experience. The annual family income of the respondents had ranged from 40,000 to 350,000 taka with an average of 137,688 taka and the highest proportion (77.50%) of the respondents had medium annual income. The highest proportion (73.80%) of the respondents was in medium source of information category and majority (66.10%) of the respondents had medium organizational participation. The maximum proportion (63.70%) of the respondents had medium cosmopoliteness and overwhelming majority (62.50%) of the respondents had medium innovativeness (
It is observed from
Characteristics | Respondents | Characteristics | Respondents | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Frequency | % | Annual income (taka) | Frequency | % |
Young age (up to 35 years) | 14 | 17.5 | Low (up to 100,000 taka) | 8 | 10.0 |
Middle aged (36 to 50 years) | 51 | 63.7 | Medium (100,001 - 200,000 taka) | 62 | 77.5 |
Old aged (above 50 years) | 15 | 18.8 | High (more than 200,000 taka) | 10 | 12.5 |
Educational status | Extension agency contact | ||||
Primary (up to 5 years schooling) | 29 | 36.2 | Low contact (up to 18 score) | 14 | 17.5 |
Secondary (6 - 10 years schooling) | 46 | 57.6 | Medium contact (19 - 29 score) | 59 | 73.8 |
Higher Secondary (above 10 y. sch.) | 5 | 6.2 | High contact (above 29 score) | 7 | 8.7 |
Family size | Organizational participation | ||||
Small (up to 3 person) | 4 | 5.0 | Low participation (up to 25 score) | 10 | 12.5 |
Medium (4 - 5 person) | 57 | 71.2 | Medium part (26 - 40 score) | 53 | 66.1 |
Large (above 5 person) | 19 | 23.8 | High participation (>40 score) | 17 | 21.4 |
Farm size (ha) | Innovativeness | ||||
Small farm (up to 0.39 ha) | 16 | 20.0 | Low (up to 26 score) | 14 | 17.5 |
Medium farm (0.40 to 0.89 ha) | 52 | 65.0 | Medium (27 - 36 score) | 50 | 62.5 |
Large farm (above 0.89 ha) | 12 | 15.0 | High (36+ score) | 16 | 20.0 |
Farming experience | Cosmopoliteness | ||||
Low experience (up to 7 year) | 17 | 21.2 | Low (up to 20 score) | 12 | 15.1 |
Medium experience (8 - 19 year) | 53 | 66.3 | Medium (21 - 26 score) | 51 | 63.7 |
High experience(above 19 year) | 10 | 12.5 | High (26+ score) | 17 | 21.2 |
Data presented in
Categories | Potential land in % | Cultivated land in % |
---|---|---|
IPM adopter | 44.60 | 16.00 |
IPM non-adopter | 45.80 | 13.10 |
Average | 45.20 | 14.60 |
Category | Respondents | Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | % | |||
Little adoption (up to 12) | 28 | 35.00 | 15.45 | 3.69 |
Medium adoption (13 - 18) | 30 | 37.60 | ||
High adoption (18+) | 22 | 27.50 | ||
Total | 80 | 100.00 |
IPM practices | Extent of adoption (n = 51) | IPUI | Rank | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ah | Am | A1 | An | |||||||
F | S | F | S | F | S | F | S | |||
Use of pheromone trap | 47 | 141 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 149 | 1 |
Setting up bamboo stick in field | 46 | 138 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 147 | 2 |
Cultivation and using green manure | 39 | 117 | 10 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 139 | 3 |
Use of quality and resistant seeds | 36 | 108 | 15 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 138 | 4 |
Seed treatment | 10 | 30 | 34 | 68 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 105 | 5 |
Use of light trap | 4 | 12 | 27 | 54 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 85 | 6 |
Use of bait trap | 5 | 15 | 21 | 42 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 7 |
Use of yellow pan sticky traps | 1 | 3 | 25 | 50 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 77 | 8 |
Ah = High adoption, Am = Medium adoption, Al = low Adoption, An = No adoption, IPUI = IPM Practice Use Index, F = Frequency, S = Score.
IPM practices | Score of extend of adoption (n = 29) | IPUI | Rank | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ah | Am | Al | An | |||||||
F | S | F | S | F | S | F | S | |||
Setting up bamboo stick in field | 11 | 33 | 17 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 68 | 1 |
Cultivation and using green manure | 2 | 6 | 21 | 42 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 2 |
Use of quality and resistant seeds | 2 | 6 | 16 | 32 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 3 |
Use of pheromone trap | 0 | 0 | 9 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 4 |
Seed treatment | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 5 |
Use of yellow pan sticky traps | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 27 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 6 |
Use of light trap | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 28 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 7 |
Use of bait trap | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 8 |
Ah = High adoption, Am = Medium adoption, Al = low Adoption, An = No adoption, IPUI = IPM Practice Use Index, F = Frequency, S = Score.
“use quality and resistant seeds” were ranked as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively in case of IPM adopters.
In another way, comparatively lower adoption obtained by them were in case of “seed treatment”, “use of light trap”, “use of bait trap” and “use of yellow pan sticky traps” according to their IPUI scores and ranked as 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th respectively. It is observed from
In another way, comparatively lower adoption obtained by them were in case of “use of pheromone trap”, “seed treatment”, “use of yellow pan sticky traps”, “use of light trap” and “use of bait trap” according to their IPUI score and ranked as 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th, respectively.
Data contained in
It is evident from the quantitative data on the performance of IPM practices that there was reduction in the incidence of diseases and insects with considerably low use of chemicals in the fields of IPM adopter as compared to the fields of IPM non-adopter which ultimately reduce the variable cost causing higher BCR in fields of IPM adopter.
The t valves presented in
Parameters | Fields of IPM adopter | Fields of IPM non-adopter | Mean difference | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2011-12 | 2012-13 | Mean | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | Mean | |||
Insect and disease infestation in % | Cutworm | 11.04 | 9.51 | 9.71 | 11.62 | 11.10 | 11.84 | -2.13 |
Fruit borer | 10.16 | 7.75 | 11.31 | 11.52 | ||||
White fly | 11.47 | 8.25 | 12.03 | 12.66 | ||||
Damping off | 10.75 | 6.37 | 11.34 | 11.28 | ||||
Leaf blight | 12.12 | 9.63 | 13.93 | 11.62 | ||||
Freq. of Chemical use | Insecticide | 2.76 | 2.19 | 2.14 | 3.23 | 4.11 | 3.44 | -1.30 |
Fungicide | 1.98 | 1.63 | 3.14 | 3.26 | ||||
Marketable yield (t/ha) | 49.29 | 53.39 | 51.34 | 44.34 | 40.14 | 42.24 | 9.10 | |
Variable Cost (taka/ha) | 221,094 | 218,742 | 219,918 | 221,833 | 222,787 | 222,310 | −2392 | |
Gross return (taka/ha) | 517,519 | 534,767 | 526,143 | 471,021 | 474,273 | 472,647 | 53,496 | |
BCR | 2.34 | 2.44 | 2.39 | 2.12 | 2.12 | 2.12 | 0.47 |
Parameters | Fields of IPM adopter (mean) | Fields of IPM non-adopter (mean) | t value |
---|---|---|---|
Insect and disease infestation | 9.71 | 11.84 | −2.085* |
Chemical use (No. of times) | 2.14 | 3.44 | −2.008* |
Marketable yield (t/ha) | 51.34 | 42.24 | 7.649** |
Variable cost (Tk./ha) | 219,918 | 222,310 | −0.876NS |
Gross return (Tk./ha) | 526,143 | 472,647 | 2.328* |
BCR | 2.41 | 1.94 | 2.34* |
* = Significant at 5% level of probability, ** = Significant at 1% level of probability, NS = Non-Significant.
Field School in Popularization of IPM Practices in Tomato Cultivation” [
Data contained
The findings in
Advantages | Score of advantages | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | M | L | N | Total score | Mean score | Rank | |
Reduction of seedling mortality | 135 | 66 | 2 | 0 | 203 | 0.85 | 1 |
Reduction of pest infestation | 30 | 118 | 1 | 0 | 179 | 0.75 | 2 |
Reduction of diseases infestation | 54 | 120 | 2 | 0 | 176 | 0.73 | 4 |
Less use of insecticides/pesticides | 60 | 114 | 3 | 0 | 177 | 0.74 | 3 |
Saving labor | 27 | 76 | 33 | 0 | 136 | 0.57 | 6 |
Increased marketable yield | 66 | 74 | 21 | 0 | 161 | 0.67 | 5 |
Increased knowledge and self confidence | 21 | 78 | 34 | 0 | 133 | 0.55 | 7 |
H = High = 3, M = Medium = 2, L = Low = 1, N = Not at all.
outlook in life and helps understand the social, political, economic, cultural and environmental issues in the society. Similarly higher organizational participation assists in sharing knowledge. Innovativeness, also increase the respondents in knowledge and that knowledge lead to make accurate decision making ability. Other selected characteristics (age, family size, farm size, farming experience, annual income, source of information and cosmopoliteness) of the respondent showed insignificant relationships with their extent of adoption of IPM practices which implied that irrespective of these selected characteristics extent of adoption of IPM practice of the respondents were more or less similar.
Data contained in
Selected characteristics (the independent variables) | Co-efficient of correlation (r) (adoption of IPM practices) |
---|---|
Age | 0.162NS |
Education | 0.299** |
Family Size | 0.113NS |
Farm Size | 0.145NS |
Farming Experience | 0.187NS |
Annual Income | 0.202NS |
Source of Information | 0.139NS |
Organizational Participation | 0.222* |
Cosmopoliteness | 0.028NS |
Innovativeness | 0.412** |
NS = Non significant/insignificant, * = significant at 5% level, ** = significant at 1% level, Tabulated value of 0.05 level = 0.195, Tabulated value of 0.01 level = 0.0.254
Various categories of problem | Score of confrontation extent of problem | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | M | L | N | PCI | Rank | |
Longer duration of IPM practices | 195 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 224 | 1 |
Lack of preservation and cold-storage facilities | 150 | 56 | 2 | 0 | 208 | 2 |
Lack of knowledge about beneficial and harmful insects | 117 | 66 | 8 | 0 | 191 | 3 |
Lack of sufficient inputs (seeds, technologies) | 117 | 64 | 9 | 0 | 190 | 4 |
Lack of sufficient publicity through different media | 78 | 98 | 5 | 0 | 181 | 5 |
Non-availability of extension personnel in time | 66 | 102 | 7 | 0 | 175 | 6 |
H = High, M = Medium, L = Low, N = Not at all, PCI = Problems Confronting Index.
This is the main problem of the farmers in using IPM practices. The second and third problems confronted by them are “lack of preservation and cold-storage facilities” and “lack of knowledge about the beneficial and harmful insects” respectively. In this way, comparatively fewer problems confronted by the farmers are “lack of sufficient inputs (seeds, technologies)”, “lack of sufficient publicity through different media” and “non-availability of extension personnel in time” according to their rank 4th, 5th and 6th, respectively. [
Data contained in
Suggestions | Score of Solution | IS | ISSI | Rank | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | M | L | N | ||||
Extend of IPM Club activities | 213 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 229 | 95.42 | 1 |
Arranging practical training for farmers | 162 | 48 | 2 | 0 | 212 | 88.33 | 2 |
Ensuring availability of quality and resistant seeds | 165 | 60 | 5 | 0 | 210 | 87.50 | 3 |
Developing local leadership among the farmers | 153 | 54 | 2 | 0 | 210 | 87.08 | 4 |
Increasing of co-ordination between the farmers and extension workers | 138 | 64 | 2 | 0 | 204 | 85 | 5 |
Arrangement of award for the successful adopter of IPM practices | 141 | 50 | 8 | 0 | 199 | 82.92 | 6 |
Ensuring much more publicity of IPM practices through mass media | 108 | 68 | 10 | 0 | 186 | 77.50 | 7 |
Ensuring proper supervision of extension worker | 90 | 86 | 7 | 0 | 183 | 76.25 | 8 |
Increasing the farmers’ awareness on environment pollution | 81 | 90 | 8 | 0 | 179 | 74.58 | 9 |
Formation of effective organization for the farmers | 69 | 90 | 12 | 0 | 171 | 71.25 | 10 |
H = High, M = Medium, L = Low, N = Not at all, IS = Importance Score, ISSI = Important Solution Score Index.
through national media, ensuring proper supervision of extension worker, increasing the farmers’ awareness on environment pollution and the formation of effective organization for the farmers.
This study reveals useful information for better understanding common problems in tomato production in the study area and farmers’ knowledge of integrated pest management. Some farmers had adequate knowledge about the impact of IPM practices in tomato production, but there were significant gaps in farmers’ knowledge concerning IPM practices. Farmers needed training about integrated pest management strategies to ensure sustainable tomato production, as there is still great room for farmers to improve their knowledge. On issues related to IPM, the extension services should be certainly strengthened. Promoting new concepts, such as IPM for environmentally friendly crop protection to farmers is crucial, but not sufficient. Related to the new concepts training and extension services are also needed. In tomato, production knowledge can make farmers become more aware of pesticide risks and subsequently lead to changes in misleading attitudes.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Fuad, M.A.F., Nurhasan, M. and Kayess, M.O. (2019) Impact of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices on Tomato Cultivation in Gazipur District of Bangladesh. Advances in Entomology, 7, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.4236/ae.2019.72004