Economic evaluation of integrated pest management in rice in Palakkad district

Abstract

Paddy (Oryza sativa L.), is one of the most important cereal crops in the world and the primary food source for more than 60 per cent of the world's population. A host of pests and diseases constrains the production and productivity of paddy. Pesticides and fungicides are widely used to control such pests and diseases. However, the indiscriminate and unscientific use of chemical pesticides in agriculture has several detrimental effects. To overcome these constraints and thereby realize crops' yield potential, integrated pest management (IPM) strategy can be adopted. IPM means the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest population; keep pesticide and other interventions to economically justified levels; and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment (FAO, 2020). The studies regarding the economics of IPM in comparison to conventional practices are scanty in India, especially in Kerala. In this context, the study was carried out with the specific objectives viz. to assess the economics of IPM in rice, to study the extent of adoption of IPM in rice by farmers and to determine society's willingness to pay to reduce the risk associated with pesticide use. The study was based on primary data collected from the respondents of Alathur, Kuzhalmannam and Malampuzha blocks of the Palakkad district. Alathur block was purposively selected as the area where IPM has been practised since 2018 as part of the AICRP-BCCP project of KAU in rice. For assessing the economics of rice cultivation of IPM adopters as well as the extent of adoption of IPM, 30 farmers were randomly selected from the Alathur block. The economics of rice cultivation under the conventional method of pest management was studied by surveying 30 farmers chosen randomly from both Kuzhalmannam and Malampuzha blocks. The society's willingness to pay towards the reduction in risk associated with pesticide use ii was elucidated by randomly interviewing 120 general public from Palakkad district. Thus, the total sample size for the study came to be 180. IPM farms were assessed to have a total cost of cultivation of Rs. 132596 per ha, which was 2.68 per cent less than the non-IPM group's estimated cost of Rs. 136240. The paddy yield showed that IPM farmers harvested more (60.03 quintals/ha) than their non-IPM counterparts (59.16 quintals/ha), resulting in an extra return of Rs 4963 and a net profit of Rs. 8608 per ha. IPM farmers' gross income was 2.88 per cent more (Rs. 177153) than non-IPM farmers (Rs. 172190). The cost of production per kg was found to be Rs. 23 in the non-IPM and Rs. 22 in the IPM. Additionally, it showed that for every rupee invested in paddy output, IPM and non-IPM farmers received benefits of Rs. 1.34 and Rs. 1.27, respectively. It was found that, on average, 80 per cent of all farmers adopted cultural methods, followed by mechanical and biological control methods, which accounted for 45.84 per cent and 45 per cent of all farmers, respectively. A positive thing was observed that the farmers resorted to chemical methods only after consultation with the respective Agricultural Officers in the Krishi Bhavans. Weights were assigned to each practice among the different IPM components as per their contribution to pest management, and a final adoption score was obtained for each sample farmer, and they were classified into low, medium and high adopters accordingly. It was seen that most of the sample farmers (63.33%) were medium adopters of IPM practices. The results from multiple regression analysis found formal training of farmers on IPM practices, their experience in IPM farming and income were positive and significant impacts on the adoption of IPM practices by the paddy farmers. A year wise comparison of different pest and predator population between the IPM and non-IPM plots in Alathur block was made. It was observed that in every year from 2018 to 2022, the amount of pest population and damage caused by pests in IPM plots was comparatively much lesser than that in non-IPM plots. It was also observed that the population of parasitoids and other predators like spiders, Ophionea sp. were higher in IPM plots. Within the IPM plots, a trend of increasing number of predator population was also observed over the years. This shows the cumulative or long term iii effect of implementing IPM technology in the fields. It was clear that implementing IPM practices in the field lead to an eventual decrease in the pest population and an increase in the predator population. The consumers were generally willing to spend an extra amount of Rs. 6.92 per kg for the finished product. Logistic regression analysis used to determine the contribution of independent variables to the consumers' willingness to pay showed that the consumer's age, annual income, perceived benefits from IPM and monthly rice consumption had a positive, significant impact on WTP. The monthly expenditure of the consumer had a significant negative relation with WTP. Although having a positive relation, education of consumers showed no significant impact on WTP. The major constraints faced by farmers adopting and not adopting IPM were identified. The constraints of IPM farmers were high labour cost, climate changes, less knowledge about ETL, less persistence in the field, complex nature of IPM and low initial production.The constraints faced by non-IPM farmers included a lack of belief in IPM, lack of technical guidance, lack of cooperation, non-availability of inputs in local markets, complex nature of IPM and climate changes. Paddy cultivation was found to be more profitable with the adoption of IPM technology. Also, most of the respondents expressed concerns about the harmful effects of the excessive use of chemicals. This highlights the much-needed emphasis on popularising IPM practices. There is a need to ensure the timely availability of inputs and capacity-building programmes for producing bio-agents and bio-pesticides among farmer collectives. The government should also provide financial support so that more and more farmers adopt the technology.