Farmer First
Field schools are a key to IPM success

The techniques of IPM have been applied since the 1960s, but many schemes failed to take root with farmers, in spite of demonstrations that natural enemies effectively control many insect pests.  IPM training is not effective when simply packaged as part of a top-down extension message. In South and South East Asia, an FAO/Government Co-operative Programme has pioneered methods of training rice farmers in the field to understand the plant-pest ecology. (See also conversation between farmers and pesticide salesmen below)

The programme has been operating since 1980 in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand, and since 1987 in China and Vietnam.  By March 1993, about 18,000 extension agents and over 500,000 farmers had been trained(1). Rice growing in Asia employs more than 200 million families: 1992 production was estimated at 480 million tons, or 91% of the world crop.
    Through the participatory approach of Farmer Field Schools, the project has trained farmers to understand the role of natural insect pest enemies in the rice ecosystem.  Farmers save on average US$10 per hectare per season (see Table 1) and participating countries have achieved a 50% reduction, estimated at US$325 million per year.  As most governments still subsidise pesticide purchases this reduction amounts to a significant saving—and questions the need for subsidies. 
    The health and environmental benefits are also considerable.  Farmers become more aware of the hazards of handling and using pesticides, and more critical of those they select, because of potential effects on the local eco-system.
    Multinational agrochemical companies still encourage farmers to spray more than is necessary. They run intensive radio and bill board advertising campaigns; promote products as 'IPM compatible';  and give away T-shirts, caps, pens and so on with the corporate logo.  A plant pathologist at the International Rice Research Institute, Paul Teng, pointed out that "The companies are usually better organised and have more money than government services to get their message across."(2)                     
    However, the field training programmes are a powerful tool. Pesticides continue to be used, but farmers discriminate whether, when and how they may be needed. Their knowlege of natural enemies, economic thresholds of pest damage, and enhanced safety awareness allow them to base crop-management decisions on their own knowledge.  These farmers will not be part of a pesticide treadmill. 
    In December 1993, two pesticide salesmen visited the village of Rawakandang, Karawang District, West Java, Indonesia, to sell their latest product. The discussion, which was recorded and translated, takes place between a farmers’ group and salesmen a major agrochemical corporation(3). It illustrates the progress in equipping farmers to question agrochemical application, and to choose products as one tool among many. These farmers  were IPM-trained by other farmers who had in turn been trained by extension trainers in the fourth or fifth generation of the Indonesian National programme. The names of the village and the farmers have not been changed. (BD)

References:
1. FAO, Intercountry Programme for the Development and Application of Integrated Pest Control in Rice in South and South-East Asia, Phase I and II. Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam, Project Findings and Recommendations. AG:GCP/RAS/092/AUL; AG:GCP/RAS/101/NET; AG:GCP/RAS/108/AGF, Terminal Report, Rome 1994.
2. Madeley, John, Beyond the pestkillers, New Scientist, 7 May 1994.
3. Report of the meeting sent by the FAO Intercountry Programme for Integrated Pest Control in Rice in South and South East Asia, Philippines, April 1994.

The farmers and the salesmen
21 December 1993, 7:00 pm: Farmers began to gather at Pak(Mr) Wakil’s home. Waiting were a salesman and a supervisor from A-Z Pesticides (a pseudonym for a major chemical company based in the North). Previously Pak Wakil’s home had been the place for farmer to farmer IPM meetings, so besides the immediate neighbourhood, the gathering included others trained in field IPM by farmers who had been part of the Indonesian National Programme and who had heard about the meeting. This discussion followed the salesman's brief introduction to the product, Brand-ex (also a pseudonym), a newly registered insecticide with an acute oral toxicity of greater than 2,000 mg/kg.

"Now our teacher doesn't teach us: we teach ourselves. We understand. Photo: FAO

Olim:  Why is Brand-ex safe for natural enemies, when we know that some natural enemies are very sensitive to insecticides?

Salesman: That's the advantage of Brand-ex, which kills rice brown plant hopper (BPH) and stemborers without bothering natural enemies like frogs, fish or worms.

Henda:  But excuse me, Brand-ex is an insecticide, right?  Insect means serangga, and -cida means 'kill', so this is  a poison that kills insects, right?  Hence if fish, worms and frogs aren't killed that might make sense. But I bet it will kill spiders.

Salesman:  No. Brand-ex cannot kill the natural enemies of stemborers and BPH because it is made with a very low dosage, just 0.3 gram, so it won't affect natural enemies.

Supervisor:  Our company conducted many tests and experiments in developing this product and the results were very satisfying.

Wirya:  My question is like this.  If Brand-ex is low dosage, then how does it kill pests since low dosage will be low levels of poisoning power?

Salesman:  A-Z Pesticides, our company, developed this product from a special chemical—the smaller the dosage the greater the poisoning power.

Olim:  Then it kills all insects ... that's my point.

Supervisor: But this isn't true. Brand-ex only selectively kills stemborers and BPH.

Henda:  Excuse me again, I doubt we can come to an agreement on this. We're just farmers, and we won't believe it until we prove it for ourselves.

Supervisor:  That's fine. So try the Brand-ex.

Henda:  Sure, from the first I wanted to make an experiment, to test your information against my opinion. So I'd like to have a sample for a test.

Supervisor:  If that's the case, then we agree to make a test. Now I have a question. Brand-ex is effective when applied at what age of the crop?

Salesman, answering: 20 days.

Henda:  How long does the poison stay alive?

Salesman: 70-90 days.

Henda:  A rice crop takes 120 days, right?  120 days from the start of the seedbed, not from transplant, so 25 days in the seedbed. Let's add a bit. 120 days total minus 25 days in the seedbed leaves 95 days, 20 days more until application leaves 75 days. If Brand-ex lasts for 90 days that means the rice we harvest is still full of active poison for 15 days. I fear that poison will accumulate in the bodies of farmers and consumers and I know that most pesticides stay in the body.

Supervisor: But no, actually this is the advantage of Brand-ex. It cannot produce poisoning in humans, let alone death—at most a little dizziness;  but this is understandable since it is a poison.

Henda:  Again pardon me, but I'm not too worried about dying immediately. I'm worried about accumulation in the body. I remember the stories of my parents, that before all these pesticides few people suffered from kidney disease, cancer and other sorts of illness common now. When I consulted with the Doctor, he said that one contributor to these illnesses might be pesticides.

Supervisor:  If the Doctor said this, maybe it’s so, but Brand-ex is no risk to us. Just compare it to Furadan 3G (parathion), it makes sense if poisoning occurs with this. Maybe Brand-ex could be lethal with about 1.6 kg.  For Furadan, a single granule can cause poisoning, for Brand-ex a handful wouldn’t affect you.

Olim:  If Brand-ex is so safe, let's try dissolving a few spoonfuls in a glass of water. My friend Wirya here is willing to drink this, as long as you will be responsible for anything that happens. Or should we try 0.5 kg. of Brand-ex in water, we'll feed it to a duck and see what happens, will it die or not?

Supervisor: Hey, don't be like that.  This is a poison and you shouldn’t talk about drinking it. I myself after handling Brand-ex always wash my hands. This is the problem with farmers, they are very careless, when they spray or apply they never use protective gear and that is a big mistake.

Karmo: Olim's question is right. You say the advantage of Brand-ex is that it kills pests but not natural enemies, so Wirya is willing to drink this safe product and so is the duck because they are not BPH or stemborers so they won't be affected by Brand-ex.  If Brand-ex is dangerous it is because it is systemic and lasts for 90 days which means residues.  Brand-ex is absorbed by the roots and spread throughout the plant, finally to the rice grain and then into the consumer. I don’t believe the residue disappears.

Salesman:  Brand-ex doesn’t kill natural enemies nor have any harmful effect upon the environment. But don’t talk about drinking it!

Olim:  My question is unanswered;  Wirya is still willing to drink Brand-ex if you insist it is safe for humans.

Supervisor:  It's safe, but don’t be determined to drink it!

Olim:  Yes. We’re farmers, we don't understand everything. So you have to watch what you say, and not talk irresponsibly.

Supervisor:  But don’t threaten to drink it.

Henda:  Sorry, sir, but my friend's question is right. The problem is this:  if there weren’t such questions I don’t know what might happen to us. Not all farmers are knowledgeable, some just follow along. Information like you gave us, that Brand-ex is safe for humans, will confuse a lot of farmers.  For example, if a farmer is applying Brand-ex and his wife comes with food, sometimes the farmer washes his hands in the field where he has just applied pesticide.

Supervisor:Yes. Many farmers are careless and make mistakes, sometime poisons not allowed on rice, like Thiodan (endosulfan) are still applied.  

Henda:  Pardon me again, sir, we farmers don’t like to be blamed like that because before we spray we ask the fieldworker, "Sir, what’s wrong with my field and what pesticide should I use?" The fieldworker says, "Use this" and then the farmer sprays. In this case, I don’t think the farmer can be blamed.

Sukar: Still talking about Brand-ex ... Brand-ex is spread on the field, and as Karmo said it is absorbed into the plant. Stemborer larva get into the stem of the plant that contains pesticide and hence die. What’s the difference, other insects like caseworms chewing on the plant, mosquito larva in the water, beetles crawling on the plant, or dragon flies sitting on the leaves ... won’t they die too?

Supervisor: Every insect has its poison. Caseworms have their own specific poison, they won’t be killed by Brand-ex because Brand-ex is made specifically to kill BPH and stemborers; not natural enemies.

Henda:  Our talk has been a lot about health ... I've heard that in some areas in Central Java the Health Department checked farmers' blood ...

Karmo:  Yes in Brebes they checked farmers and even women students in the village ...

Henda:  And what’s important is that from the blood test is that nearly all the farmers in the area suffered from pesticide poisoning. We don’t want that to happen here.

Supervisor:  That's right, our farmers are always careless. They spray without protection, sometimes they mix with bare hands, when asked they say they have always done it this way with no problem ... that they are immune to pesticides. It's possible that pesticide has already entered their pores.

Henda: Again, pardon me, but if those tested were just farmers, I might be satisfied with your answer. But they also tested non-farmers and found them poisoned, meaning the consumers of agriculture are being poisoned.

Supervisor:  Sure, chemicals don’t only come from agricultural products ... other processed food like bottled tea and coca-cola also contain chemicals. My expertise is in chemistry, so I know about the chemicals contained in processed foods. So things like cancer come not just from pesticides but from other food chemicals also, especially from factory processed foods.

Henda:  Oh if that's what you say Supervisor, I believe the Doctor who did the testing and  said that it was probably pesticides causing increased cancer.

Karmo:  It's getting late, so what is our result? Are we going to do a trial, and if so when?

Supervisor: How many plots will you test?

Henda: Wait a minute!  We're not going to try it in the field.  We’re going to try it in things like the 'insect zoo'.

Supervisor: What's that? And how do you do it?

Henda: Like this. We take a pot with soil, water and plant. Then we cover it with cheesecloth. Then we put in the insects we want to test like BPH and spiders and then we apply Brand-ex.

Wirya: OK, since it is safe, we’ll use a large dose of Brand-ex to see what happens.

Henda: No, I think it’s better just to use the recommended dosage. We’ll do one with a lot of Brand-ex and one with the recommended dosage.

Supervisor: Anytime. I turn the insect zoo trial over to you. But I also ask that you try this in one or two field plots. I’m sorry that I won’t be able to attend the trials.

Karmo: Hey, I want you to witness the results!

Supervisor:  Let's see, how about Friday ( 27/1/94)?

Salesman: So we agree to start on Friday. If possible I’ll attend. I guess the meeting is over here. I’m sorry that this time I haven’t brought souvenirs like hats or shirts.

After the meeting ended at 11 pm, one farmer commented:  "They twist the facts each time. They say they promote IPM but just want to sell poisons."

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 24, June 1994, pages 12-13]