1. ORIGINAL
Farmer Acceptance in Rice Pest Management: A Comparative Analysis Between Rice
Growing Farmers in Thailand and Bhutan
Ngawang1
, Apichai Daorai2
, Surachate Jamornmarn2
and Somsak Thongdeethae3
ABSTRACT
Farmer surveys were used to study trends in rice pest management practices and to
compare knowledge levels and perceptions between rice pest management farmers in
Thailand and Bhutan. The selected farmers belonged to farmers’ field school organization.
Use of insecticides followed by herbicides remains the dominant control tactic of farmers. A
small portion of rice farmers in Thailand, as compared to that of the farmers in Bhutan, was
still using insecticide compounds like organophosphates and organochlorines which are
hazardous to human health. The perception and insights into knowledge and skills on rice
pest management tested with regard to their acceptance on rice pest management were found
to be positive in continuing the programs given the availability of simple and non-costing
technology. Rice pest management farmers in Thailand were relatively more knowledgeable
on management practices than the farmers in Bhutan.
From this study, the outlook for pest management programs calls for intensification
and diversification of more appropriate knowledge for the resource poor farmers through the
ongoing farmers’ field school approach. The trends in present rice pest management
strategies designed for the farmers’ situation needed not only timely and accurate information
with respect to identification of key pests but also making the farmers aware on the use of
selective pesticides before drastic chemical actions are deployed. Also, the need for imparting
knowledge on practicality of economic threshold levels is crucial.
Key words: rice, rice pest management, farmer acceptance, knowledge levels, perception
1 Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu, Bhutan.
2 Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand.
3 Pathum Thani Rice Research Center, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thanyaburi 12110,
Thailand.

2. ORIGINAL 1
INTRODUCTION
In fulfilling the global demand of rice for the ever increasing population, man has
come to depend heavily on pesticides. Rice remains to be the staple food of over half of
world’s population (David, 1991), grown in about 124 million hectares (Dale, 1994) by
approximately 600 million farmers (De Bach and Rosen, 1991), of which Asia accounts for
59% of global population (IRRI, 1993). Likewise, millions of people in Asia depend entirely
on rice and over 90% of the world’s rice is both grown and eaten (IRRI, 1994).
Rice pest management (RPM) has been heralded as a means to enhance agricultural
profits and human living conditions while reducing pesticide risks to human health and the
natural environment. A vital aspect of the RPM program, in the end, is the call for a sound
research output. One of the outputs, as we put in, is the farmers’ acceptance besides the
generation of cost effective RPM technologies including a package that is environmentally
sound. Farmers’ acceptance is highly regarded to be the most important entity in bringing
about a successful implementation of the programs. Actions of society, at large, place many
constraints on the way the tactics can be deployed in the implementation of an RPM program.
As pointed out by Goodell et al. (1990), farmers’ perceptions and acceptance greatly
influence the tactics used in RPM programs.
Farmers’ acceptance as an integral part of the RPM, their knowledge, attitude and
perceptions have been studied through developing a survey questionnaire instrument. For
this, 50 respondents each of RPM farmers belonging to farmers’ field school (FFS) from Lam
Luk Ka sub-district in Pathum Thani province, Thailand and RPM-farmers from Toep,
Mewang and Bab blocks in Thimphu district, Bhutan were selected for the studies to assess
their level of understanding on the concepts of RPM in consideration with socio-demographic
profile, agronomic practices and pest management practices. Attempts have been made to
compare their knowledge and skills on RPM based on the criteria and attributes of pest
management. The study was focused on to studying their acceptance that would guide the
researchers in generating more appropriate RPM technologies that best suited farmers’
working condition and construe a baseline projection to further enhance research priorities in
future.

3. ORIGINAL 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The personal interview method was employed to collect data on farmers’ perceptions,
attitudes, level of understanding and knowledge on RPM. The questionnaire, first written in
English, was translated into Thai and back-translated to English to ensure originality of the
intended meanings. The questionnaire was pre-tested once with four farmers and
subsequently used for the survey work after slight modifications. The survey was designed to
describe the socio-demographic profiles of rice farmers in Thailand and Bhutan, to record the
agronomic and pest management practices followed, and to obtain detailed information about
farmers’ knowledge and attitudes on insect pests and natural enemies of rice and their use of
pesticides.
The survey was conducted by a team of staff from research center and entomology
students of the Kasetsart University while the same in Bhutan was conducted by a group of
agriculture extension agents. A total of 100 farmers (50 RPM farmers in Thailand and 50
RPM farmers in Bhutan) were selected. The respective RPM farmers were selected randomly
from the village having the FFS. Survey data were analyzed using SPSS ®
. In most cases,
percentages were based on the total sample for comparison.
RESULTS
1. Socio-demographic profile of farmers
About one-third of the RPM farmers in Bhutan were below the age of 30 representing
younger people than the RPM farmers in Thailand (Table 1). Majority of the RPM farmers in
Bhutan was less educated having attended only up to secondary level (2%). Principal
occupation of the RPM farmers in Bhutan remained to be rice growing unlike the RPM
farmers in Thailand, and their secondary occupation was vegetable growing (42%).

4. ORIGINAL 3
Table 1 Socio-demographic profile of rice farmers interviewed (n=50) for two
categories of farmers.
Farmer categories
Profiles Thai RPM farmer Bhutan RPM farmer
Gender No. % No. %
1. Male 39 78 20 40
2. Female 11 22 30 60
Age class
1. <21 yr 1 2 5 10
2. 21-30 yr 9 18 12 24
3. 31-40 yr 11 22 9 18
4. 41-50 yr 18 36 24 48
5. 51-60 yr 11 22 - -
Education level
1. Never attended 1 2 44 88
2. Primary 41 82 5 10
3. Secondary 8 16 1 2
4. Bachelor - - - -
Principal/Secondary occupation
1. Rice growing 48* (2)** 96* (4)** 50* (-)** 100* (-)**
2. Orchard growing - (5) - (10) - (6) - (12)
3. Vegetable growing - (-) - (-) - (21) - (42)
4. Flower growing - (8) - (16) - (-) - (-)
5. Field crop growing - (1) - (2) - (8) - (16)
6. Livestock raising - (3) - (6) - (3) - (6)
7. Working for wages 2 (30) 4 (60) - (-) - (-)
8. Buying and selling - (1) - (2) - (12) - (24)
* Principal occupation of the farmers, ** Secondary occupation of the farmers (figures in bracket)
A household in Bhutan consisted of a mean family member of 8.78 as against 4.76 for
the RPM farmers in Thailand (Table 2). Most of the Bhutanese RPM farmers depended on
temporary hired labors for rice cultivation unlike the RPM farmers in Thailand whose main
source was from their family members.
Table 2 Mean family members and labors from different sources for rice farming
for the two categories of farmers.
Labors and family members Thai RPM farmer Bhutan RPM farmer
1. Mean total family members 4.76 8.78
2. Mean labors from family members 2.3 2.7

5. ORIGINAL 4
3. Mean permanent labors hired 0.2 0.004
4. Mean temporary labors hired 1.6 10.98
2. Rice crop and planting technology
1) Wetland holdings
The average wetland owned by the RPM farmers in Bhutan ranged from 2-10 rais
(80%) per household (Table 3) which showed three times less than the farmers in Thailand.
Table 3 Wetland holdings of the two categories of farmers (n=50).
Farmer categories
Wetland holdings (rais*) Thai RPM farmer Bhutan RPM farmer
No. % No. %
1. < 2 - - 8 16
2. 2-10 6 12 40 80
3. 10-20 14 28 2 4
4. 20-30 17 34 - -
5. 30-40 3 6 - -
6. 40-50 3 6 - -
7. 50-60 4 8 - -
8. 60-70 1 2 - -
9. 70-80 - - - -
10. > 80 2 4 - -
* 1 rai = 0.16 hectare
2) Agronomic practices
Almost all the farmers carried out the land preparation using the power tillers
except 2% of the RPM farmers in Bhutan who used bullock draught for the purpose (Table
4). All RPM farmers in Bhutan obtained their seed from their own stock (100%) as against
40% of the Thai farmers. The rest of the sources included neighbor (36%) and government
agency (20%).
The basic agronomic practices followed by the farmers were almost the same with
exception to the names of varieties grown by them because of the difference in agro-climatic
zones. Most of the farmers used improved varieties developed by the respective research

6. ORIGINAL 5
centers. The varieties popularly grown by RPM farmers in Bhutan were Khangma Maap,
Chumro, Janaam and Machum while the farmers in Thailand used 9 different improved
varieties of which Number 17 (30%) was popularly grown.
Table 4 Number and percentage of the respondents who reported information on
agronomic practices and varieties (n=50).
Farmer categories
Agronomic packages Thai RPM farmer Bhutan RPM farmer
No. % No. %
Land preparation
1. Power tiller 50 100 49 98
2. Bullock - - 1 2
3. Two times plowing 50 100 50 100
Seed treatment
1. Yes 2 4 - -
2. No 48 96 50 100
Seed source
1. Neighbor 18 36 - -
2. Own store 20 40 50 100
3. Government agency 10 20 - -
4. Pvt. Company 1 2 - -
5. Others 1 2 - -
Name of varieties
1. Pathum Thani-I 12 24 - -
2. Number 17 15 30 - -
3. Number 35 1 2 - -
4. Pitsanolok-II 6 12 - -
5. Suphanburi-60 2 4 - -
6. Suphanburi-I 4 8 - -
7. Chai Nat-I 8 16 - -
8. Sukhothai 1 2 - -
9. Suphanburi-90 1 2 - -
Planting method - -
1. Direct seeded 50 100 - -
2. Transplanting - - 50 100
The source of irrigation from canal remained the same and the method of seed sowing
adopted was broadcasting in case of the farmers in Thailand and transplanting in case of the
farmers in Bhutan mainly due to the terraced rice fields having many contour bunds.
3. Rice pest management practices

7. ORIGINAL 6
1) Information sources
Consulting extension personnel for any pest management practices was the main
source for the RPM farmers in Bhutan unlike the farmers in Thailand who sought the same
from various sources other than extension personnel (Table 5). However, it was seen that
RPM related training topics for the farmers in Bhutan were limited to specific programs like
blast management (80%) and rice production (20%).
Table 5 Number and percentage on source of information on pest advice and
awareness trainings obtained by two categories of farmers (n=50).
Farmer categories
Source of information Thai RPM farmer
Bhutan RPM
farmer
No. % No. %
1. Neighbor 18 36 - -
2. Extension personnel 24 48 50 100
3. Relatives 1 2 - -
4. Sales agent 2 4 - -
5. Others (Extension materials) 5 10 - -
Training awareness
1. Training on GAP 8 16 - -
2. Training on pest management 22 44 - -
3. Training on fertilizer and insecticide use 7 14 - -
4. Training in varieties, seed production and
rice farming 13 26 - -
5. Training on blast management and
armyworm control - - 40 80
6. Training on rice production and chemical
spraying - - 10 20
2) Major rice pests
The RPM farmers in Bhutan considered weeds as the potential threat to rice crop in
contrary to the RPM farmers in Thailand who mentioned insects as a threat. Of the other
animal pests mentioned, golden apple snail (100%) followed by rat (82%) were found to be
serious in Thailand and wild boar (62%) followed by rat (48%) and monkey (2%) for Bhutan
(Table 6).

8. ORIGINAL 7
Table 6 Number and percentage of respondents who reported different types of
major rice pests (n=50).
Pests Thai RPM farmer Bhutan RPM farmer
A. Plant suckers No. % No. %
1. Black bug 25 50 - -
2. Mealy bug 5 10 - -
3. Planthoppers 17 34 - -
4. Rice bug 21 42 - -
5. Thrips 24 48 - -
B. Plant eaters
1. Caseworm 13 26 - -
2. Defoliator 6 12 11 22
3. Leaf folder 20 40 - -
4. Stem borer 40 80 16 32
II. Diseases
1. Blast 25 50 4 8
2. Brown spot 26 52
3. Hoja blanca - - - -
4. Panicle blight 9 18 - -
5. Root rot - - - -
6. Sheath blight - - - -
III. Others
1. Birds 10 20 - -
2. Golden apple snail 50 100 - -
3. Monkey - - 2 4
4. Rat 41 82 24 48
5. Wild boar - - 31 62
Both farmer groups reported stem borer as the serious pest causing infestation during
the rice season. Only 36% of the RPM farmers in Bhutan knew about the pest resistance
characteristics of rice while 88% of the farmers in Thailand were well aware of it (Table 13).
Of the diseases reported, blast disease (8%) was the only problem for the RPM
farmers in Bhutan. The RPM farmers in Thailand reported brown spot (52%), blast (50%)
and panicle blight (18%).
3) Rice pest control management

9. ORIGINAL 8
The farmers in Thailand used propinoconazole+diphenoconazole for the control of
rice diseases while the RPM farmers in Bhutan used tricolazole for the purpose.
Unlike the farmers in Thailand, only two groups of compounds, organophosphate
(53.3%) and pyrethroid (30%) were used by the farmers in Bhutan for the control of the only
reported insect pests, stem borers and armyworm (Table 7). This could be mainly because of
the non-availability of pesticide companies in Bhutan where supply of plant protection
chemicals is directly administered by the only agency, National Plant Protection Center. The
farmers in Thailand used wide groups of chemical compounds like organophosphates (19%),
organochlorines (4%), pyrethroids (5%), carbamates (18%) and other groups (Table 8). The
chemical used by the farmers in Bhutan for the control of rat was the same as that of the
farmers in Thailand. The use of IGR is almost non-existent for the farmers in Bhutan.
Table 7 Pesticides used on main target pests by the farmers of Toep, Mewang and
Bab blocks in Thimphu district, Bhutan (n=50).
Chemicals SB AW Rats N %
Organophosphate: Chlorpyrifos 5 11 - 16 53.3
Pyrethroid: Cypermethrin 9 - - 9 30.0
Rodenticide: Zinc phosphide - - 5 5 16.7
Total 14 11 5 30
SB=stem borer, AW=armyworm
Table 8 Number of RPM farmers using different groups of insecticides for the
control of main target pests at Buang Thong Lang village, Pathum Thani,
Thailand.
Plant suckers Plant eaters Others
Chemicals BB BPH MB RB Th CW LF SB Rats Sn N %
A. Organophosphates
1. Chlorpyrifos 4 4 - - - - 1 4 - - 13 8
2. Dicrotophos 6 - - 6 - - - - - - 12 7
3. Malathion - - - - - - 6 - - 6 4
B. Organochlorines
1. Endosulfan - 5 - 1 - - - - - 1 7 4
C. Pyrethroids
1. Cypermethrin 3 - - 1 - - 3 1 - - 8 5
D.Carbamates
1. Carbosulfan 6 6 - - - - 12 7 - - 31 18
E. Pyrethroid + IGR

10. ORIGINAL 9
1.Deltamethrin+buprofezin 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1
F. Neonicotinoids
1. Imidacloprid 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 2 1
G. Avermectins
1. Abamectin 1 - - 13 18 12 - 1 - - 45 26
H. Others
1. Cartap hydrochloride 2 1 5 - 1 1 4 21 - - 35 20
2. Molluscicide/bayluscide - - - - - - - - - 11 11 6.5
3. Rodenticide - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 0.6
Total 24 16 5 22 19 13 20 40 1 12 172
BB=black bug, BPH=brown planthopper, MB=mealy bug, RB= rice bug, Th=thrips, CW=caseworm, LF=leaf
folder, SB=stem borer, Sn=snails; N=total number of farmers who use these pesticides
4) Weed control management
Grassy weeds followed by sedges and broadleaf groups like Sphenoclea zeylanica
(16%) constituted the most important weeds observed by the farmers in Thailand. While only
two broadleaf weeds, Potamogeton distinctus (78%) and Commelina bengaliensis (28%)
were reported to be the most serious weeds in the rice fields of the farmers in Bhutan (Table
9).
Table 9 Number and percentage of respondents who reported different types of
weeds seen in the rice fields by the two categories of farmers (n=50).
Weeds Thai RPM farmer Bhutan RPM farmer
Sedges No. % No. %
1. Cyperus spp. - - - -
2. Cyperus imbricatus 20 40 - -
3. Fimbristylis miliacea 7 14 - -
Grasses
1. Echinochloa colona 1 2 - -
2. Echinochloa crusgalli 40 80 - -
3. Echinochloa glabrescens 9 18 - -
4. Leptochloa chinensis 32 64 - -
5. Ischaemum rugosum 14 28 - -
6. Limnocharis flava - - - -
7. Digitaria setigera - - - -
Broad leaves
1. Sphenoclea zeylanica 8 16 - -
2. Commelina bengaliensis - - 14 28

11. ORIGINAL 10
3. Pontamogeton distinctus - - 39 78
Others
1. Mix rice 10 20 - -
2. Red rice 26 52 - -
The farmers in Bhutan reported butachlor as the only herbicide used against the weed,
Commelina bengaliensis while all the farmers reported hand weeding for the control of
“Shochum”, Potamogeton distinctus.
To control weed problems, the chemical method or herbicide application was the
opinion known to most of the farmers followed by the mechanical control like hand weeding.
Overall, the farmers made pre-emergence application of herbicides. Majority of the RPM
farmers in Thailand used nine different types of herbicides, highest of which were
fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (39.4%) and petrilachlor (31.3%) for the control of noxious weeds
through pre-emergence application (Table 10).
The other herbicides deployed were 2, 4-D sodium salt (12.1%) followed by
bispyribac sodium (5.1%), clomazone + propanil (4%), paraquat dichloride (3%),
metsulfuron methyl+chlorimuron ethyl and quinchlorac (2%) and butachlor (1%).
Table 10 Number and percentage of Thai farmer respondents who used different
types of herbicides to control main target weeds in rice field.
Sedges Grasses
Broad
leaf
Chemicals C.i F.m E.c E.cr E.g I. r L.c S.z N %
1. 2 4-D Sodium salt - 6 - - - 6 - - 12 12.1
2. Bispyribac sodium 1 - - 1 - 3 - - 5 5.1
3. Butachlor - - - 1 - - - - 1 1
4. Clomazone+propanil 1 - - 1 1 - 1 - 4 4
5. Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl - 13 12 1 - 13 - 39 39.4
6. Metsulfuron
methyl+chlorimuron ethyl - - - - - - - 2 2 2
7. Paraquat dichloride 1 1 - - - - - 1 3 3
8. Petrilachlor - - 7 12 6 - 6 - 31 31.3
9. Quinchlorac 1 - - 1 - - 2 2
Total 4 7 20 28 8 9 20 3 99

12. ORIGINAL 11
C.i = Cyperus imbricatus, F.m = Fimbristylis miliacea, E.c= Echinochloa colona, E.cr= Echinochloa crusgalli,
E.g= Echinochloa glabrescens, I.r= Ischaemum rugosum, L.c= Leptochloa chinensis, S.z = Sphenoclea
zeylanica; N=total number of farmers who use these herbicides
5) Knowledge on beneficial insects
About 92% of the RPM farmers in Thailand knew the roles of a group of organisms
called natural enemies in rice fields. Although, the farmers in Bhutan mentioned about the
presence of natural enemies in their rice field, their awareness on the roles of natural enemies
was comparatively very poor.
Dragonflies (98% for RPM farmers in Thailand and 60 % for RPM farmers in
Bhutan) topped the list of natural enemies of their presence in the rice field as reported by
them (Table 11). The other groups of natural enemies mentioned were the presence of frogs,
snakes, fishes and birds. The farmers also mentioned cicada as natural enemies, which
actually is an insect pest of other crops. They also mentioned bees as natural enemies
although they are best categorized as the beneficial insects in terms of their roles as
pollinators only
Table 11 Number and percentage of respondents who reported different
types of natural enemies seen in the rice fields.
Natural enemies Thai RPM farmer Bhutan RPM farmer
A. Insect predators No. % No. %
1. Damselflies 30 60 - -
2. Dragonflies 49 98 30 60
3. Grasshoppers 26 52 2 4
4. Ladybird beetle 34 68 29 58
5. Praying mantis 14 28 - -
6. Red ant 21 42 1 2
7. Water strider 17 34 - -
B. Non-insect predators
1. Spiders 48 96 29 58
C. Parasites
1. Wasps 42 84 - -
D. Others
1. Fishes 6 12 - -
2. Birds 6 12 - -
3. Frogs 18 36 - -
4. Snakes 17 34 - -

13. ORIGINAL 12
5. Cicada 11 22 - -
6. Bees 12 24 9 18
Only 6% of the RPM farmers in Bhutan knew that natural enemies feed on other
insect pests in which case the RPM farmers in Thailand (86%) were more knowledgeable on
the roles of the natural enemies (Table 12). Majority of the farmers knew the detrimental
effects of pesticides on natural enemies, human health and environment including the
relationship between natural enemies and pest infestations. Farmer awareness on ETL was
more in case of the RPM farmers in Thailand (52%) than the RPM farmers in Bhutan (24%).
The knowledge on natural enemy-pest-insecticide-yield relationships of the farmers in
Bhutan was relatively poor which clearly spelt the immaturity of pest management
information dissemination system in general.
The Pearson’s chi-square (χ2
) statistical analysis on comparison of farmers’
knowledge about the roles of natural enemies and their relation to pesticide usage, and
farmers’ perception on their understanding about ETL was done between the RPM farmers in
Thailand and RPM farmers in Bhutan. The nine criteria were based for the comparison (Table
12). The comparison showed more of significant difference (P<0.05, P<0.001) on five out of
nine criteria which indicated that RPM farmers in Bhutan were far behind on RPM
knowledge from that of RPM farmers in Thailand. While the rest of the criteria showed
insignificant difference (P>0.05), indicating that the farmers in Bhutan were at par with the
RPM farmers in Thailand in some aspects of understanding on pest management in the areas
like understanding that ETL is a good tool in pest management, knowing that pesticide
application simply does not increase yields, knowing that killing natural enemies will
increase pest infestations, and knowing the side effects of pesticide applications.
Table 12 Comparison of knowledge levels and farmers’ perception about the
presence of natural enemies with relation to pesticide use and knowledge
on ETL (n=50).
Criteria
Thai RPM
farmer
Bhutan RPM
farmer
Chi-square ( χ2 )
values
1.Know that natural enemies feed on other insects 86 6 64.414***
2.Know that natural enemies get killed when
pesticide is sprayed 86 8 61.060***

14. ORIGINAL 13
3.Know that pesticides do not increase yield 2 - 1.010ns
4.Know that killing natural enemies will increase
pest infestations 56 52 0.000ns
5.Know the detrimental effect of pesticides on
health and environment 92 86 0.919ns
6. Aware of ETL 52 24 8.319*
7.Know that spraying at ETL will make profit 38 - 23.457***
8.Know that ETL in pest management is good 28 18 1.412ns
9.Know that killing efficiency of pesticides is a
deciding factor for spraying 88 42 23.253***
ns = not significant, * = significant at 0.05 level, ***=significant at 0.001 level
The knowledge gap in pest management also reflects that the farmers in Bhutan had
not been the regular recipient of RPM technologies from the relevant extension personnel
even though they were fully involved in FSS programs. Likewise, the RPM farmers in
Thailand also needed to be regularly reinforced with more knowledge and skills on RPM both
in theory and practical.
6) Knowledge level on rice pest management
The eleven attitude statements (Table 13) were asked to express their opinion to
determine farmers’ knowledge level on pest management. The RPM farmers in Thailand
showed positive response (>42%) to all attribute statements as compared to the opinion
expressed by the farmers in Bhutan. The response to attribute statements given by the RPM
farmers in Bhutan represented poor knowledge on their idea on the health of the farmers
being improved with pest management (6%) and their knowledge about the roles of natural
enemies (12%).
Table 13 Farmers’ knowledge about pest management and comparison of their
knowledge levels on their attitudes to the effects of pest management
program in rice crop.
Statement of attitudes to attributes
Thai RPM
Farmer (%)
Bhutan RPM
farmer (%)
Chi-square
( χ2 ) values
1.Pest in rice consists of insects diseases, weeds
and others 98 80 8.274*
2.Pest management consists of all control
methods 42 78 13.500***
3.Surveying and counting pests is important in 44 40 0.164ns

15. ORIGINAL 14
pest management
4.Damaged plant parts removal and disposal
important 54 72 3.475ns
5.Variety they grow is resistant to diseases and
insects 88 36 79.789***
6.Know the role of natural enemies 92 12 64.103***
7.Pest management help increase yield 98 98 0.000ns
8.Pest management help increase natural
enemies 82 20 38.455***
9.Good environmental condition will increase 50 24 7.2508*
10.Good health of farmers will increase 44 6 19.253***
11.Pest resistant insects will decrease 42 30 1.563ns
ns = not significant, * = significant at 0.05 level, ***=significant at 0.001 level
The Pearson’s χ2
statistical analysis showed an unexpected significant difference
(P<0.05, P<0.001) in seven attribute statements which indicated that the knowledge and skills
of the farmers in Bhutan on pest management were relatively poor as compared to that of the
RPM farmers in Thailand. The Bhutanese farmers’ response to the attributes like the
importance of surveying and counting in pest management, the importance of roughing and
disposal of damaged plant parts, and yield increase through pest management showed
insignificant difference (P>0.05) which indicated that they have a partial idea on pest
management. In general, the knowledge about RPM for the RPM farmers in Thailand was
found to be higher than the RPM farmers in Bhutan.
DISCUSSION
From the total of 50 farmers each from Thailand and Bhutan interviewed
several trends in rice farmers’ pest management are evident that pesticides remain the
dominant control tactic that they rely on. This is attributed partly to farmers’ association of
pesticides with medicine (Heong and Escalada, 1997). Farmers used insecticides more
frequently than any other pesticides followed by herbicides and fungicides. There is no end to
use of pesticides in the present era of green revolution. The extensive promotional activities
of the pesticide industry, the well established information dissemination network especially

16. ORIGINAL 15
through radio and television had helped disseminating pesticide recommendations to farmers
more effectively. This could have been a major factor contributing to farmers’ over reliance
on insecticides for rice pest control. Thus, the advocacy on the use of pesticides through
judicious applications has sometimes misled the farmers to a greater extent in their inability
to make best judgments based on the recommended threshold levels. This is primarily due to
the lack of complete understandings about the pest management practices even though these
farmers belong to the FFS groups.
Besides, it is clearly seen that the supposedly knowledgeable RPM farmers even
seemingly have the tendency to manning of varied types of pesticides (Table 8 and 10) for the
rice cultivation, although the types of pesticides used may seem less. The farmers were
observed to consider pesticides as an essential component of rice cultivation. So, in order to
make our farmers implement an ecologically based pest management program, it is essential
to correct farmers’ perception that pesticides are important and are an essential component of
rice farming. However, ever since the launching of the RPM program in Thailand in 1985,
improvements on pesticide recommendations have been made by upgrading farmers’
knowledge on pests, natural enemies and pesticide application pattern. But, as remarked by
Matteson et al. (1984), the acceptability of pest management based on threshold levels has
received much criticism.
During the survey, it was found out that the insect pests like stem borers, rice bugs,
thrips, and planthoppers; diseases like brown spot and blast; and others like golden apple
snail and rats were seen to be the potential threat to rice crop. Likewise, grassy weeds
followed by sedges and broad leaves dominated in the rice fields of both RPM farmers in
Thailand unlike in the case of RPM farmers in Bhutan who reported only two weeds,
Commelina bengaliensis and Potamogeton distinctus as the serious weeds. The vastness of
the rice land being cultivated, readily available herbicides had contributed to the dependence
on herbicides in direct seeded areas.
With regard to farmers’ perception about the roles of the natural enemies, it is crucial
for all the stakeholders to draw clearer strategies to make them fully aware of the actual

17. ORIGINAL 16
advantages of having natural enemies in the rice eco-system. Because RPM is recognized as a
national policy, emphasis has been given to improving farmers’ pest management decisions
making through FSS in which its results seem encouraging. Farmers in areas where RPM
programs have been active over the past decade seem to be well aware of RPM approaches.
Furthermore, farmers should possess a sound knowledge of insect pests, including their
natural control agents and influence on yield, among other aspects, to effectively make
management decisions. The many knowledge gaps we observed among farmers may have
prevented them from making effective management decisions. This was evident because of
the prominence farmers gave to insect pests affecting their crops. Farmers seem to equate
visibility of a pest with its importance. Because of the activities of the RPM program,
awareness of natural enemies was found to be higher in case of the RPM farmers in Thailand
than the RPM farmers in Bhutan. The insect pest management practices of Bhutanese farmers
were found to be far from satisfactory which obviously calls for more farmers’ training.
Farmers’ knowledge gaps on the importance of pest management as stated with
respect to various attribute statements and the relationship to the ultimate yield and choice of
pesticides for effective pest management open up an intervention opportunity. In particular,
farmers’ training programs should emphasize the relationship among pest identification,
water management in most cases, and the appropriate pesticides to use at appropriate ETL.
The farmers in general seem to be having proper attitudes to pest management, and this
should be considered strength and it opens the way for future intervention opportunities.
However, limited knowledge of rice pests, lack of familiarity with threshold concepts,
anxiety to save crops, inadequate knowledge of RPM methods have shaped up farmers’ pest
management (APO, 2000). Hence, focus must be on imparting education to the farmers on a
pragmatic approach to reduce pest menaces by promoting group efforts like the already
existing FFS, as such group efforts help to build the confidence levels of more farmers more
efficiently. As pointed out by Goodell et al. (1990), an efficient field-level organization is
important for synchronizing pest management practices through farmer groups’
organizations. Also, conducting RPM demonstrations in farmers’ field and working out the
cost-benefit ratio will help to dispel any negative attitudes farmers may possess about these
practices, as learning by seeing will enrich knowledge and skills of the farmers.

18. ORIGINAL 17
CONCLUSION
The findings from the study on assessment of RPM call for more insights to
compromising many aspects on farmers’ acceptance in terms of developing realistic need
driven pest management strategies for the farmers amid certain knowledge gaps revealed.
Regular pest surveillance to judicious and/or no use of pesticides assure improved
environmental conditions. So also does for income benefits for resource-poor farmers.
The farmers responding to continue using pest management hereafter is a healthy sign
representing the farmers’ prime concern in protecting the natural environment including
human health, conserving the natural enemies and fulfilling the vision of good agricultural
practices in contributing to the governments’ international market economies. In
retrospection, efforts should therefore be made to back up in bridging the knowledge gaps of
the farmers, prioritize to bridging the knowledge gaps on attributes or criteria set for different
categories of RPM farmers and introduce similar programs in other areas as well.
Furthermore, farmers’ inability to understand pest resurgence, the existence of an ecological
balance among pests, natural enemies and neutral fauna in rice fields, and the relationship
between pest density and yield should be taken into account when developing strategies to
improve farmers’ pest management decisions. Hence, the trends in present rice pest
management strategies designed for the farmers’ situation needed not only timely and
accurate information with respect to identification of key pests but also making the farmers
aware on the use of selective pesticides before drastic chemical actions are deployed.
Therefore, there arises a need to further enhance appropriate information dissemination in the
areas like identification of key pests and diseases, and imparting knowledge on practicality of
economic threshold levels.
LITERATURE CITED
APO. 2000. Farmer-Led Integrated Pest Management. Asian Productivity
Organization, Tokyo. 228p.

19. ORIGINAL 18
Dale, D. 1994. Insect Pests of the Rice Plant-Their Biology and Ecology, pp.363-485.
In Heinrichs eds. Biology and Management of Rice Pests, Wiley Eastern Limited, Ansari
Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. 779p.
David, C.C. 1991. The World Rice Economy: Challenges ahead, pp. 1-18. In G.S.
Khush and G.H. Toenniessen. Rice Biotechnology. CAB International, Walling Ford, UK.
320p.
De Bach, P. and D. Rosen.1991. Rice in Southeast Asia, pp. 220-228. In Biological
Control by Natural Enemies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 440p.
Goodell, G.E, K.L. Andrews and J.I. Lopez. 1990. The contributions of agronomic-
anthropologists to on-farm research and extension in integrated pest management. Agric.
Syts. 32(4):321-339.
Heong, K.L and M.M. Escalada. 1997. Pest Management of Rice Farmers in Asia.
International rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna, Manila, Philippines. 245p.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). 1993. IRRI Rice Almanac. Los Banos,
Laguna, Manila, Philippines. 142p.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). 1994. Filling the World’s Rice Bowl.
Los Banos, Laguna, Manila, Philippines. 97p.
Matteson, P.C, M.A. Altieri, and W.C. Gagne.1984. Modifications of small farmer
practices for better pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 29:383-402.