PERCEPTION OF FARMERS ON HANDLING PESTICIDE AND ADOPTION OF IPM IN
WEST RUKUM OF NEPAL

Author:

Laxman Chand Thakuri, Shaurav Sharma, Keshav Bhattarai , Dipak khatri, Asbin BK

Doi: 10.26480/seps.02.2022.78.84

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

The survey was conducted to study the perception of farmers on the handling of pesticides and the adoption behaviours of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in western Nepal. For this study, 60 farmers involved in the registered cooperative were selected by using a simple random technique. Focused Group Discussion (FGD) was done with farmers of three different agriculture cooperatives of Rukum west regarding agricultural pests and pesticide use along with the adoption behaviours of IPM practices. Our findings revealed that most of the households had better knowledge about major diseases and insects of vegetable crops that cause economic damage every year. The households ranked damage caused by insects as first followed by disease infestation and damage caused by rodents. More than half of the households had been practising chemical methods of pest control followed by organic methods (23.67%) and integrated chemical and organic methods (21%). Cow urine, jhol mol, and Neem-based pesticides were some of the common organic pesticides used by the farmers there. More than half of the farmers used masks only and 38% of the farmers used all the protective measures like masks, gloves, boots, and protective cloth while spraying pesticides. Around 60% of the farmers had not taken any training related to IPM and only 30% of the households followed IPM practices for the control of diseases and pests. The study revealed that lack of technical support, the low market price for organic products and lack of technical knowledge required for pest management were the major constraints regarding the adoption of IPM practice.

Pages 78-84
Year 2022
Issue 2
Volume 2