Figure 1 shows the gender of the respondent that presented by the per centum of the entire figure of 239 husbandmans. The bulk of the respondent were male which contribute 91.6 % of entire study with existent figure is 219 where is the female respondent figure were merely 20 which contribute 8.4 % of entire study.
Figure 2: Group of Ages
Figure 3: Marital Status
Figure 2 shows the age group of the respondent. Majority of the respondent were group of 51 to 60 old ages old with 38 % of the entire respondent. This followed by answering age above 60 with 30 % and 19 % were presented by the age group of 41 to 50 old ages old. The 31 to 40 age group was carried 10 % respondent. The smallest per centum is shown by 20 to 29 age groups with merely 3 % of entire figure of respondent. Figure 3 shows the matrimonial position of the respondent. About 90 % of respondents were married, 5 % were individual, 3 % were divorce and 2 % others.
From table 1, most of the respondent had formal instruction. Where 135 respondents had secondary instruction and 65 respondents had primary instruction. Followed by 34 respondents ne’er had formal instruction and 5 respondents had college or university instruction.
All the respondent were rice husbandman, where 75.3 % were full clip rice husbandman, 11.3 % involve in agribusiness concern, 10 % involved in non agribusiness concern, 8.8 % work in authorities sector and 0.4 % work in private sector. About 40.6 % land both were owned and rent by the husbandman, 34.8 % of land was rent land and 24.7 % was owned by the husbandman.
About 89.5 or husbandman cultivated on 0-9 acre of land which is gives the highest part. There were 8 % husbandmans cultivated on 10-19 acre of land, 2 % cultivated on 20-29 acre, 1 % on 30-39 acre and 0.5 % more than 40 estates. The respondents ‘ farming experience included 28.1 % of 21 to 30 old ages, 19.7 % of 1 to 10 and 31 to 40 old ages, 12.1 % of 41 to 50 old ages and 2.5 % over 50 old ages.
Percentage ( % )
Farm country ( acre )
0 – 9
10 – 19
20 – 29
30 – 39
& A ; gt ; 40
Own and rent
College / university
Full clip rice husbandman
Farming experienced ( old ages )
1 – 10
11 – 20
21 – 30
31 – 40
41 – 50
& A ; gt ; 51
Table 1: Farmers ‘ Background
4.2 Pest and disease infestation
Figure 4: Infestation of Pest in Farmers ‘ Rice field
Figure 4 indicates the infestation of plague in husbandmans ‘ rice field. Most of the husbandmans observed brown leafhopper, black bug, Golden Apple Snails, rat, rice bug, ground forces worm, leaf booklet, root bore bit, grasshopper and others pest such as eel attacked their rice field. Most of the husbandmans choose rat infestation is the highest in their rice field, followed by foliage booklet, brown leafhopper, root bore bit, ground forces worm, rice bug, black bug, others, grasshopper and GAS with 97.1 % , 95.8 % , 95.4 % , 90 % , 87.4 % , 91.5 % , 31.8, 13 % , 10 % and 2.1 % , severally.
Figure 5: Percentage of Pest Seriousness.
Figure 5 show that the per centum of plague earnestness harmonizing to degree of amendss. Farmers choose leaf booklet ( 50.2 % ) as highly serious plague in their filed, follow by rat ( 7.7 % ) .
In the serious degree of amendss, brown leafhopper ( 42.7 % ) contributes the highest degree of amendss, followed by ground forces worm, GAS, foliage booklet, black bug and root bore bit with 40.4 % , 33 % , 21.3 % , 12.4 % and 9 % , severally. In moderate degree of amendss, husbandmans choose stem bore bit ( 63.8 % ) , follows by black bug ( 62.8 % ) , grasshopper ( 55.2 % ) , brown leafhopper ( 45.9 % ) , rat ( 45.9 % ) , rice bug ( 44.8 % ) , army worm ( 39.8 % ) , GAS ( 34 % ) , leaf booklet ( 28.5 % ) and eel ( 28.3 % ) .
Pest that are in less serious degree are rat ( 46.4 % ) , others ( 43.3 % ) , stem bore bit ( 27.1 % ) , black bug ( 24.8 % ) , grasshopper ( 22.7 % ) , rice bug ( 22.1 % ) , army worm, ( 19.9 % ) , GAS ( 16.5 % ) and brown leafhopper ( 8.1 % ) . For degree of non serious, husbandman choose rice bug ( 33.1 % ) , others ( 28.3 % ) , grasshopper ( 22.1 % ) and GAS ( 16.5 % )
Figure 6: Infestation of Disease in Farmers ‘ Rice Field.
Figure 6 shows the infestation of disease in husbandmans ‘ rice field. Most of the husbandmans observed blast, sheath blast, tungro virus, cervix putrefaction, brown topographic point, bacterial blight and black cod disease in their rice field. Most of the husbandmans choose blast ( 78.8 % ) disease as the highest in their rice field, follow by sheath blast ( 71.5 % ) , tungro virus, cervix putrefaction and brown topographic point ( 57.3 % ) , bacterial blight and black cod ( 28.9 % )
Figure 7: Percentage of disease earnestness.
Figure 7 shows the per centum of disease earnestness harmonizing to degree of infestation. 8.3 % of husbandmans ‘ ranked cervix putrefaction as highly serious disease. In the serious degree of amendss, cervix putrefaction ( 33.2 % ) contributes the highest degree of amendss, which followed by blast ( 21.3 % ) , bacterial blight ( 11 % ) and brown topographic point ( 9.2 % ) .
In moderate degree of amendss, husbandmans choose sheath blast ( 66.3 % ) as the highest compared to other disease. Follow by tungro virus, brown topographic point, bacterial blight, blast, cervix putrefaction and black topographic point with 49.7 % , 45.2 % , 33.1 % , 28.5 % , 24.9 % and 12.4 % , severally. The less serious disease is black cod ( 62.8 % ) disease, and followed by brown topographic point ( 36.7 % ) , bacterial blight ( 33.8 % ) , neck putrefaction ( 33.7 % ) , tungro virus ( 30.4 % ) , blast ( 28.9 % ) and sheath blast ( 17.1 % ) .
Figure 8: Infestation of Weed in Farmers ‘ Rice Field.
In figure 8 most of the husbandmans observed weedy rice, cogon grass, wire grass, H2O jacinth and others in their rice field. All of the husbandmans choose weedy rice as the highest weeds population in their rice field, followed by wiregrass, H2O jacinth, others and cogon grass with 92.9 % , 92.5 % , 14.6 % and 7.1 % , severally.
Figure 9: Percentage of Weed Seriousness.
Figure 9 shows the per centum of weed earnestness harmonizing to degree of infestation on rice, most of them reference wiregrass ( 14.2 % ) and weedy rice ( 7.1 % ) as highly serious weed. In the serious degree of infestation, weedy rice ( 64.4 % ) contributes the highest degree of infestation, follows by wiregrass ( 35.6 % ) and H2O jacinth ( 33.2 % ) .
Moderate infestation reported wiregrass ( 43.1 % ) as the highest degree of infestation, which followed by H2O jacinth ( 33.7 % ) , others ( 33 % ) , weedy rice ( 21.3 % ) , and cogon grass ( 16.5 % ) . The less serious infestation is cogon grass and others, both of the weed contributes 34 % . Follow by H2O jacinth ( 24.9 % ) , wiregrass and weedy rice ( 7.1 % ) .
For degree of non serious, husbandman choose rice cogon grass, others and H2O jacinth with 49.5 % , 33 % and 8.3 % , severally.
4.3 Farmers ‘ Pest Management Practices
Figure 9: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Practices.
Figure 9 show the figure of husbandmans ‘ practising pest control by utilizing four control method which were chemical control, biological control, cultural control and mechanical control method. Most of the husbandmans use chemical control method ( 87.5 % ) more than other control. Followed by biological control ( 50.7 % ) , cultural control ( 25.7 % ) , mechanical control ( 19.1 % ) and 12.1 % did non response to this inquiry.
For chemical control method, most of the husbandmans ‘ usage legal pesticide ( 85.8 % ) , followed by utilizing pheromone ( 7.1 % ) and illegal pesticide ( 5.9 % ) . For biological control method, there are 95.8 % husbandmans use barn bird of Minerva as biological control, follows by natural enemy ( 2.9 % ) and fish and duck ( 7.1 % ) .
Cultural control that largely used is firing paddy straw ( 86 % ) , and followed by dirt direction ( 71.5 % ) , H2O direction ( 57 % ) , nutrition direction ( 51.2 % ) and weed direction ( 42.3 % ) . For the mechanical control, 50.2 % of the husbandman destructing plague with their ain manus and merely 49.8 % of husbandman apply rat trap in their rice field.
Percentage ( % )
Barn bird of Minerva
Burning paddy straw
Destructing by manus
Table 2: Farmers ‘ Pest Management Practices
Figure 10: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Knowledge
Figure 10 show the per centum of husbandmans ‘ cognition about natural enemy and good being. 43.1 % of the husbandmans choose no as their reply and 20.5 % of them non certain about natural enemy and good being. There are 20.5 % of husbandmans have knowledge about natural enemy and good being. About14.6 % of husbandmans did non reply this inquiry.
4.4 Pesticide application
Figure 11: Percentage of Pesticide Application
Figure 11 indicates the per centum of pesticide application by the husbandman. 70.3 % of husbandman usage pesticide at their field and 1.7 % of husbandman did non utilize pesticide. There are 28 % of husbandman did non response to the inquiry.
Type of Pesticide
Percentage ( % )
Table 3: Type of Pesticide
Table 3 shows the type of pesticide that been used by the husbandman. There are four types of pesticide that been used by the husbandman, which is insecticide, fungicide, weedkiller and rodenticide. There are 17 types of pesticide used by the husbandman and most of the husbandman usage insecticide more than other pesticide.
The most normally used insect powder was Karate® ( lambda-cyhalothrin ) with 75.7 % , follow by Tapisan® ( buprofezin ) ( 73.2 % ) , Regent® ( fipronil ) ( 68.7 % ) , Lebaysid® ( fenthion ) ( 60.3 % ) , Fastac® ( alfasipermetrin ) ( 50.2 % ) , Silatop® ( silafluofen ) ( 45.6 % ) , Lanmertin® ( buprofezin ) ( 38.1 % ) and Padan® ( cartap hydrochloride ) ( 34.2 % ) .
Fungicide that been used by husbandman was Score® ( difenoconazole ) with 60.7 % , 45.2 % of Armure® ( difenolconazole + propiconazole ) and 35.1 % of Fuji One® ( isoprothiolane ) .
The most common weedkiller usage was Solito® ( pretilachlor + pyribenzoxin ) ( 79.9 % ) , follow by Basta® ( glufosinate ammonium ) , Nominee® ( isoprothiolane ) and Roundup® ( glyphosate isopropylamine ) with 64.4 % , 52.7 % and 12.6 % , severally. To command the population of rats, husbandman used Tikumin® ( Coumadin ) ( 50.6 % ) and Matikus® ( brodifacoum ) ( 40.6 % ) as rodenticide to command the rats population.
Figure 12: Factor Using Pesticide
Figure 12 indicates the factor of utilizing pesticide among the husbandmans. Most of the husbandmans choose fast action as their reply, follows by effectual and inexpensive, with 50 % , 33 % and 12 % , severally. 5 % of the husbandmans did non reply to this inquiry.
Figure 13: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Decision on Spraying Frequency
Figure 13 shows, the high per centum is farmer decides to spray if they notice any presence of plague in their field ( 75.7 % ) , follows by husbandman decide to spray based on spraying agenda, spraying when free clip, spraying at degree of economic threshold with 63.6 % , 49 % and 33.9 % , severally. There are 9.2 % of husbandman did non response to this inquiry.
Figure 14: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Spraying per Season
Figure 14 show the figure of spraying per season. Consequence shows that husbandmans spraying at 5 to 8 times per season ( 75.3 % ) . About 22.6 % spray 9 to 12 times per season, 0.4 % spray less than 4 times per season and more than 13 times per season. 1.3 % of husbandman did non response to this inquiry.
Figure 15: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Spraying Frequency per Season.
Figure 15 indicates the per centum of husbandmans ‘ spraying frequence per season. The highest figure of frequence is twice a hebdomad, follow by three times per month and one time a hebdomad which 83.3 % , 7.9 % and 7.5 % , severally. There are 1.3 % of husbandman did non reply this inquiry.
Figure 15: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Mixing Pesticide in Sprayer.
Figure 15 show the per centum of husbandman that mixes pesticide in sprayer. 70.8 % of husbandman answered that they did non blend pesticide in sprayer. Merely 29.2 % of husbandman answered that that assorted pesticide in spryer.
Figure 16: Percentage of Pesticide Mixed in Sprayer.
Figure 16 show the per centum of pesticide mixed in sprayer. The highest figure of pesticide mixed was 3 to 4 types of pesticide, follows by below 2 types of pesticide and above 5 types of pesticide with 68.5 % , 23.3 % and 8.2 % , severally.
Figure 17: Factors Mixed of Pesticide
Figure 17 indicates the factor of blending pesticide among the husbandmans. Most of the husbandmans choose save clip as their reply, follows by save labour and fast action, with 37 % , 34 % and 29 % , severally.
4.5 Safety handling
Figure 18: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Safety Handling of Pesticide.
Figure 18 indicates the per centum of husbandmans ‘ safety handling of pesticide when preparing and crop-dusting. 85.4 % of famer used safety tools when fixing and spraying the pesticide. About 13.8 % choose sometimes and 0.8 % of husbandman did non reply the inquiry.
Figure 19: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Using Safety Tools.
Figure 19 show the per centum safety tools used when fixing and spraying the pesticide. The safety tools used were mask ( 97.5 % ) , glove ( 90.8 % ) , but ( 84.1 % ) , long arms ( 83.7 % ) , trouser ( 69.9 % ) , hat ( 69.5 % ) , goggle ( 41.4 % ) , apron ( 27.6 % ) and protection coat ( 13.8 % ) .
Figure 20: Percentage of Important Safety Tools.
Figure 20 show the of import of utilizing safety tools among the husbandmans when blending the pesticide, spraying the pesticide and cleaning the sprayer. Farmers ranked spraying as the most of import clip to have on safety tools follows by blending the pesticide and cleaning pesticides ‘ sprayer with 78.5 % , 28.3 % and 27.9 % , severally.
Some husbandmans choose blending as the of import clip to have oning safety tools, followed by cleaning the pesticides ‘ sprayer and spraying the pesticide with 43.9 % , 21.9 % and 21.5 % , severally. The less of import clip to have oning safety tools is cleaning the sprayer ( 43.3 % ) and blending the pesticide ( 7.2 % ) . There are 20.7 % and 6.9 % of husbandman choose commixture and cleaning the sprayer as non of import clip to utilize safety tools.
Figure 21: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Using Safety Tools.
Figure 21 show the of import of safety tools used when the spraying the pesticide. The safety tools used were mask ( 100 % ) , glove and apron ( 93.1 % ) , goggle ( 87.8 ) , hat ( 71.2 % ) , but, long arms and pant ( 64.8 % ) , and protection coat ( 36.1 % ) .
Figure 22: Disposal of Used Pesticide Containers
Figure 22 show the per centum of husbandmans ‘ disposal of used pesticide container. About 57 % of the husbandman disposed of used pesticide container by go forthing them scattered in the field and some ( 43 % ) buried used container in the dirt.
Figure 23: Percentage of Place for Washing Pesticide Sprayers among the Farmers.
Figure 23 show the per centum of topographic point for rinsing pesticide sprayer. After pesticide crop-dusting, husbandmans normally wash their sprayers right off. Sprayer lavation was normally done in the Fieldss by utilizing available stored H2O ( 78.5 % ) or rinsing at the border of house Wellss ( 13.9 % ) . However, a few husbandmans ( 7.6 % ) washed their sprayers at a nearby river.
Respondent husbandmans by and large knew that pesticide usage can do negative impacts on human wellness. Most husbandmans ( 78.2 % ) answered ‘yes ‘ when asked whether pesticides could do negative consequence to human, environment and other animate beings ( Table 4 ) . There are a few husbandman ( 13.4 ) % answered ‘no ‘ as their reply and 8.4 % of husbandmans did non reply the inquiry.
In this study, respondent husbandmans were asked whether they have of all time experienced any pesticide toxic condition after using pesticides. The commonest symptom of pesticide toxic condition experienced by respondent husbandmans was concern, which was reported by 50.6 % of respondents. Other common symptoms were antsy eyes ( 29.3 % ) . Fewer husbandmans reported that they have of all time experienced pesticide poisoning with the following symptoms: itchy tegument, sickness, watery-eyed eyes, purging, and trouble in external respiration.
Percentage ( % )
Negative impacts of pesticides
Symptoms of pesticide toxic condition
Trouble to breath
Table 4: Impact of Pesticide and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning.
4.6 Source and channel of information
Percentage ( % )
Beginning of information on pesticide type and rate
Direction on bottle
Pest direction adviser
Beginning of information on plague control
Farmer attended pest control classs
Farmer having manual / booklet on plague control
Beginning of manual / booklet on plague control
Department of Agriculture
Degree of understanding
Agriculture officer give adequate information
Table 5: Beginning of Information
Farmers ‘ entree of information is shown in table 5. Most of the husbandmans ( 90.8 % ) acquire information of pesticide type and rate on the bottle and follows by acquiring information from agribusiness officer, friends, ain experience, pesticide marketer, comparative and publicity from pesticide company with 77 % , 48.1 % , 41.8 % , 41 % , 15.9 % and 14.2 % , severally.
Majority husbandman ( 99.6 % ) answered yes when asked whether receive audience on pest direction in their rice field. Major beginning of information from KETARA ( 81.2 % ) , follows by PELADANG ( 20.1 % ) , KADA ( 18 % ) , pesticide company ( 4.6 % ) , agriculture officer and BERNAS ( 3.3 % ) and FAMA ( 1.3 % ) .
From 239 respondents ‘ , merely 28 % of the husbandmans owned manual or booklet on plague control, which they obtained from Department of Agriculture ( 57.1 % ) , pesticide marketer ( 32.1 % ) and MARDI ( 10.7 % ) . Merely 74.5 % of husbandmans understand the content of the manual or booklet that they have. About 74.5 % of husbandmans claimed that agribusiness officer gives adequate information on plague control patterns and the remainder answered no.
4.7 Economic facet
Figure 24: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Income per Season
Figure 24 show the per centum of husbandmans ‘ income per season which is 69.9 % obtained income between RM 0 to RM5000. Follows by husbandman obtained income between RM5000 to RM10000, RM 10000 to RM 15000, RM 15000 to RM 20000 and more than RM20000 with 16.7 % , 5.9 % , 4.2 % and 3.3 % , severally.
Figure 25: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Gross Yield per Season
Harmonizing to figure 25, 86.6 % of famers obtained below 10 dozenss per season. Follows by obtained 11 to 20 dozenss ( 9.6 % ) , obtained 21 to 30 dozenss ( 2.5 % ) and obtained more than 31 dozenss ( 1.3 % ) .
Figure 26: Percentage of Farmer ‘s Subsidy
From figure 26, 71 % of husbandmans get incentive or subsidy from authorities, while 6 % of the husbandmans choose no as their reply. 23 % of husbandman did non response to this inquiry.
Figure 27: Percentage of Farmers ‘ Quality Discount
Figure 27 show the per centum of husbandmans ‘ that receive quality price reduction. Majority ( 36.8 % ) of the husbandman receive 20 % of quality price reduction. Follow by 22 % of quality price reduction and 18 % of quality price reduction with 24.3 % and 19.2 % , severally. 19.2 % of husbandmans did non response to this inquiry.
The production cost of rice includes seedling, fertiliser, pesticide, labour and land lease. There are 5.4 % of husbandman did non response to this inquiry. Majority of the husbandman ( 49.8 % ) paid less than RM 200 for seed, 15.5 % paid between RM 201 to RM 400, 13.8 % paid between RM 401 to RM 600, 6.7 % paid more than RM1001, 5.4 % paid between RM 601 to RM 800 and 3.3 % paid between RM 801 to RM 1000.
For excess fertiliser, 74.5 % of husbandman paid below RM 200, follows by paid between RM 201 to RM 400, more than RM 1001, between RM 601 to RM 800, between RM 801 to RM 1000 and between RM 401 to RM 600 with 15.1 % , 2.1 % , 1.7 % , 0.8 % and 0.4 % , severally. Majority of the husbandman ( 43.5 % ) paid below RM 200 for pesticide, 30.5 % paid between RM 201 to RM 400, 10.4 % paid between RM 401 to RM 600, 8 % paid more than RM 1001 and 1.3 % paid for between RM 601 to RM 800 and between RM 801 to RM 1000.
Approximately 14.4 % of husbandman did non pay for labour cost, 75.3 % paid less than RM 500, 4.6 % paid more than RM 1001 and 1.3 % paid between RM 501 to RM 1000. There are 23.8 % of husbandman did non pay for rent because they own the land. 60.2 % paid less than RM1000 and 10.4 % paid more than RM 1001.
Cost ( RM )
Percentage ( % )
& A ; lt ; 200
201 – 400
401 – 600
601 – 800
801 – 1000
& A ; gt ; 1001
& A ; lt ; 200
201 – 400
401 – 600
601 – 800
801 – 1000
& A ; gt ; 1001
& A ; lt ; 200
201 – 400
401 – 600
601 – 800
801 – 1000
& A ; gt ; 1001
& A ; lt ; 500
501 – 1000
& A ; gt ; 1001
& A ; lt ; 1000
& A ; gt ; 1001
Table 6: Cost of Production per Season
4.8.1 Relationship between husbandmans ‘ background and pest control acceptance and patterns
The consequence shows relationship between instruction attainments with pest control patterns and pesticide usage which is important difference at ( p = 1.554, X2 = 0.67 ) and ( p = 1.672, X2 = 0.643 ) ( appendix 2 and 3 ) . There is important difference between instruction attainment with biological, cultural and mechanical method of patterns at ( p = 3.074, X2 = 0.38 ) , ( p = 1.687, X2 = 0.64 ) and ( p = 1.91, X2 = 0.591 ) , with secondary school ( 52.2 % ) , ( 54.3 % ) and ( 59.6 % ) ( Appendix 4, Appendix 5 and appendix 6 ) .
4.8.2 Relationship between pest control acceptances with pest control method
There is important different between pest control acceptance and chemical control method at ( p = 1.59, X2 = 0.00 ) ( Appendix 7 ) . 58.2 % of husbandmans that following pest control by utilizing biological control with important difference at ( p = 2.756, X2 = 0.97 ) ( Appendix 8 ) . Merely 11.0 % of husbandman owned manual or pamphlet given by agriculture officer or pesticide company ( Appendix 9 ) .
4.8.3 Relationship between pest control acceptances with pesticide application.
There is no important different between pest control acceptances with pesticide application by husbandmans.
4.8.4 Relationship between earnestness of plague, disease and weed with plague control acceptance
The consequence show important difference between pest control acceptance and earnestness of plague, disease and weed infestation. Brown leafhopper ( p = 8.556, X2 = 0.03 ) , black bug ( p = 4.163, X2 = 0.41 ) , rat ( p = 58.237, X2 = 0.00 ) , army worm ( p = 2.712, X2 = 0.10 ) , leaf booklet ( p = 10.560, X2 = 0.001 ) , eel ( p = 6.555, X2 = 0.010 ) and H2O jacinth ( p = 5.223, X2 = 0.022 ) , severally ( Appendix 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and16 ) .
From the consequence showed 91.6 % males and 8.4 % females. Majority of respondents are married that aged between 51 to 60 old ages old. The respondents in this sample have a really high frequence in secondary degree of instruction with 56.5 % . Majority of the husbandmans farm graduated table was less than 9 estates and most of them work as full clip husbandman. About 40.6 % of famers ain and rent the farm and 84.5 % of them were in group of centre direction. Farmers in this group were lead by block leader whom act as go-between between husbandmans and agriculture officer.
Brown leafhopper, blast and weedy rice infestation were the most menace to the husbandmans. Even though brown leafhopper, blast and weedy rice infestation were high, leaf booklet, cervix putrefaction and wiregrass highly serious menace to the husbandmans. Majority of the husbandmans used chemical control method in their farm and most of them used legal pesticide.
The types of insect powder that used by most husbandmans were Karate® and Tapisan® . Both of the insect powders were used to command leaf booklet. For antifungal, bulk of the husbandmans use Score® and Armure® to command disease infestation. 74.9 % of husbandman used Solito® as weedkiller. There are husbandmans still utilizing Paraquat as weedkiller, even though it has been banned by Ministry of Agriculture.
One-half of the husbandmans utilizing pesticide in their farm because of fast action, and 33 % of them choose effectual as their reply. Majority of the husbandmans decided to spray the pesticide when they notice the presence of plague in their field with frequence of twice a hebdomad. They besides decided to spray harmonizing to spraying agenda which was 5 to 8 times per season. Merely 9.2 % decided to spray harmonizing to economic threshold degree. That ‘s average, husbandman ‘s cognition on threshold was really hapless and they need counsel from agriculture officer.
Merely 29.2 % of husbandmans apply mix pesticides, they normally apply 3 to 4 types of pesticide in a sprayer to salvage clip, labour and redemptive clip. Rest of the husbandmans did non assorted pesticide because they think, if they mix the pesticide, the mixture will be toxicant and harmful.
Majority of husbandmans cognizant of safety handling of pesticide, they normally wear safety mask when preparing and blending the pesticide. All the husbandmans choose safety mask as the most of import tools when fixing and blending the pesticide. Majority of the husbandman washed the pesticide spryer in the field by utilizing available stored H2O and buried used pesticide container in the dirt.
Majority of husbandman aware of negative impact of pesticides and the commonest symptom of pesticide toxic condition experienced by respondent husbandmans was headache. Most of the husbandmans treated any illness which may hold been due to pesticide toxic condition by themselves by eating pilchard and imbibing coconut H2O and calcium hydroxide juice. It is noted that husbandmans have learned that pesticides can do chronic wellness jobs in add-on to acute toxic condition.
Most respondents receive information about type and rate of pesticide from direction on the bottle and agribusiness officer. Majority of the husbandman received consultancy on pest control patterns from IADA KETARA ( Terengganu ) and KADA ( Kelantan ) .
Surprisingly, merely 11.7 % of husbandman owned manual or booklet on pest control patterns and 82.1 % of the husbandmans understand the content of the manual or booklet. They received manual or pamphlet largely from Department of Agriculture, pesticide marketer and MARDI. Most of the husbandman go toing pest control classs organized by agribusiness officer. Even though go toing pest control patterns class, merely 74.5 % claimed that agribusiness officer give adequate information.
The general aim of this survey is to find husbandmans ‘ attitude and beginning of information towards pest control patterns. To accomplish this aim, a study has been conducted at IADA KETARA and KADA. This survey has shown that by utilizing questionnaire method, it is a dependable and valid tool that could find husbandmans ‘ attitude and beginning of information towards pest control patterns. By utilizing high dependability and cogency questionnaires, the research worker could understand better the husbandmans ‘ attitude towards pest control patterns.
The sample comprises 91.6 % males and 8.4 % females. Majority of respondents are married that consist of 90 % , 5 % still individual, 3 % divorced and merely 2 % others. The age group was divided to 20 to 30 old ages old, 31 to 40 old ages old, 41 to 50 old ages old, 51 to 60 old ages old and over 61 old ages old. Majority of the husbandmans aged between 51 to 60 old ages old. The respondents in this sample have a really high frequence in secondary degree of instruction with 56.5 % . Majority of the husbandmans farm graduated table was less than 9 estates and most of them work as full clip husbandman. From entire respondents, 69.9 % of them earn between RM 0 to RM 5000.
From the research, 5.9 % of husbandmans still used illegal pesticide and bulk of the husbandmans utilizing chemical pesticide to command pest, disease and weed population in their field. Most of the husbandmans aware about negative impacts of pesticide but they still lack of cognition about economic threshold. Most of the husbandmans wore some sort of protective vesture during pesticide spraying and they besides aware about negative impact of pesticide and common symptom of pesticide toxic condition.
Most respondents receive information about type and rate of pesticide from direction on the bottle and agribusiness officer. IADA KETARA and KADA play an of import function to guarantee husbandmans receive information about plague control patterns. Most of the husbandmans go toing pest control patterns class, but merely 11.7 % owned manual or booklet on pest control patterns. Harmonizing to the respondents, most of them think agriculture officer is the most responsible individual to guarantee the successful of pest control patterns among the husbandmans, because they receive all the information about plague control patterns from agriculture officer.
5.2 Restriction of the survey
During this study, there were some restriction occurs, include sample size and honestness and consistence of reply.
5.2.1 Sample size
A entire figure of 239 respondents were surveyed at selected block at both IADA KETARA and KADA by utilizing study method. So, it is non wise to state that this consequence represented the entire husbandman in Kelantan and Terengganu due to it is merely delineated husbandmans in selected block. The information or information may non be applicable for others husbandmans situated in another topographic points due to variance in location, size and husbandman patterns which influence by civilization, history background, demographic and other factors.
Desirably, a larger sample size of respondents will be enable research worker to acquire a better consequence, as more people from other block will be analyzed, hence, heightening a more accurate and touchable consequences can be used more widely.
5.2.3 Honesty and consistent reply
Another restriction to this survey was the possibility of respondents ‘ prejudice, which can non command the respondents supplying honest and consistence informations, where information provided by the respondents were either pure earnestness or merely to ease this study. Sometimes, replies are non provided under unwilling fortunes or state of affairs. Besides, some respondents did non take the questionnaire earnestly by merely make fulling up the questionnaire, which resulted in the inaccuracy findings of this research. Some respondents even refused make fulling up the questionnaire, which cause a low respond rate.
5.3.1 Government intercession
Malayan authorities, particularly Ministry of Agriculture should play an of import regulation on the execution of plague control patterns. Government should utilize a huge array of communicating tools runing from the mass media to educational seminar to research the information about pesticide and pest control patterns. Government besides should form a plague control class that requires famers to go to it before get downing new season.
5.3.2 Pesticide company
Pesticide company plays an of import regulations to educate the husbandmans on pesticide application. They should supply right information on rate of pesticide and safety step when managing the pesticide.