Present Status of Pest and Disease Management on Food and Vegetable Crops and Its Future Development

8/14/2019 Present Status of Pest and Disease Management on Food and Vegetable Crops and Its Future Development

1/23

Final Report

Present Status of Pest and Disease Management on Foodand Vegetable Crops and Its Future Development

Witono Adiyoga

Tonny K. Moekasan

Tinny S. Uhan

E. Soenaryo

Hendarsih

Entomological Society of Indonesia


2/23


3/23

2

The discovery during the 1940s of the pesticidal properties of DDT and otherchlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates, and carbamates provided the basis for theseries of insecticides, fungicides that were rapidly developed and adopted for use inagricultural production in the decades following World War II. In those decades, it wascommonly believed that widespread use of chemical pesticides could solve agricultural pest

problems at a low cost to society.In Indonesia, following the Bimas (Mass Guidance) program, pesticides, along withfertilizers and high-yielding variety, have enabled farmers to achieve increases in landproductivity over the last 30 years. As a consequence of the program that recommends theuse of chemicals as one means of increasing food production, especially rice, theconsumption of pesticides is continuously increasing. Pest and disease control measuresthat put emphasis on the use of pesticides are a common practice in cultivating both foodand vegetable crops. The cost of pesticide usage varies among crops; it may contributeapproximately 30-50% to the total production cost. Previous studies have found thatfarmers pest control actions reflected their individual perceptions and not necessarily theactual situation. Their perceptions may or may not reflect the real problems and options, and

the similarity between the resulting outcome and the decision makers prior assessment willdepend on how realistic their perceptions were, on their ability to make an assessment, andon the chance events that could not have been predicted, such as weather and crop prices.Substantial evidence from the field also suggests that it is likely that farmers do misuse oroveruse pesticides.

The consequences of pesticide use in agriculture can be classified into: market effectsand non-market effects. The market effect is in the form of a decrease in yield loss, hencean increase in the marketable output of the product, which in turn may stabilize the foodprices. The non-market effects include the often too difficult to measure impacts on publichealth and the environment. Some non-market concerns are health risks to farm workers;the resurgence of insect pests; land, air and water pollution, the adverse effects on wildlife,the pesticide residue problem on food, etc. Recently, there is a growing concern that thenon-market effects may eventually impose higher costs and more negative impacts on bothproducers and society.

IPM program was first introduced in Indonesia in 1975 because of the recognition byentomologist and other scientists that the widespread use of chemicals to controlagricultural pests might disrupt the ecosystem and thus failed to provide a long-term pestcontrol solution. In its development, however, a more concerted effort need to be done toaccelerate the program since the adoption of this concept at the farmers level is still quiteslow. An issue that is also important to be elaborated is the perceptions not only of farmers,but also of all concerned parties, including policy makers, concerning the present and futurepest management. These perceptions may provide some insights in formulating a strategyto accelerate the adoption of appropriate pesticide management practices.

The objectives of this study are to assess the present status and to explore the futuredevelopment of pest and disease management on food and vegetable crop cultivation.


4/23

3

Entomological Society of IndonesiaPresent Status of Pest and Disease Management on Food and Vegetable Crops andIts Future Development

METHODOLOGY

A survey is carried out to systematically gather information from respondents for thepurpose of understanding and/or predicting some aspects of interest. Individual in-

depth interview will be chosen because it can provide more detail, point out personalpreferences and idiosyncrasies, and describe subtleties, nuances and shades ofdifference that are masked in the group setting.

Data are collected through interviews which involve a semi-structured questionnairethat serves as a guideline, but the interviewer is not bound to strictly follow it. Since thisstudy can be categorized as exploratory and problem-identification research, thequestionnaire contains open-ended questions which leave the respondent free to offerany replies that seem appropriate in light of the question. In addition, this type ofquestion can provide the researcher with a basis for judging the actual values andviews of the respondents that are often difficult to capture with more structuredtechniques. The topics covered in the questionnaire include: (a) contextual aspects of

the targeted crop, (b) pest problems encountered in the field, (c) existing pest controlmeasures/treatments, (d) perceptions with regard to the actual insecticides currentlyoffered, and (e) the future of pest/insect management.

Survey is conducted in the capital city of West Java, Central Java, and East Java andmajor production centers of the targeted crops (rice, soybean, shallot, hot pepper,potato, cabbage, and tomato). Respondents are consisted of policy makers from someinstitutions that are closely related to pest and disease control activities. They areselected purposively based on their capacity, knowledge, and direct and/or indirectinvolvement in pest control management. List of respondent distribution, locations andcrops included in this study is enclosed.

Each member of the interviewing team takes notes during the interview and writes out asummary of his or her impressions and conclusions following the interview. Thesummary will follow the format of the semi-structured questionnaire to providecomparability across interviews. All summaries will be compiled and further analyzed bya set of procedures for collecting and organizing information in a standardized formatthat allows analysts to make inference about characteristics and meaning of thesummarized material (content analysis).

Chapter

2


5/23

4


Present Status of Pest and Disease Management on Food and Vegetable Crops andIts Future Development

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

I. CONTEXT

Two main concerns in the agricultural development program of the new administrationare strengthening food security on the basis of available food resources, institutional, andlocal culture diversity, and developing agribusiness sub-sector through improvements ofexisting regional comparative advantages. Based on its survival during the economic crisis,agricultural sector again is expected to be the prime mover of economic recovery or, evenlong-term economic development in Indonesia. The new paradigm of economicdevelopment emphasizes the availability of domestic resources and current productionsituation that should be carefully considered in planning the development program and

setting the realistic target.

Interviewed respondents are mostly policy makers who are responsible for formulatingpest management policies at regional or national level and supervising theirimplementations. Appendix 1 and 2 provide time-series data on harvested area andproduction, segmented by administrative boundary, for several crops being studied (rice,soybean, shallot, hot pepper, cabbage, potato and tomato). There is no clear or well-definedcriterion for segmenting production or marketing of those commodities except theadministrative boundary and production center.

Rice is still considered as the first priority commodity, followed by secondary crops(such as soybean and corn) and vegetable crops. Current population that has reachedapproximately 207 millions, and continuously growing at 1,6% per year, with a very high riceconsumption per capita (135 kg/capita/year) has forced the government to focus itsagricultural development program on increasing rice production. However, it has beenrealized that this focus still needs support from the efforts of improving food and nutrientdiversification, which should be based on domestically-produced resources. Commoditypriority setting implies that the lower the priority, the lesser the government intervention, both

Chapter

3


6/23

5

to production (for instance, farm credit) and marketing (for instance, floor price policy)aspects of the respective commodity (such as vegetables).

In Indonesia, with a total vegetable production of 7.9 million t in 1996 (on an area of928,000 ha), vegetable availability is approximately 38 kg/year per person. This per capita

availability is clearly insufficient to meet the FAOs nutritional recommendation of 200 g ofvegetables per capita per day (65 kg/year). As estimated by the World Bank, fruit andvegetable consumption in Indonesia will increase by an average of 3.9% per year during theperiod of 1995-2010 (Pasandaran & Hadi, 1994). Indonesia is expected to face vegetabledemands which increasingly exceed supplies (Jansen, 1992). This deficit is likely to becomemore serious due to a virtually stagnant supply and the estimated total population growththat remains at an average of 1.9% per annum until the year of 2000.

The actual growth of planted area and production of some vegetables covering theperiod of 1969-1995 are presented in Appendix 3 (Adiyoga, 1998). Data show that theaverage growth rate of vegetable production ranges between 10% to 15% per year. Potato,

tomato, hot pepper, and shallot, have experienced an increasing growth over the period of1969-1995. Meanwhile, cabbage has experienced the pattern of constant growth rate.While production growth for shallot has been dominantly yield-led, the growth pattern for theother vegetables (potato, tomato, cabbage, and hot pepper) being analyzed is mostly area-led. Further analysis shows that the variability in planted area has been identified as themain source of vegetable production instability during the period of 1969-1995.

There are at least five most significant challenges (small farm size, low price, low yield,price fluctuation and pest and disease incidence) faced by producers as perceived byrespondents (Table 1). Small farm size is the most significant challenge faced by producersof all commodities. The other challenge rated most important, especially by shallot and hotpepper producers at least in the last 4-5 years, is price fluctuation. At one time, the price ofshallot can reach Rp. 8 000 per kg, and then fluctuates and goes down until reaching Rp.500 per kg. In the mean time, all producers rate the pest and disease incidence as thesecond most significant challenge.

Table 1 Most significant challenges faced by producers

Most significantchallenges

Rice Soybean Shallot HotPepper

Cabbage Potato Tomato

Small farm size *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Low price ** ** * * * * *

Low yield * ** * * * * *

Price fluctuation na na *** *** ** * **

Pest and diseaseincidence

** ** ** ** ** ** **

Note: * indicates the relative importance of a particular challenge as compared to other challengesna = not applicable


7/23

6

Respondents suggest that technical issues mostly confronted by producers inproducing their crops are inappropriate cultural practices and input availability. These twofactors are usually perceived as the main cause of low crop yield at the farmers' level.Healthy seed availability is frequently becoming a major problem for potato and shallotproducers in optimizing their production. Meanwhile, lack of capital and marketing un-

certainty are the two economic issues perceived by producers as important constraints inexpanding their business. In some production centers, fake fertilizers or pesticides or evenbanned pesticides are occasionally found. The constraints to increasing productionsimultaneously imply weaknesses in implementing or enforcing the existing governmentregulations. Land fertility degradation that tends to accelerate because of over-intensivecultivation is frequently indicated in the highland areas. Furthermore, crop failure caused bypest and disease outbreak occurs more often because of increasing ecosystem imbalance.

In 1996-1997, there was a slight and temporary decrease in production of allcommodities, caused by the increase of input prices, especially fertilizers and pesticides. In1998-1999, a change in government policy concerning farm credit had provided incentives

to farmers to increase their production, or even non-farmers to involve in the production offood crops and vegetables. Without any proper anticipation in the supply side, this policyhad resulted in an over-production that caused a drastic decrease in commodity prices. Forinstance, prices of hot pepper, shallot, tomato and potato are at the lowest during mid untilthe end of 1999.

There is a mixed perception about the production trends over the next 5-10 years.Recovery from current economic crisis may provide a boost for increasing or stabilizingvegetables production. However, this boost may not provide enough economic incentivesfor producers in increasing rice and soybean production. Some respondents also suggestthat the government needs to reassess and reconsider the pricing policy for those

Table 2 Issues or constraints faced by producers today

Issues or Constraints Rice Soy-bean

Shallot HotPepper

Cab-bage

Potato Tomato

Technical:

Inappropriate cultural practices Limited adaptability Seed and other inputs availability

Economic:

Lack of capital Low price Price fluctuation

Regulatory: Supervision on fake fertilizer,

pesticide, seed

Enforcement of governmentregulation concerning bannedpesticides

Environmental:

Degradation of land fertility Imbalance ecosystem that tends to

increase the risk of crop failure


8/23

7

commodities (for instance, the tax imposed for imported rice), especially in relation to theagreement with the IMF concerning free trade liberalization. Moreover, increasing rice andsoybean production is not only an economic incentive problem, but also a technologicalproblem. Increasing the yield of those two important commodities will absolutely need a

technological breakthrough.

Regional and global trade liberalization agreements have increased the awareness ofimproving product quality, which is very critical for obtaining competitive advantage in themarket. Within the context of food products, this is closely related to the issue of food safety.Today is also a moment where agriculture is being asked to revisit and reassess allapproaches that have been used and to take an additional mission of being sustainable (aproductive system which enables us to derive continuing benefits from the use of land,water, genetic resources, etc. to meet current needs without destroying the natural resourcebase for the next generation). This implies that the concept of safety is not only applied tothe product, but also to the process of production. Anticipating those demands, two

perceived issues that should be managed differently are the availability of good-clean seed,and the implementation of (integrated) pest and disease control. These two issues arecomplementary, in a sense that by providing some improvements in those areas, theobjectives of achieving food security and food safety could be simultaneously pursued.

II. PEST PROBLEMS

A wide array of pests that may include animals, pathogens, weeds, and insects,constrains crop production. Rice, for example, is particularly vulnerable to a wide range offungal and bacterial pathogens, insects and weeds because of the versatility of itsrequirements for climate, farming techniques and water supply. Pest distribution andfrequency of appearance depend on a complex set of ecological, agro-climatic, andsocioeconomic conditions. Crop losses to pests have always been part of the naturalecology and a by-product of the diversity of nature. Table 3 shows the major pests of somecommodities being studied.

Experience shows that pest problems are separated problems depending on particulararea, season, and crop stage. Rats and rice stemborers can be found all year round in allrice production centers. Brown planthopper has frequently caused crop losses in WestJava, DI Yogyakarta, North Sumatera, West Sumatera, Lampung, South Kalimantan, Bali,West Nusa Tenggara and South Sulawesi. Tungro is an endemic for areas that cultivaterice all year round, such as West Java (Subang, Purwakarta and Bandung), Central Java(Banyumas), DI Yogya (Bantul), South Sulawesi (Maros), Bali and Lombok. Late blight onpotato in different production centers (Garut, Pangalengan, Dieng) is caused by differentraces of Phytophthora infestans. Rainy season is always considered as off-season forcultivating shallot because the risk of crop losses caused by purple blotch and antrachnoseis quite high.


9/23

8

Brown planthopper is considered as the most worrying pest on rice. This pest ischaracterized by having an explosive attack, unpredictable symptom, and varied level ofinfestation. Controlling this pest is becoming more difficult if improper type and dosage ofinsecticides are used in inappropriate time. Users are actually aware that the use ofselective insecticides is important to avoid pest resistance and resurgence. However, users

indicate that effective insecticides are very limited in number, expensive and relativelydifficult to find in the market. In 1985-1986, brown planthopper populations exploded anddestroyed an estimated 275,000 ha of rice. This outbreak had seriously affected self-sufficiency in rice production achieved in 1984-1985.

Table 3 Major pests on several crops being studied

Crops Major Pests

Rice Brown planthopper Yellow borer White borer Field rats Tungro virus disease

Nilaparvata lugens Scirpophaga incertulas Scirpophaga innotata Rattus argentiventer; Rattus

brevicauda

Soybean Spodoptera litura Heliothis armigera

Shallot

Purple blotch Fusarium

Spodoptera exigua Altenaria porri Fusarium oxysporum

Hot Pepper Thrips Anthracnose fruit rot Virus diseases

Thrips parvispinus Colletothricum capsici

Cabbage

Clubroot Plutella xylostella Crocidolomia binotalis Plasmodiophora brassicae

Potato Late blight Bacterial wilt Leafminer flies

Phytophthora infestans Pseudomonas solanacearum Liriomyza huidobrensis

Tomato Helicoverpa armigera Phytophthora infestans Fusarium oxysporum Pseudomonas solanacearum Viruses

Antrachnose is the most serious disease on shallot that frequently constrains theproduction. Initial symptom is indicated by white spots that turns into a dent and finally forms


10/23

9

a hole on the leaves, which causes them to break. This disease develops rapidly under hightemperature and humid conditions during rainy season. Severe browning of leaves followedby tuber rot and plant death. Crop rotation and dry season planting are suggested to breakthe cycle. Sumenep is a local cultivar that has been identified as relatively resistant toantrachnose. Producers often treat the seed by mixing it with fungicide (100 g fungicide per

100 g tuber seed) as preventive measure. To prevent further infection, producers spray theircrop in average of 10-16 times per season. Antrachnose fruit rot is one of several diseases on hot pepper that often seriously

confronting producer to the risk of crop losses. This disease may cause rots on nearlymature (green) and fully mature (red) fruits. Latent infections can survive in hot pepper seedin the form of acervuli for approximately 9 months. Rapid development of this disease isfacilitated by temperature in average of 320 C, accompanied by 95% relative humidity thatmay occur during rainy season. Seed treatments (soaking the seed in warm water for 30minutes or mixing the seed with systemic fungicide, 0.05-0.10%) are common preventivemeasures practiced by producers. Producers also spray their crop, especially during the fruitmaturing stage, which is considered as the most effective spraying period to reduce crop

losses.

Clubroot is the most damaging disease in cabbage that may cause 50-100% croplosses. This disease is considered as the main problem for cabbage production, especiallyin West Java and Central Java. Wilting is easily identified during the day. Later symptomsare dwarf plants and unformed head, followed by death. Spores of P. brassicae that causeclubroot can survive in the soil for more than 30 years, without host plants. Control measurethat usually carried out by producers is liming the land (using Kaptan or Dolomit)approximately 2-4 t/ha, 15 days before planting.

Bacterial wilt or brown rot is the most serious bacterial disease problem of potato thatoften limits production. Initial wilting may affect one side of a leaf first, or one branch. Latersymptoms are severe wilts and browning and desiccation of leaves, followed by death.Aerial or tuber symptoms may occur alone, but the latter usually follow the former. Latenttuber infection occurs when infected seed is planted in cool locations or in tubers infectedlate in the growing season. Wilt develops rapidly at high temp-erature. Crop rotation is mosteffective with the potato strain (race 3), but difficult with race 1 that also affects many othercrops and weeds, especially Solanaceae. Diseased seed causes the most severe bacterialwilt infection and results in spread to non-infested soil. Soil survival in crop debris or survivalfree in soil vary considerably, usually 1 to 3 years for race 3, often longer for race 1.

Late blight is still considered as the most serious fungal disease in most major potatoproduction regions. This disease is favored by temperature between 10 and 250 C,accompanied by heavy dew or rain. Sources of inoculum are neighboring fields of potato ortomato, volunteer plants, and cull piles. Soil survival occurs as a result of the presence ofboth the A1 and A2 mating types, which can lead to early infections. Once infect-ion occursin the field, control is a function of host resistance and spraying, mediated by theenvironment. Producers spray their crop in average of 8-14 times/season. Both protectiveand systemic fungicides are available, but the latter should only be used according to acertain pattern that can minimize the development of resistance in the pathogen.


11/23

10

H. armigera is categorized as one important pest problem on tomato that can cause 40-60% crop losses. This pest can be found in lowland and highland areas. Life cycle of thispest is between 52-58 days. Initially, the larvae ofH. armigera will make a hole on tomatofruit that causes fruit rot, and finally the rotten fruit falls down. Even though, it is reported oncotton, the resistance of H. armigera to Endosulfan is quite alarming. Previous study

suggests that control threshold forH. armigera is 1 larvae/ 10 plants (sample).

There are some major development cycles of pest that should be given an extra care.Brown planthopper attacks rice in nymph and adult phase, meanwhile those that attacksoybean and vegetables are generally in the larvae phase, except Lyriomiza, which attacks,in the adult phase. Rapid development of some diseases is mostly favored by rainy season.

Excessive and indiscriminate use of pesticides that are still practiced by producers maycause heavier pest control problems in the future. The abuse of pesticides has often led toincreased and unnecessary pest outbreaks and additional crop losses because of theinadvertent destruction of natural enemies of the pests and the emergence of both pest

resistance and secondary pests. Experience shows that the problems of resistance andresurgence have worsened over time. These problems have put crop producers on apesticide treadmill, leading them to use ever-increasing and stronger pesticides to killmutating pests.

Some recent studies and observations tend to confirm that the proportion of croplosses has increased during a period of time when the use of chemical pesticides hasrapidly increased. A partial explanation for the paradox is that the commercialization ofagriculture and the reliance on agrochemicals has led to changed farming systems thathave produced higher yields, but have also led to an increased vulnerability of crops topests. These changes in the production systems include an increase in monoculture andreduction in crop diversity, reduction in crop rotation, and reduction in tillage with more cropresidues left on the land surface. In addition, the increase in the use of pesticides hasresulted partly from the increased resistance of some pests to pesticides. A further factorcontributing to the paradox is that the increased use of pesticides has led to a greaterrejection of pest-damaged products as quality controls in the marketplace have becomemore demanding. The resolution of the paradox may well come from integrated pestmanagement, which would modify cropping patterns and favor a judicious use of pesticides.Reducing the proportion of output lost to pests should enhance food security, though it isunrealistic to attempt to have a pest-free agricultural environment. A more realistic goalwould be to reduce pest losses to a socially and economically acceptable level. Thus,increased public aware-ness on sustainable development has led to the understanding thatthere are many advantages to be gained from shifting away from crop protection that reliesalmost exclusively on chemical pesticides toward approaches that reduce reliance onchemicals (at least at the policy-makers level). For this to happen, government policies haveto continuously encourage and support moves toward ecological and management-basedapproaches and to regulate the manufacture, distribution and use of chemical pesticides.


12/23

11

III. INSECTICIDE TREATMENTS

Pesticides are considered as the last resort in rice pest and disease managementfollowing the IPM concept that had been introduced since 1975. In the 80's, national IPM

pilot projects on rice were already executed in Java, Sumatera and South Sulawesi.Department of Agriculture also assigned the DITLIN to provide the Surveillance andForecasting Service that frequently alarmed the emergency control units to spray rice areaswith high pest incidence. The IPM approach is also supported by the announcement of theIndonesian National IPM Policy through Presidential Instruction No. 3 of 1986 (INPRES3/86). In the late 1980s, when the effect of this INPRES became visible and IPM training inrice accelerated, Indonesian government began to include vegetables in the IPM ricetraining curriculum. In 1996, the Indonesian National IPM Program conducted 649 FarmersField School (FFS) training events in non-rice commodities (soybean, potatoes, cabbage,hot pepper and shallot) with some 16,225 IPM graduates from these vegetables FFSs.

In the IPM scheme, indiscriminate spraying (systematic or routine spraying) is notrecommended and only judicious use of pesticides is employed, minimizing damage tobiological control agents and the environment. However, it should be admitted that not allpest problems can be solved by manipulating cultural practices in the plant environment orby the use of biological control agents. In these cases, pesticides become the second orthird line of defense. If use of pesticide is necessary, it is advised to start the program byobserving the pest development phase and use available information on the pest economic,damage or action threshold. Furthermore, select the one that is most effective, but less toxicto non-target organisms or least persistent in the environment. Best control occurs at aparticular stage in pests' life-cycle, which usually during the early stages of development.Spot treat, if possible, instead of applying blanket or wall-to-wall treatments.

Pest control methods that avoid a systematic spraying as suggested in the IPMconcept are continuously promoted to the farmers. However, there is an important questionthat should be answered after years of introducing, promoting and socializing the IPMconcept. To what extent farmers have adopted the integrated pest management practices?Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not available yet. Although field observationindicates that the extent of adoption varies widely among crops and regions, or the adoptionis actually very slow, there will be another question concerning the validity of this indication.The answer to the adoption question is very critical in monitoring the progress of IPMimplementation at the farmers' level. This implies that efforts should not only be given to theimprovements of IPM approach, but also to the establishment of a complete, practical andaccepted methodology to measure overall IPM adoption.

Experience shows that there are always positive and negative aspects following theimplementation of various strategies as perceived by policy makers:


13/23

12

No Strategies Positive Negative

1 Resistantvarieties

Reduce the costs for controlling pestand disease

Products are sometimes not preferredby consumers

2 Planting inunison Minimize pest and disease incidence,and its control can be carried out all atonce

Possibilities of excess supply that maylower the price

3 Use ofbeneficiaries

It is self-sustaining, may not requireinputs from farmers, and is safe for theenvironment and human health

Difficulty in overcoming the marketappeal of chemical control and thismethod require more knowledge by thefarmer and is not as consistentlyeffective in killing pests as arechemicals

4 IntegratedPestManagement

A flexible approach that draws upon arange of pest control methods toproduce a result that combines thegreatest value to the farmer withenvironmentally acceptable andsustainable outcomes

Frequently occurred misconception thatIPM eliminates completely the use ofpesticides

5 Insecticidestreatments

Fast and effective measure to reducecrop losses

High cost and environmentally-unfriendly

The use of conventional pesticides in an IPM program may differ from that of a"traditional" chemical program. Within the framework of IPM, some critical factors thatshould be considered in insecticide treatments are: (a) only one of many actions taken overthe cropping cycle to manage pest species, (b) specific to the pest species, as nearly aspossible, (c) used at the lowest effective rate, (d) short-lived in the environment, (e) be leasttoxic to beneficial and humans, and (f) alternated with other chemicals to help prevent

resistance. Insecticide use will involve making management decisions: Targeted pest must be properly identified and controlled on the basis of establisheddamage or action threshold.

Best control of many insects is usually during the early stages of development.Insecticide applications at other times are less effective

Read the label (containing information concerning targeted pest, procedures andsafety) thoroughly and examine the level of efficacy completely

Pesticides must be used correctly and only when threshold limits are reached. Utilizethe safest, most effective pesticide available for the particular pest and spot treatwhenever possible.

IV. PERCEPTION OF THE ACTUAL OFFER

Estimated market share of various crops in using pesticides available in the market isrice (52%), vegetables (17%), soybean (12%), spices and herbs (10%), other (8%), andfruits (1%). In the pesticide market, insecticides are always the biggest category, followed by


14/23

13

herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides, respectively. A wide range of chemical pesticidesavailable in the market may provide alternatives for farmers to choose, but simultaneouslymay cause confusion among farmers to get the appropriate one. However, the availability ofpesticide products in the market does not mean much to farmers if their prices arecontinuously increasing and becoming more unaffordable.

Secondary data show that there is an increase, in terms of the weight, for all chemicalclasses of pesticides, except for organophosphates, between 1980 and 1996. Insecticidesare dominated by organophos-phates and carbamates, while fungicides are mainlycomposed of dithiocarbamates. In 1980, the supply of subsidized insecticides to the ricesector consisted of 72% organophosphates, 25% carbamates, and 3% others. By 1985,systemic carbamate insecticides were as popular as organophosphates, each taking almost50% of the rice market. By 1996, these two classes had decreased to about 25% each withpyrethroids as runner up at 20%, while endosulfan (class organochlorine) captured a

Table 4 Main pesticide product families available in the market

Categories and chemical classes 1980(t)

1996(t)

1. Insecticides

Organophosphates Carbamates Organochlorines Pyrethroids Others

2,5441,177

782132

1,3401,663

68912097

2. Fungicides

Organophosphates Carbamates Dithiocarbamates Organochlorines Others

00

98515697

318

4,126226273

3. Herbicides

Organophosphates Carbamates Sulfonyl urea Paraquat Others

2800

1941,517

2,6414414

1,8471,672

Source: Bayer AG, Germany, 1998 (in Oudejans, 1999)

stable 10% share (Oudejans, 1999). Although most pyrethroids are rather toxic to naturalenemies, their low dosage requirement (10-40 g a.i./ha) may make this classenvironmentally more acceptable than the organo-phosphates and carbamates. Lowdosage paired to high biological efficacy is a major aim in new product development. Newapplication methods may help to make products more compatible to the IPM program. Forexample, imidachlorid granules applied to rice seedlings, 1 g a.i. per seedling box threedays before transplanting, protect the rice plants for several weeks after transplanting. Inpotatoes, the market share of dithiocarbamates fungicides, mainly for control of late blight


15/23

14

(Phytophthora infestans) remained almost continuously between 50% and 74%. Pesticidesuse in vegetables is varied. In 1996, the use of fungicides, including dithiocarbamates,carbamates and others, increased to an estimated 40-50%. Among the insecticides, theorganophosphates dominated the scene till 1986, with carbamates trailing at about 14%. Inthe 1990s, pyrethroid insecticides came up to the same level, around 20%, as the

organophosphates. The gaining popularity of pyrethroids is probably a result of anincreasing pesticide resistance of major vegetable pests.

Attributes expected to be attached on pesticide products are those which are, asclosely as possible, IPM-compatible. Within this context, product specificity (based ondifferent pests, time, and conditions) is very critical to satisfy the requirements forcompatibility. The following table shows that respondents expect product that is mosteffective, but not/less toxic to non-target organisms or least persistent in the environment,and practical.

Table 5 Attributes expected on pesticide products

Attribute Measure When(placed in the program)

Importance1=not important,

10=must

Selectiveness High biological efficacy Immediately 9.16

Effectiveness Low dosage Immediately 8.83

Application practicability Formulation techniques (ex.water-soluble sachet, tablets,dust-free granules, micro-encapsulated activeingredients)

Immediately 6.83

Appearance Size of container and label ofinformation

Immediately 6.00

V. THE FUTURE OF INSECT MANAGEMENT

There is a clear evidence that despite high and rising levels of reliance on pesticidesand rapid innovation in the relevant sciences, pest management systems are barelykeeping pace with the capacity of pests to adapt to their environment. Resistance topesticides is a ubiquitous concern and managing resistance is a constant challenge.Furthermore, pest resistance seems to develop more rapidly and is more serious in thetropical climate countries, like Indonesia. In the next 5-10 years, probably there will be anincrease in the trend toward the production of more narrowly targeted, less persistent, andless toxic products, and a consistent reduction in the use of broadly targeted products.


16/23

15

There probably also will be an increase in more narrowly targeted products to deal with anincreasingly diverse spectrum of local pest problems. A closer relationship between theproducers of pesticides and the scientists working on genetic engineering can also beexpected. This symbiosis may well result in greater crop protection being provided bygenetically engineered plants using smaller quantities of pesticides than before. It is

conceivable that pest management will use new generation of pesticides that may haveeven lower usage rates than at present, be well screened for environmental effects, and benontoxic (functioning instead by triggering a crop's natural plant defense mechanism).Much emphasis on environmental quality in pest management will undoubtedly continue tofocus on issues of alternative, environmentally-safe tactics. In particular, developing non-pesticidal alternatives and more environmentally benign pesticides will no doubt continue tobe emphasized. Nevertheless, there will be a broader need for mechanism within pestmanagement to address issues of environmental safety. In this effort, a variety ofapproaches are likely to have merit. In particular, looking at aspects of pest managementand identifying ways we might change practices to improve environmental safety, as well asdeveloping new tools such as pesticide selection criteria and environmental economic injury

levels, are among the most immediate approaches that can be used. Given the manydifficulties in implementing IPM programs, many barriers to implementing these newtechniques clearly exist. Nevertheless, because our pest management programs must beresponsive to the needs of the general public as well as to individual growers, developingprocedures to improve environmental safety in pest management will remain a priority forthe foreseeable future.

Self-explanatory table below shows pressures perceived by respondents in the comingyears that have to be handled with care. Biological

Table 6 Pressures expected to have significant impacts in the coming years

Pressures Description Year to happen Probability Magnitude ofImpact

Biological pest resistance, resurgenceand outbreaks

next 1-3 years very high very great

Regulatory domestic or internationaltrade of banned pesticides

from now on high moderately great

Ecological environmental safety next 5-10 years high great

Resistancemanagement

most effective pesticide, butnot/less toxic to non-targetorganisms

next 1-5 years high very great

New varieties tasty, high-yield and pest-resistant variety

from now on very high very great

Public opinion food safety (pesticideresidue)

next 1-5 years very high great


17/23

16

and resistance management are the two main pressures expected to have more significantimpact as compared to other pressures.

Increasing consumer's and producers' awareness on food and environmental safetywill force market to provide product lines that are more IPM-oriented. A genuine concern

about inherent hazards of excessive and indiscriminate use of pesticides will evolve marketto eventually sell products that meet health and environmental standards (pesticides thatare more narrowly targeted, less persistent or short-lived in the environment, less toxic , andthe least toxic to natural enemies, or even non-chemical products, such as biopesticides,pheromones, and microbials).

Biological control forms one of the foundations of ecological strategies like IPM and isexpected to be taken up by farmers as IPM gain popularity. It should be noted though thatbiological control agents are complex, not totally effective and not always predictable. Theconcept of biological control has been so widely publicized that the general public views itas a viable and readily available alternative to all pesticides. Unfortunately, this is not the

case, but this area currently is receiving much needed attention and hopefully will provideadditional control agents in the future. An example of biological control that has beenpracticed in Indonesia is an integrated control of diamondback moth on cabbage. Atpresent, however, biological control is still facing difficulty in overcoming the market appealof chemical control. Biological solutions require more knowledge by the farmer and are notas consistently effective in killing pests as are chemicals. The neem tree and its variousproducts are among the most important of botanical pesticides that have been developed atthe research centers. Neem contains several chemicals that affect the reproductive anddigestive processes of a number of important pests. However, neem suffers from someproblems such as low toxicity and high oil content, and there have been a number ofdifficulties in commercializing it despite its many attractive natural qualities as a pesticide.Meanwhile, regarding the rapid spread of genetically modified/engineered crops, thegovernment deals with this development with caution. There are some major concerns thatinclude: (a) whether genetically engineered crops will lead to insect-resistance, and (b)whether the consumption of genetically engineered food crops by humans and animals willhave harmful side effects. Thus, there will be some time before these geneticallyengineered crops can be finally accepted.

In general, knowledge concerning use of parasitoids, predators, micro-organisms, andsources of natural resistance are actually still limited. Moreover, the effectiveness ofindigenous as well as of some introduced parasitoids, which became established, is oftenjeopardized by farmers who continue to apply pesticides indiscriminately. Field observationshows that besides Bt products and abamectin, no other biopesticides are used by farmerson a large scale. Biological control is not expected to be a major factor in pest managementover the next decade unless funding for its widespread adoption becomes available. Mostbiological solutions require institutional rather than farmer action. Meanwhile, biopesticideshave to compete with established chemical pesticides in term of both price andeffectiveness. Government support in the form of short-term subsidies can improve the pricecompetitiveness of biopesticides. However, in the long-term, increased research to improvetheir effectiveness; the use of modern production, transportation, and storage methods; and


18/23

17

strict quality control are essential if biopesticides are to become effective alternatives tochemical pesticides.

Attributes of a new pesticide product that will be well accepted by the market or usersare those that provide a guarantee to meet health and environmental standards. Hence,

both effectiveness (low dose and used at the lowest effective rate) and selectiveness (pest-specific, less-persistent, and non toxic to natural enemies) of the product should be explicitlypointed out.

It is not easy to provide precise figures for the pesticide expenditures for individualcrops, since these expenditures vary widely for each crop, for different locations, for eachseason, and depend very much on the skill and economy with which the farmer usespesticides. The range of cost proportion (relative to the total cost of production) spent forpest control: rice (10-28%), soybean (10-30%), and vegetables -- shallot, hot pepper,cabbage, potato and tomato (20-50%). Most respondents suggest that some parametersthat can be used as the bases for determining the price of pesticides are: (a) efficacy or

effectiveness, (b) selectiveness, and (c) estimated social and regulatory costs stemmingfrom the use of pesticides.


19/23

18


Present Status of Pest and Disease Management on Food and Vegetable Crops andIts Future Development

CONCLUSION

Present status of pest and disease management, especially on vegetables, is stillrelying on the use of chemical pesticides. In commercial vegetable growing, where anyinjury or blemish lowers the market value of the produce, preventive application ofpesticides is a common practice. Vegetable growers are often exposed to a stream ofinformation about pesticide products performance, without having the knowledge andmeans to verify the claims. Some studies, however, indicate that farmers rely on a limitednumber of favored chemicals applied repeatedly, rather than taking risks with new products.Quantitative data on actual use patterns are needed to identify and clarify key features ofpest management problems faced by farmers.

In spite of national efforts over the past 20 years, integrated pest management has yetto have a substantial and widespread application at the farmers' level. However, this is notthe case at the policy-makers' level. In this context, policy makers seem to confront asubstantial issue of balancing social costs with social gains from the use of chemicalpesticides, that is, how to reduce crop losses while minimizing pest-resistance in plants andharmful side effects to health and environment. Nonetheless, even though there has been aslow spread of integrated pest management, there is a growing consensus that thisapproach will be the preferred means for coping with pest-induced losses in the yearsahead. Therefore, future pest and disease management will assuredly follow a flexibleapproach that draws upon a range of pest control methods to produce a result thatcombines the greatest value to the farmer with environmentally acceptable and sustainableoutcomes.

Chapter

4


20/23

19

References

1. Adiyoga, W. 1998. Pola pertumbuhan produksi beberapa jenis sayuran di Indonesia.Laporan Hasil Penelitian, Balai Penelitian Tanaman Sayuran, Lembang.

2. Jansen, H. G. P. 1992. Supply and demand of AVRDC mandate crops in Asia: Implicationsof past trends for future development. Working Paper no. 4 (revised version) . AVRDC,Taiwan.

3. Ninez, V. 1984. Household gardens: Theoretical considerations as an old survival strategy.Food System Research Series, no. 1, International Potato Center, Lima

4. Oudejans, J. H. M. 1999. Studies on IPM policy in South East Asia: Two centuries of plantprotection in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Wageningen Agricultural University, TheNetherlands

5. Pasandaran, E. & Hadi, P. U. 1994. Prospek komoditi hortikultura di Indo-nesia dalamkerangka pembangunan ekonomi. Makalah pada Penyusunan Prioritas dan DesainPenelitian Hortikultura, Solok, 17-19 November 1994.

6. Sanyal, B. 1985. Urban agriculture: Who cultivates and why? A case study of Lusaka,Zambia. A paper published in the Household Food Production. Comparative Perspectives,CIP.

7. van Lieshout, O. 1992. Consumption of fresh vegetables in Indonesia. InternalCommunication no. 48. Project ATA-395/LEHRI.


21/23

20

Appendix 1 Harvested area of rice, soybean, shallot, hot pepper, cabbage, potato and tomato,1994-1999 (ha)

Crop Year West Java Central Java DI Yogya East Java Indonesia

Rice 19951996199719981999*

2 125 6662 118 9562 040 6802 179 9762 182 950

1 587 0461 606 9621 597 2271 714 0741 683 338

135 356137 402134 204137 771135 406

1 627 3321 622 0511 605 5161 717 1671 763 768

11 438 76411 569 72911 140 59411 730 32511 718 577

Soybean 19951996199719981999*

81 64768 45959 28757 38570 764

211 766192 979155 917180 129184 243

60 23164 68164 11357 17262 984

416 223416 796414 748394 093404 901

1 477 4321 279 2861 119 0791 095 0711 164 230

Shallot 19941995199619971998**

13 73913 93614 65610 02510 072

18 87517 08920 78417 79920 773

1 5682 1472 3082 6462 632

22 43514 95324 89523 90317 453

84 63077 21096 29288 54078 425

H. Pepper 19941995199619971998**

26 89824 98921 89620 73218 889

27 36425 94124 10023 12422 570

2 3782 6682 8903 0502 750

37 39039 15035 15135 34738 435

177 639182 263169 764161 602166 513

Cabbage 19941995

199619971998**

15 35617 414

15 73113 16618 220

16 97515 959

17 83317 39214 215

133138

176139102

10 8397 170

9 90310 0259 859

67 35065 820

69 81564 99065 974

Potato 19941995199619971998**

13 15016 25917 27411 60420 962

12 22814 50816 1688 662

10 668

453231

13351

7 1076 0647 1757 3766 987

56 05762 38869 94650 19063 520

Tomato 199419951996

19971998**

12 35510 44711 329

9 73910 474

2 6602 7962 963

2 8342 511

275221207

295196

2 8032 6712 676

2 7253 281

50 64049 28349 575

44 06845 129

Source: Directorate General of Food Crops and HorticultureNote: *) forecasted figure; **) preliminary figure


22/23

21

Appendix 2 Production of rice, soybean, shallot, hot pepper, cabbage, potato and tomato,1994-1999 (ton)

Crop Year West Java Central Java DI Yogya East Java Indonesia

Rice 19951996199719981999*

10 722 71710 747 65910 352 6509 795 638

10 095 398

8 198 0848 359 1058 328 7568 594 0438 209 700

642 120661 179647 198621 605607 984

8 572 6688 628 7668 533 8398 691 5199 002 142

49 744 14051 101 50649 377 05449 236 69249 875 284

Soybean 19951996199719981999*

95 67081 29675 23970 97687 756

251 597248 946207 019237 156246 014

70 49478 22182 34764 84277 963

487 190509 096511 531457 272465 236

1 680 0071 517 1811 356 8911 305 6401 369 156

Shallot 19941995199619971998**

93 11485 621

106 94176 91973 066

179 586149 632184 245163 211189 250

11 38017 16319 88524 59827 157

174 426157 556269 085193 418130 410

636 864592 544768 567605 736558 331

H. Pepper 19941995199619971998**

188 313376 876384 095171 710246 286

102 656137 470118 777126 333113 237

21 45721 26917 18621 22530 293

121 256193 717145 053147 507177 386

724 4451 589 9781 043 792

801 8321 032 268

Cabbage 19941995

199619971998**

410 578460 692

403 784312 652474 498

313 768446 835

367 270394 383270 370

5 0074 908

6 3092 2752 219

116 088101 963

157 092153 124147 110

1 417 9771 625 227

1 580 4081 338 5071 383 398

Potato 19941995199619971998**

253 614334 222316 482207 750322 467

191 489249 384268 325230 848187 972

459328258638499

86 66167 149

102 70088 53076 933

877 1461 035 2591 109 560

813 368977 174

Tomato 199419951996

19971998**

153 751172 408210 628

163 129212 190

18 80825 66423 477

20 72619 255

1 4801 2441 119

1 5322 329

15 80519 13020 870

22 84535 209

476 124652 045591 597

460 542581 707

Source: Directorate General of Food Crops and HorticultureNote: *) forecasted figure; **) preliminary figure


23/23

22

Appendix 3 The average growth of production, planted area, yield and the dominant source of growth for some vegetablecrops, 1969-1995

Crops The average growth

of production

The average growth

of planted area

The average growth

of yield

Dominant source of

growth

Potato 0.11348514 0.09709964 0.0163855 Planted area

Tomato 0.12633344 0.16251000 -0.0361766 Planted area

Cabbage 0.10014000 0.09892000 0.0012200 Planted area

Hot Pepper 0.15379520 0.10355000 0.0502452 Planted area

Shallot 0.10734720 0.04711700 0.0602302 Yield

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vicianti1482
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Present Status of Pest and Disease Management on Food and Vegetable Crops and Its Future Development

Documents