Research Article

Does IPM Based Production Significantly Different from Conventional Production: A Case Study of Punjab, Pakistan

Saima Akhtar Qureshi1 and Asim Anwar2*, Ather Maqsood Ahmed3

1Federal Urdu University of Arts Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan; 2COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Attock, Pakistan; 3NUST School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Received | May 04, 2017; Accepted | February 10, 2018; Published | February 26, 2018

*Correspondence | Asim Anwar, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Attock, Pakistan; Email: asimm.anwar@ciit-attock.edu.pk

Citation | Qureshi, S.Q., A. Anwar and A.M. Ahmed. 2018. Does IPM based production significantly different from conventional production: A case study of Punjab, Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 34(1): 168-172.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2018/34.1.168.172

Keywords | IPM, NON-IPM, Productivity, Profitability, Pesticides

Introduction

Pesticide use has become a standard technology to protect crops from pests, diseases and other plant pathogens in the current crop growing’s (Damalas, 2009; Damalas and Khan, 2015). Studies suggest that farmers get direct and indirect gains from pesticides use where direct gains are short run gain such as pesticides use reduces crop loss by eliminating insects and other pests (Kellogg et al., 2000). Whereas, Lower food prices, increase in jobs and rise in food supply is considered as indirect and long terms benefits of pesticides use (Damalas, 2009). On the contrary, less use or no use of pesticides has repercussions on crop production (Kuniuki, 2001).

However, at the opposite, this colossal swell in the use of pesticide has costs to human health and environment as well as costs of the development and research of new pesticides (Fantke, 2012). Studies have recognized that thorough utilization of pesticides is a main reason of several sensitive health effects on people who are exposed (U.S. EPA, 2007). Pesticides are responsible for simple irritation of the skin and eyes, affecting the nervous system, causing reproductive problems (male, female and animals) liver damage, cancer (skin, brain, stomach, kidney, lung, testicular, kidney), fetal death (U.S. EPA, 2006; Jurewicz et al., 2008; Weselak et al., 2007; Wigle et al., 2008; Mink et al., 2011; Sanborn et al., 2007; Sanborn, 2004). Azeem et al. (2004) reported that pesticide poisoning affected 1.08 million persons in the cotton growing areas. Pesticide use raises environmental concerns such as air and water pollution, reduces biodiversity, contributes to pollinator decline and endangers species and birds (Miller, 2004; Palmer et al., 2007). Continuous use of pesticides increases the pest resistance as well as pesticides cost which necessitating some new pesticides.

Use of pesticides that have the potential hazards for the human health and no use of pesticides have potential hazards for the crops. To overcome this dilemma, the government of Pakistan introduced a new onsite training program known as Farmer field Schools training approach (NARC, 2008). For this purpose, two provinces Punjab and Sindh were selected for IPM training program. Training module was designed to enable farmers to reduce biodiversity of crops and soil and inadequate use of pesticide but problem still has not met the solution. Scholars have the viewpoint that awareness alone may not motivate farmers to adopt IPM as technique to control pests (Ajayi, 2000). Along with intrinsic motivation it is dire necessary to instill extrinsic motivation i.e. economic profitability to promote IPM as crop protection strategy. Farmers will only accept IPM method by comparing its performance in comparison to pesticides based technique (Ajayi, 2000).

In Pakistan, such data is not adequate which provide appropriate evaluations of IPM’s effect on farms yield, income, health and local ecosystems. This study used a survey data of 326 farmers (161 IPM adopters and 165 non IPM adopters) and compared production difference by using simple input and output method. The outcome of this research will be helpful for government and non-government agencies to formulate strategies to have better production of crops.

Materials and Methods

A sample of 161IPM producers and 165 NON-IPM producers were selected in the area of Bahawalpur as it covers 10% area under cotton farming and national IPM program was launched (Agriculture Census, 2013). For research 161 IPM producers and 165 NON-IPM producers were selected. The farmers’ feedback form is modified form of World Bank study questionnaire done in Bangladesh (2003). A face-to-face interview of farmers was conducted because this method delivers the maximum reply rates and considered a good source for handling complex information (Khan et al., 2014). Data was collected in February 2011, for a period of May-November 2010.

Results and Discussion

Production by area

The production or output of cotton is measured in Tones. We asked farmers to report total output of cotton in current season. The reported yield was then divided by total hectares of land reported under cotton crop. This gives us output /hectare of cotton. Table 1 shows that the IPM farmers got more production i.e.1.71 Tones/hectare in comparison to NON-IPM growers of 1.63Tones/hectare. Under both production techniques producers having area more than 25 hectares were most productive producer.

Relationship between tenancy status and production

Tenancy status is another farm specific characteristic, which is related with the production/hectare to know the effect of tenancy status on the productivity of both types of farmers. Most studies on tenancy status have described that productivity of sharecropping is relatively less than sole ownership. In agrarian countries, the sharecropper agreements are so skewed that the major chunk of benefits of higher revenues go to landlord rather than tenants and this dispiritedshare cropper and lower their efficiency (Pearson et al., 1991).

Study found that that the fear of uncertainty and financial severity discourage sharecroppers to adopt

Table 1: Production by area (hectare).

Table 2: Production by ownership.

Table 3: Production by education level.

better-quality agricultural methods. They do not take interest in the activities which are crucial for improvement in land and enhance their decision-making skills. They accomplished that owner- control farms were more proficient than both tenant and owner cum-tenant control farms because relyon their domestic capitals such as labor (Giannakas et al., 2001; Rahman, 2003). Some study found that sharecroppers are less productive because they apply fewer inputs than landowners (Eswaran and Kotwal, 1985). This claim is only expected when sharecroppers are considered risk neutral.

However, the study results reported by Hassan et al. (2016) concluded that the existence of the sharecropping agreements has positive effect on the production efficiency of wheat crop in arid zone of Rawalpindi because the owner operators were earning 16.4 percent less net revenue than sharecroppers. The obvious reason for the result may be that the sharecroppers depend on the family resources like seed, family labor and farm yard manure or sharecropper are risk lover.

So, we also related the tenancy status with the productivity or production/hectare of cotton in the study area to explore this relationship. Table 2 discloses that per hectares output of sharecropper of both the IPM and NON-IPM producers are greater than the farmers who have mixed arrangement and the owner operated farmers. The finding of the study is also in line with the study results reported by Hassan et al. (2016).

Nexus between education level and production

Although education does not directly contribute to agricultural yields, there is evidence to suggest that higher level of education contributes significantly to increase agricultural production. For knowing whether or not education has any impact on farmers’ ability to produce we related output/hectare of both the producers with their education level. In case of IPM, a somewhat positive trend was observed between IPM-adopters’ education and yield per hectare but no exact association was witnessed between NON-IPM-adopters and their education level. (Table 3).

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Study results revealed that IPM is economically superior to NON-IPM cropping technique. The result indicates that the production/hectares of IPM adopters 1.71 Tones/hectare compared to 1.63tones/hectare of NON-IPM adopters. IPM is a large landholder technique. Study revealed that output/hectare of sharecropper of both the IPM and NON-IPM producers are greater than the farmers who have mixed arrangement. Somewhat positive trend was observed between IPM-adopters’ education and yield/hectare but no exact association was witnessed between NON-IPM-adopters and their education level. This technique will not only increase the profitability of the farmers in future but also safer for their health and environment. This will ensure the sustainability of raw cotton growth and will flourish Pakistan textile industry. Pakistan will fetch more foreign earning and its Balance of Payment will be improved.

The results of the study are helpful to make robust policies for promoting IPM because it mitigates the negative health and environmental externalities related to the indiscriminate use of pesticides. On the basis of study result government should promote sharecropping as IPM is a large-scale technique. Furthermore, promotion of agriculture based secondary education in the rural areas will also enhance the productivity of farmers.

Author’s Contribution

Saima Akhtar Qureshi presented the original idea for conducting this research and was responsible for data collection. Asim Anwar, Saima Akhtar Qureshi and Ather Maqsood carried out the analyses. Asim Anwar drafted the manuscript and all the authors approved the final draft.

References

Agriculture Census of Pakistan 2013. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics.

Ajayi, O. 2000. Pesticide use practices, productivity and farmers’ health: the case of cotton-rice systems in Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa. Pesticide Policy Project Publication Series Special Issue, 2000.

Azeem, M., Ahmad, I. and Echols, W. 2004a. Impact of an FFS-based IPM Approach on farmer capacity production practices and income: evidence from Pakistan. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council. National IPM Program. NARC. Islamabad.

Cooper, J. and Hans, D. 2007. The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Prot. 26: 1337-1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.03.022

Damalas, A.C. 2009. Understanding and benefits and risks of pesticide use. Sci. Res. Essay 4(10): 945-949.

Eswaran, M. and A. Kotwal. 1985. A Theory of contractual structure in agriculture. Am. Econ. Rev. 75(3): 352-67.

Fantke, P., Friedrich, R. and Jolliet, O. 2012. Health impact and damage cost assessment of pesticides in Europe. Environ. Int. 49: 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.08.001

Giannakas, K. and M. Fulton. 2002. Consumption effects of genetic modification: What if consumers are right? Agric. Econ. 27:97-109.

Hassan, S., I. Mahmood, M. Qasim, N. Zahra and M. Ali. 2016. Comparative economics of owner operators and sharecroppers in wheat farming arrangements: A case of Rawalpindi district in Pakistan. J. Agric. Res. 54(1): 133-142.

Jurewicz, J. and Hanke, W. 2008. Prenatal and childhood exposure to pesticides and neurobehavioral development: Review of epidemiological studies. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health. 21(2): 121–32. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10001-008-0014-z

Kellogg, R.L., R. Nehring, A. Grube, D.W. Goss, and S. Plotkin. 2000. Environmental indicators of pesticide leaching and runoff from farm fields. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Khan, Z.R., C.A.O. Midega, J.O. Pittchar, A.W.Murage, M.A. Birkett, T.J.A. Bruce and J.A. Pickett. 2014. Achieving food security for one million Sub-Saharan African poor through Push-Pull innovation by 2020. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series, B, Biological Sciences 369.

Kuniuki, S. 2001. Effects of organic fertilization and pesticide application on growth and yield of field-grown rice for 10 Years. Jap. J. Crop Sci. 70 (4): 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1626/jcs.70.530

Miller, G.T. 2004. Sustaining the earth. 6th ed. Thompson Learning, Inc. Pacific Grove, California.

Mink, P.J., Mandel, J.S., Lundin, J.I. and Sceurman, B.K. 2011. Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: A Review. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 61 (2): 172–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.07.006

Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 2008. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad.

Muhammad, K., Hafiz, Z.M. and Christos A. D. 2015. Pesticide Use and risk perceptions among farmers in the cotton belt of Punjab, Pakistan. Crop Prot. 67: 184-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.10.013

Muhammad, K. and Christos A.D. 2014. Occupational exposure to pesticides and resultant health problems among cotton farmers of Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Health Res.

NARC. 2008. National IPM program. Pesticide Policy Analysis Project. www.Nat-IPM.gov.pk

Palmer, W.E., P.T. Bromley and R.L. Brandenburg. 2007. Wildlife and pesticides-peanuts. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

Pearson, S., W. Falcon, P. Heytens, E. Monke and R. Naylor. 1991. Rice policy in Indonesia. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press.

Pimentel, D., Acquay, H., Biltonen, M., Rice, P. and Silva, M. 1992. Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide Use. Biol. Sci. 42(10): 750-60. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311994

Rahman, S. 2003. Farm-level pesticide use in Bangladesh: Determinants and awareness. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 241–252.

Roumasset, J. 1995. The nature of Agricultural Firm. Journal of Economic Behav. Organ. 26(2): 161-1177.

Sanborn, M., Kerr, K.J., Sanin, L.H., Cole, D.C., Bassil, K.L. and Vakil, C. 2007. Non-Cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for Family Doctors. Can Fam Physician. 53 (10): 1712–20.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Pesticides: Health and Safety. National Assessment of the Worker Protection Workshop, 3.

Weselak, M., Arbuckle, T.E. and Foster, W. 2007. Pesticide Exposures and developmental outcomes: The Epidemiological Evidence. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 10 (1-2): 41–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937400601034571

Wigle, D.T., Arbuckle, T.E. and Turner, M.C. 2008. Epidemiologic evidence of relationships between reproductive and child health outcomes and environmental chemical contaminants. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 11 (5-6): 373–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937400801921320