This article was downloaded by: [NUS National University of Singapore]

On: 27 May 2014, At: 02:26

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Pest Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttpm20

An analysis of insecticide use in rice: Case

studies in the Philippines and Vietnam
a d b c
K. L. Heong , M. M. Escalada & Vo Mai
a
International Rice Research Institute , Los Baños, Philippines
b
Visayas State College of Agriculture , Baybay, Leyte, Philippines
c
Plant Production and Protection Department , Ministry of Agriculture , Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam
d
Entomology and Plant Pathology Division , IRRI , PO Box 933,1099, Manila,
Philippines
Published online: 13 Nov 2008.

To cite this article: K. L. Heong , M. M. Escalada & Vo Mai (1994) An analysis of insecticide use in rice:
Case studies in the Philippines and Vietnam, International Journal of Pest Management, 40:2, 173-178, DOI:
10.1080/09670879409371878

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09670879409371878

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEST MANAGEMENT, 1994, 40(2), 173-178

An analysis of insecticide use in rice: case studies in the Philippines and Vietnam

(Keywords: insecticides, rice, insect pests, Philippines, Vietnam)

K. L. HEONG†¶, M. M. ESCALADA‡, and VO MAI§

†International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines

‡Visayas State College of Agriculture, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines
§ Plant Production and Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 02:26 27 May 2014

Abstract. The majority of pesticide applications by rice farmers in the behavioural decision model (Figure 1). On the basis of. his
Mekong Delta, Vietnam, and Leyte, Philippines, were insecticides. perceptions of the problem and options available, which may
Farmers in Vietnam applied more insecticides per season (~6.1 sprays) or may not reflect the real problem and options, the farmer
than Filipino farmers (~2.6 sprays). About half of the insecticide sprays
were organophosphates and the main chemicals were methyl parathion,
assesses expected outcomes. The farmer's choice of actions
monocrotophos, and methamidophos. About 22% and 17% of the will depend on his evaluation of this and other outcomes, in
chemicals in the Philippines and Vietnam, respectively, were classified as terms of his own personal objectives. Often a farmer is likely
'extremely hazardous' (Category la) by the WHO. Another 17% and 20% to be faced with similar problems from one season to the next
in the Philippines and Vietnam, respectively, were classified as 'highly and each decision he makes may be affected by decisions
hazardous' (Category Ib). High proportions of the sprays were targeted at
previously made.
leaf-feeding insects which accounted for 42% and 28% of insecticide
sprays in Vietnam and Philippines, respectively. In the Philippines, sprays It has been stressed that understanding farmers' pest
against rice bugs accounted for 44% while in Vietnam, those against brown management practices, their perceptions, their constraints to
planthoppers accounted for 34%. Since research has shown that leaf certain options and their objectives is essential for improving
feeder control generally does not increase yields, a large proportion of
pest management practices (Lim and Heong, 1984; Matteson
insecticides currently used may be unnecessary.
etal., 1984; Mumford and Norton, 1984; Norton and Heong,
1988). However, surprisingly little effort has gone into detailed
1. Introduction research on farmers' pest management decisions and
practices. Surveys carried out on farmers have often focused
In 1992 an estimated US$1 114 million was spent on attention on their knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP)
insecticides for rice (Woodburn, 1993). A large portion of the about p,ests and natural enemies (Litsinger et al., 1980;
market was in Japan (34%), China (11%), and Korea (10%) Heong, 1984; Heong et al., 1985), with relatively few
where insect pests are often cited as serious constraints to addressing their pesticide use patterns (e.g. Rola and Pingali,
production (Kiritani, 1979). Large yield increases attributed to 1993). Obtaining such background information to identify the
insecticide use have been documented under various condi- key features of real pest management problems may be the
tions (Lim and Heong, 1984). Although these figures often
represent the rare and abnormal cases, they continue to be
used by researchers and policy-makers. Researchers' per-
ceptions of pest losses are often based on generalizations
from single-period and short-term experiments (Rola and Problem Options
Pingali, 1993). The results of such experiments may have
influenced the perception of policy-makers that intensification
I I
of rice cultivation will lead to increased pest losses and high r— Perceptions Objectives
production will not be possible without higher pesticide inputs.
Farmers also believe that insects are the main constraints to
1 1
high yields (Litsinger era/., 1980; Heong, 1984; Heong etal., Assessment and Evaluation
1985). These perceptions have undoubtedly influenced the
rapid increase in insecticide use on tropical rice. 1
Pest control by farmers appears to be undertaken from Choice
perception of risks, often without direct regard for the
economics of the situation (Tait, 1977; Mumford, 1981,1982; 1
Mumford and Norton, 1984; Pingali and Carlson, 1985; Rola Outcome
and Pingali, 1993). Attempting to account for these observa-
tions, Norton and Mumford (1983) developed a descriptive, Figure 1. The basic decision model (after Mumford and Norton, 1984).

¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Entomology and Plant Pathology Division, IRRI, PO Box 933,1099 Manila, Philippines

0967-0874/94 $10.00 © 1994 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

 174 K. LHeongefa/.

most important factor in determining research and extension farmers from six provinces was randomly selected for the
priorities. interviews in May 1992.
This paper compares insecticide use patterns of rice
farmers in Leyte, Philippines and the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.
The types of chemicals used, their respective target pests and 3. Results
implications for improving pest management practices are
discussed. Most of the farmers interviewed (96% in Vietnam and 89%
in the Philippines), applied at least one pesticide spray during
The island of Leyte is situated in the central part of the
a growing season. Applications were higher in Vietnam with
Philippines (Long. 10°N to 11°50'N and Lat. 124°20'E to
a mean of seven sprays per farmer compared with only three
125°20'E). Agriculture is the principal economic activity with
in the Philippines (Table 1). A large proportion (90%) of the
rice, coconuts, sugarcane, and corn as principal crops. Its rice
applications were insecticides. In the Philippines, about 4% of
production was 216 000 tons in 1992 (Bureau of Agricultural
the sprays were fungicides. These were applications of fentin
Statistics, Department of Agriculture, 1992), which was about
chloride which were used to control snails instead of diseases.
2-4% of total production. The estimated number of rice farmers
Fungicide use in Vietnam was also low and they were mainly
in Leyte was about 49 000 or 26% of the Philippine total. The
used to control blast and sheath blight. Herbicide use
Mekong Delta, on the other hand, is the rice bowl of Vietnam,
constituted about 8% and 4% of the sprays in Vietnam and
producing 11 million tons of rice in 1992 which was about 51 %
Philippines, respectively.
of total production (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 02:26 27 May 2014

Fishery, 1994). The Delta is situated in the southern part of About half the insecticide applications were organophos-
Vietnam (Long. 8°60'N to 10°N and Lat. 104°50'E to phates (Table 2). These were methyl parathion, monocro-
106°80'E) with an agricultural population of 12-6 million, tophos, methamidophos and chlorpyrifos. There was a greater
representing about 25% of Vietnam's total. The main crop variety of organophosphate compounds being used in the
grown in the Delta is rice. Philippines than in Vietnam.
Farmers in Vietnam used more carbamates, while in the
Rice growing in the two study sites is quite different, except
Philippines more organochiorines were used. Pyrethroid use
for the rice cultivars which are mainly modern varieties from
was higher in the Philippines and the main product was
the International Rice Research Institute and the relatively
cypermethrin. In Vietnam other products, such as cartap,
small farm sizes (0-5-1 -0 ha) each farmer manages. Farmers
ethofenprox and buprofezin constituted about 10% of the
in Leyte grow one or two crops per year while in the Mekong
sprays.
Delta farmers grow two or three crops per year. The dominant
crop establishment practice in Leyte is transplanting while When classified by health hazards (CIRAD, 1991) substan-
farmers in the Mekong Delta use the direct seed method. tial proportions (22% in Philippines and 17% in Vietnam) of the
Fertilizer inputs are relatively low in Leyte ( < 50 kg/ha N) sprays were WHO Category la, i.e. extremely hazardous
compared with that in the Mekong Delta, where between 80 chemicals. Most of these sprays were methyl parathion.
and 120 kg/ha N is commonly used. Yields in Leyte are also Another substantial proportion (17% in Philippines and 20%
lower (1-4 tons per ha) than in the Mekong Delta (3-6 tons in Vietnam) were Category Ib, i.e. highly hazardous chemi-
per ha). cals. These were monocrotophos, methamidophos, azinphos
ethyl, carbofuran, and triazophos. The remaining sprays were
mainly Category II, i.e. moderately hazardous compounds.
In the Philippines 44% of the insecticide sprays were
2. Methods targeted for.rice bug (Leptocorisa spp.) control (Table 3). The
main compounds used were methyl parathion (27%), cyper-
Data on farmers' insecticide use practices were obtained
methrin (19%), endosulfan (15%), chlorpyrifos (9%),
using a structured personal interview with a questionnaire
monocrotophos (8%), and deltamethrin (8%). About 10% of
designed for the purpose. A pretest using 25 rice farmers was
the sprays were for stem borer control. The main compounds
conducted and the questions modified to avoid ambiguities. A
used were cypermethrin, monocrotophos, endosulfan, methyl
further pretest was conducted using 10 farmers before the
parathion, and chlorpyrifos. Farmers used about 15% of the
final version was prepared.
sprays for controlling rice leaffolder and leaf-feeding insects
The questionnaire was translated into Cebuano, Waray,
and Vietnamese, the languages spoken in the two study sites.
Table 1. Comparison of pesticide applications of rice fanners
Interviews were conducted by interviewers who had under-
In the Philippines and Vietnam
gone training in basic survey techniques and in using the
questionnaire. Philippines Vietnam
The data obtained were coded and entered into a spread-
sheet program using a microcomputer. After validation, the Date survey carried out May 1991 May 1992
Number of respondents 300 685
data file was uploaded to the mainframe IBM 4361 at the
Total number of sprays in
International Rice Research Institute. Frequency tables were one season 841 4704
generated using the FREQ procedure available in Statistical Mean number of sprays per
Analysis Systems (SAS Inc., 1985). farmer per season 28 6-9
The surveys were conducted in Leyte in May 1991 and a % Insecticides 920 890
% Fungicides 4-1 2-7
sample of 300 farmers living in 30 villages was randomly
% Herbicides 3-9 8-3
selected for the study. In the Mekong Delta a sample of 685
 An analysis oT insecticide use in rice 175
Table 2. Types and categories of Insecticides used in the Philippines and (8%) were the main insecticides used. While for thrips control,
Vietnam
methyl parathion (34%), BPMC (14%), methamidophos
(11%), monocrotophos (10%), and diazinon (7%) were
% Insecticide sprays
applied.
WHO*
classification Philippines Vietnam In both sites, a small proportion of the insecticides were
used for disease management. In the Philippines, 4% of the
Number of applications insecticide sprays were used to control snails and about 5%
per season 774 4186
were used to control ladybird beetles.
Organochlorines 21-6 1-1
Endosulfan II 21-3 05 Table 4 shows the insecticides used for controlling leaf-
Endrin la 0-2 — feeding insects and hoppers. For leaf feeder control, about
Undane II — 0-5 half of the insecticides used were organophosphates. A large
Organophosphates 52-1 44-1 proportion was methyl parathion, monocrotophos, and
Chlorpyrifos II 1M —
methamidophos. Organochlorines, particularly endosulfan,
Methyl parathion la 21-3 17-2
Monocrotophos Ib 8-7 8-3 were used more frequently in the Philippines than in Vietnam.
Methamidophos Ib 06 10-4 More carbamates, particularly BPMC, were used for con-
Diazinon II — 80 trolling leaf-feeding insects in Vietnam than in the Philippines.
Azinphos-ethyl Ib 1-8 —
Vietnamese farmers applied more insecticides for con-
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 02:26 27 May 2014

Cyhalothrin II 18 —
Malathion III 0-9 —
trolling leaf-feeding insects than Filipino farmers. An average
Triazophos II 0-4 — of 2-8 sprays was used by farmers in Vietnam as compared
Carbamates 3-6 32-2 with 0-7 sprays in the Philippines. More sprays were also used
MIPC II 2-6 9-0 for hopper control in Vietnam than in the Philippines: 33-8%
BPMC II 0-9 21-9 compared with 1-7% (see Table 4).
Carbofuran Ib — 1-2
Carbosulfan II 0-1 —
Pyrethroids 22-7 12-4
Cypemiethrin II 17-3 4-8
4. Dicusslon
Deltamethrin II 5-4 4-7
Estimates of large losses in rice production caused by insect
Alpha-deltamethrin II — 2-3
Esfenvalerate II — 0-7
attacks have influenced research, extension and policies in
Others relation to insecticide use. For tropical rice, loss estimates
Cartap II — 6-5 ranged from 6% to 35-44% (Teng etal., 1990). From a series
Buprofezin V — 0-7 of field experiments with plots protected from insects,
Ethofenprox — 2-9 increases in yields amounting to 20-25% were recorded
Classification by hazard*
(Pathak and Dyck, 1973). When farmers' control practices
Category la 21-7 17-3
Category Ib 168 20-0 were compared with 'maximum protection' practices, farmers
Category II 60-6 590 were found to lose 0-5 t/ha than in the wet season and 0-8 t/ha
Category III 0-9 — in the dry season to insects (Herdt et al., 1984). However,
Category V — 0-8 'maximum protection' is seldom, if ever, economically attract-
Unclassified
ive. Also, the insecticides used for protection may indirectly
(ethofenprox) — 29
influence crop fertility and pest intensities (LJtsinger, 1991)
* Based on WHO'S classification by hazard, la: Extremely hazardous; Ib:
highly hazardous; II: moderately hazardous; III: slightly hazardous, V: unlikely
to present acute hazard in normal use (CIRAD, 1991). Table 3. Target pests of rice farmers Insecticide
sprays In Leyte, Philippines and the Mekong Delta,
(Table 4). The main products used were endosulfan, Vietnam

monocrotophos, methyl parathion, chlorpyrifos, and cyperme-

% Sprays
thrin. Only a small proportion (5%) of the sprays were for
hopper management and the main compounds used were Pests Philippines Vietnam
chlorpyrifos, monocrotophos, methyl parathion, cypermethrin,
and deltamethrin. Rice leaffolders 13-1 20-5
Other lepidopterous
In Vietnam, leaffolders, other lepidopterous larvae and
leaf feeders 15-1 21-2
brown planthoppers were primary targets of the insecticide Stem borers 10-3 B-1
sprays (Table 3). Only 1 % of the sprays were for rice bug Rice bugs 43-7 1-1
control. The main chemicals used for leaffolder control were Brown planthopper 1-7 33-8
methyl parathion (20%), methamidophos (15%), BPMC Green leafhopper 4-3 0
Snails 4-4 0
(14%), monocrotophos (9%), and cartap (8%). Similarly, for
Whorl maggot 0-2 0
other leaf-feeding insects, methyl parathion (25%), methami- Thrips 0 4-7
dophos (14%), BPMC (14%), monocrotophos (12%), and Ladybird beetles 4-7 o •
cartap (6%), were the main insecticides used. About 8% of Tungro 1-4 0
these sprays were for stem borers and another 5% for thrips. Blast 0-9 1-5
Sheath blight 0 4-8
For stem borers, diazinon (26%), BPMC (15%), methyl
Crickets 0-1 0
parathion (14%), monocrotophos (11%), and methamidophos
 176 ICLHeongefa/.

Table 4. Insecticides usedby farmers forthe control ofleaf-feeding insects andplanthoppers in the Philippines
and Vietnam

% Sprays used on leaffeeders % Sprays used on planthoppers

Insecticides Philippines Vietnam Philippines Vietnam

Organophosphates
% of sprays used 53-3 56-6 63-3 23-6
Methyl parathion 15-9 240 18-4 10-6
Methamidophos 2-3 14-2 0 4-9
Azinphos-ethyl 1-9 0 20 0
Monocrotophos 18-7 10-6 20-4 4-3
Chlorpyrifos 140 0 22-4 0
Triazophos 0-5 0 0 0
Diazinon 0 7-8 0 3-8
Organochlorines
% of sprays used 21-5 10 82 0-8
Endosulfan 21 0 0-4 8-2 0-5
Endn'n 0-5 0 0 0
Undane — 0-6 0 0-3
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 02:26 27 May 2014

Pyrethroids
% of sprays used 18-7 14-9 12-2 9-4
Cypermethrin 15-9 5-7 12-2 3-8
Alpha-cypermethrin' — 2-9 — 1-5
Deltamethrin 2-8 5-6 — 3-7
Esfenvalerate — 0-7 — 0-4
Carbamates
% of sprays used 4-2 18-9 93 52-7
MIPC 2-3 4-2 70 16-7
BPMC 1-9 13-9 2-3 34-7
Carbofuran — 0-8 — 1-3
Others
% of sprays used 0 8-6 0 13-3
Cartap 0 6-8 0 7-1
Buprofezin 0 — 0 1-4
Ethofenprox 0 1-8 0 4-8
Mean number of sprays
used per farmer 0-7 2-8 0-1 2-1
% of total sprays applied
in the season 282 41-7 1-7 33-8

which can lead to representational errors when extrapolated insecticides. In the Philippines, the main pest target of farmers
from small plots to large fields (Jenkyn, 1981; Teng, 1985). was the rice bug. Rice bugs (Leptocorisa spp.) commonly
Crop loss determinations can sometimes be biased to colonize rice fields in the tillering and ripening stages. They are
persuade policy-makers to allocate research funds (Goodell, only pests during the milky stage which lasts only 7-10 days.
1984). In any case, the losses that are reported in the literature Also, rice bugs are highly mobile, and emigration frequently
often represent the worst, rare and exceptional cases. When occurs even when the crop is in the milky stage (Rothschild,
pesticide-related health impairments are explicitly accounted 1970). As rice bugs are highly visible, they are often perceived
for, the natural control (or do nothing) option becomes most by farmers to be extremely damaging and farmers tend to
profitable (Rola and Pingali, 1993). over-react (Bentley, 1989; Bentley and Andrews, 1991;
Insecticide use patterns in the two study sites did not appear Escalada and Heong, 1993). In Vietnam, only 1 % of the sprays
to reflect the pest situations. In both sites, there were no were for rice bug control, probably because rice bugs were not
serious pest attacks during the periods when the surveys were common.
done. Although fertilizer inputs and yields in the Mekong Delta In both countries, rice leaffolders {Cnaphalocrocis medi-
were higher, the higher insecticide use does not necessarily nalis) and other lepidopterous larvae were important pest
reflect higher pest infestations. As inferred by Mumford and targets of insecticide applications. These pests accounted for
Norton (1984), Tait and Napompeth (1987), and Rola and 28% and 42% of insecticide sprays in the Philippines and
Pingali (1993), farmers' control actions may only reflect their Vietnam, respectively. As well as leaffolders, a variety of
perceptions of the pest problem, not necessarily the actual lepidopterous larvae attack rice plants. These include
situation. There is also a tendency for farmers to overestimate Spodoptera spp., Melanitis spp., Nymphula depunctalis,
losses caused by insect pests (Waibel, 1986; Lazaro et al., Naranga aenescens and Pelopidas mathias. In both coun-
1993). tries, these insects are collectively called worms ('ulod' in the
The surveys in the Philippines and Vietnam showed that Philippines and 'sau' in Vietnamese), which tend to cause
about 90% of sprays administered by rice farmers were farmers to over-react. Damage, especially in the early crop
 An analysis of Insecticide use In rice 177

stages, is also highly visible and often perceived to be Acknowledgements

damaging. While serious infestations of rice leaffolders have
We are grateful to the Swiss Development Corporation
been reported in China, Japan and Korea (Wada etal., 1980;
(SDC) for funding the Rice IPM Network coordinated by IRRI,
Hirao, 1982), India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and
Ms Amor Lazaro and Mr Edmer Efondulan, research assis-
Malaysia (Khan et al., 1988), only a few reports contain
tants at IRRI for their assistance in data management, the
assessments of crop losses. On the other hand, crops with as
interviewers who conducted the surveys, and compiled the
much as 67% damaged leaves did not suffer any loss
data, and Ms Elena G. Genii for assistance in preparing the
(Miyashita, 1985). Bautista et al. (1984) estimated the
manuscript.
economic threshold at booting and heading stages to be 1 -5
and 1-3 larvae per plant, respectively. However, they grossly
overestimated leaf consumption per larva by at least four
times (Heong, 1990) and should perhaps be adjusted to five References
to six larvae per plant (Heong, 1993). The average densities
BAUTISTA, R. C., HEINRICHS, E. A. and REJESUS, R. S., 1984. Economic
observed in Japan is less than two per hill (Wada and injury levels for the rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera:
Shimazu, 1978) and in the Philippines less than one per hill Pyralidae): insect infestation and artificial leaf removal. Environmental
(Guo, 1990). Populations rarely reach more than five larvae Entomology, 13, 439-443.
per hill and there is practically no evidence to show that early BENTLEY, J. W., 1989. What farmers don't know can't help them: the strengths
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 02:26 27 May 2014

sprays against rice leaffolders are beneficial, yet high and weakness of indigenous technical knowledge in Honduras. Agriculture
and Human Values, 6, 25-31.
proportions of insecticide sprays are used to control them. It
BENTLEY, J. W. and ANDREWS, K. L , 1991. Pests, peasants, and
thus seems that indigenous attitudes, such as a belief that all publications: anthropological and entomological views of an integrated pest
insects, particularly worms, are harmful, tend to make fanners management program for small-scale Honduran farmers. Human Organi-
become victims of insecticide abuse (Bentley, 1989). zations, 50, 113-122.
BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL-
It is now well established that broad spectrum insecticides TURE, 1992. Rice Statistics. (Quezon City, Philippines).
induce brown planthopper populations (Heinrichs and CIRAD (International Cooperation Centre in Agronomic Research for Develop-
Mochida, 1984; Kenmore et al., 1984; Joshi et al., 1992; ment), 1991. Regional AgroPesticide Index, Volume 1, Asia, 3rd edition
Schoenly era/., 1994). Thus, early sprays for rice leaffolder (Paris. France: CIRAD).
control using broad spectrum insecticides may well be the CONWAY, G. R. and BARBIER, E. B., 1990. After the Green Revolution:
Sustainable Agriculture for Development (London: Earthscan Publications
primary cause of brown planthopper problems (Heong, 1993).
Ltd).
In Vietnam, where there was a higher number of sprays DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERY, 1994.
directed at leaffeeders, there was also a proportionally higher Statistical Data of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery--1985-1993 (Hanoi:
number of sprays used for brown planthopper control. About Statistical Publishing House).
one spray per season was used for leaf-feeder control in the ESCALADA, M. M. and HEONG, K. L., 1993. Communication and implemen-
tation of change in crop protection. In Crop Protection and Sustainable
Philippines and practically no spray was used for hopper
Agriculture, Ciba Foundation Symposium 177 (Chichester: J. Wiley &
management. In Vietnam, however, farmers used about three Sons), pp. 191-207.
sprays in a season for leaf-feeder control and another two for GOODELL, G., 1984. Challenges to international pest management research
hopper management. and extension in the Third World: Do we really want IPM to work? Bulletin
of the Entomological Society of America, 30, 18-26.
High insecticide use in Vietnam is closely associated with
GUO, Y., 1990. Larval parasitizalion of rice leaffolders (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
intensive cultivation and high production. Decollectivization under field and laboratory conditions. PhD thesis (Los Banos: University of
policies introduced since 1981, had motivated farmers to the Philippines).
adopt high inputs to achieve high yields (Pingali and Xuan, HEINRICHS, E. A. and MOCHIDA, O., 1984. From secondary to major pest
1992). At the same time, they also encouraged inappropriate status: the case of insecticide-induced rice brown planthopper, Nilaparvata
lugens, resurgence. Protection Ecology, 7, 201-218.
insecticide application and wastage. Farmers protect their
HEONG, K. L., 1984. Pest control practices of rice farmers in Tanjong Karang,
crops from leaf damage in the early stages because they Malaysia. insect Science and its Applications, 5, 221-226.
perceive that this damage can lead to yield loss. Encouraged HEONG, K. L., 1990. Feeding rates of the rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis
to achieve high yields, farmers tend to pay more attention to medinalis (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae), on different plant stages. Journal of
these 'cosmetic' effects. Such a misuse of insecticides had Agricultural Entomology, 7, 81-90.
clearly led to disruptions of natural control mechanisms which HEONG, K. L., 1993. Rice leaffolders: Are they serious pests? In Research on
Rice Leaffolder Management in China, Proceedings of the International
then require additional sprays against the secondary pest, the
Workshop on Economic Threshold for Rice Leaffolder in China, March 4-6,
brown planthopper. In Indonesia, where farmers reduced 1992, Beijing (Hangzhou: China National Rice Research Institute),
insecticide sprays from more than four to about one, average pp. 8-11.
yields rose from 6-1 to 7-4 tonnes/ha instead (Conway and HEONG, K. L., HO, N. K. and JEGATHEESAN, S., 1985. The perception and
Barbier, 1990). This clearly illustrates that there is a large management of pests among rice farmers in the Muda Irrigation Scheme,
Malaysia. MARDI Report No. 105 (Kuala Lumpur Malaysian Agricultural
proportion of unnecessary insecticide input in rice production.
Research and Development Institute), 11 pp.
As discussed earlier, in most cases, natural populations of HERDT, R. W., CASTILLO, L. L. and JAYASURIYA, S. K., 1984. The economics
leaf-feeders are unlikely to cause sufficient yield loss to justify of insect control on rice in the Philippines. In Judicious and Efficient Use
any control input. Yet the leaf feeders are often farmers' main of Insecticides on Rice (Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice
targets of insecticides. It seems appropriate for research and Research Institute), pp. 41-56.
HIRAO, J., 1982. Ecology and chemical control of the rice leaf roller. Japan
training to focus attention on ways to change farmers'
Pesticide Information, 41, 14-17.
perceptions of pests so as to prevent them from being victims JENKYN, J. F., 1981. Experimental design and inter-plot interference. In L.
of insecticide abuse. Chiarappa (ed) Crop Loss Assessment Methods, Supplement 3 (Farnham
 178 K.l_Heong era/.

Royal, Slough, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau for FAO), pp. 3 5 - PATHAK, M. D. and DYCK, V. A., 1973. Developing an integrated method of
41. insect pest control. Pest Articles and News Summaries, 19, 534-544.
JOSHI, R. C., SHEPARD, B. M. KENMORE, P. E. and LYDIA, R., 1992. PINGALI, P. L. and CARLSON, G. A., 1985. Human capital, adjustments in
Insecticide-induced resurgence of brown planthopper (BPH) on IR62. subjective probabilities, and the demand for pest control. American Journal
International Rice Research Newsletter, 17, 9-10. of Agricultural Economics, 67, 853-861.
KENMORE, P. E., CARINO, F. O., PEREZ, C. A., DYCK, V. A. and PINGALI, P. L and XUAN, V. T., 1992. Vietnam: decollectivization and rice
GUTIERREZ, A. P., 1984. Population regulation of the rice brown productivity growth. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 40,
planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal) within rice fields In the Philippines. 697-718.
Journal of Plant Protection in the Tropics, 1, 19-38. ROLA, A. C. and PINGALI, P. L., 1993. Pesticides, Rice Productivity, and
KHAN, Z. R., BARRION, A. T., LITSINGER, J. A., CASTILLA, N. P., and JOSHI, Farmer's Health: An Economic Assessment. (Los Baños, Philippines:
R. C., 1988. A bibliography of rice leaffolders (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae). International Rice Research Institute).
Insect Science and Its Applications, 9, 129-174. ROTHSCHILD, G. H. L., 1970. Observations on the ecology of the rice-ear bug,
KIRITANI, K., 1979. Pest management in rice. Annual Review of Entomology, Leptocorisa oratorius (F.) (Hemiptera:Alydidae) in Sarawak (Malaysian
24, 279-312. Bomeo). Journal of Applied Ecology, 7, 147-167.
LAZARO, A. A., RUBIA, E. G., ALMAZAN, L. P. and HEONG, K. L., 1993. SCHOENLY, K., COHEN, J. E., HEONG, K. L., ARIDA, G., BARRION, A. T. and
Farmers' estimates of percent whiteheads (WH). International Rice LITSINGER, J. A., 1994. Quantifying the impact of insecticides on food web
Research Notes, 18, 31. structure of rice-arthropod populations in Philippine farmers' irrigated fields.
LIM, G. S. and HEONG, K. L., 1984. The role of insecticides in rice integrated In G. A. Polis and K. Winemiller (eds) Food Webs: Integration of Patterns
pest management. In Judicious and Efficient Use of Insecticides on Rice and Dynamics (London: Chapman & Hall) (in press).
(Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute), pp. 19-40. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM (SAS), 1985. SAS User's Guide Statistics
LITSINGER, J. A., 1991. Crop loss assessment in rice. In E. A. Heinrichs and Version 5 edition (Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, Inc.).
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 02:26 27 May 2014

T. A. Miller (eds) Rice Insects: Management Strategies (New York: TAIT, E. J., 1977. A method for comparing pesticide usage patterns between
Springer-Verlag), pp. 1-66. fanners. Annals of Applied Biology, 86, 229-240.
LITSINGER, J. A., PRICE, E. C. and HERRERA, R. T., 1980. Small farmer pest TAIT, E. J. and NAPOMPETH, B. (eds), 1987. Management of Pests and
control practices for rainfed rice, corn, and grain legumes in three Philippine Pesticides--Farmers' Perceptions and Practices (Boulder Co., USA:
provinces. Philippine Entomologist, 4, 65-86. Westview Press).
MATTESON, P. C., ALTIERI, M. A. and GAGNE, W. C., 1984. Modification of TENG, P. S., 1985. Constructions of predictive models II. Forecasting crop
small farmer practices for better pest management. Annual Review of losses. Advances in Plant Pathology, 3, 179-206.
Entomology, 29, 383-402. TENG, P. S., TORRES, C. Q., NUQUE, F. L. and CALVERO, S. B., 1990.
MIYASHITA, T., 1985. Estimation of the economic injury level in the rice leaf Current knowledge on crop losses In tropical rice. In Crop Loss Assessment
roller, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenée (Lepidoptera.Pyralidae). I. Rela- in Rice. (Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute),
tion between yield loss and injury of rice leaves at heading or in the grain pp. 39-53.
filling period. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 29, WADA, T. and SHIMAZU, M., 1978. Seasonal population trends of the rice leaf
73-76. roller, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenée (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae). Applied
MUMFORD, J. D., 1981. Pest control decision-making for sugar beet in Entomology and Zoology, 17, 278-281.
England. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 32, 31-41. WADA, T., KOBAYASHI, M. and SHIMAZU, M., 1980. Seasonal changes of the
MUMFORD, J. D., 1982. Perceptions and losses from pests of arable crops by proportions of mated females in the field population of the rice leaf roller,
some farmers in England and New Zealand. Crop Protection, 1, 283-288. Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae). Applied
MUMFORD, J. D. and NORTON, G. A., 1984. Economics of decision making Entomology and Zoology, 15, 81-89.
in pest management. Annual Review of Entomology, 29, 157-174. WAIBEL, H., 1986. The Economics of Integrated Pest ControlinIrrigated Rice.
NORTON, G. A. and HEONG, K. L., 1988. An Approach to improving pest A Case Study from the Philippines (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).
management: rice in Malaysia. Crop Protection, 7, 84-90. WOODBURN, A. T., 1993. Rice--The Crop and its Agrochemical Market.
NORTON, G. A. and MUMFORD. J. D., 1983. Decision making in pest control. (Midlothian, UK/Cambridge, UK: Allan Woodburn Assoc./Managing
In T. H. Coakes (ed) Applied Biology, Volume 8 (New York: Academic Resources).
Press), pp. 87-119.