CHAPTER 6Pest management practices of rice farmers in West Java, Indonesia

S. Kartaatmadja, J. Soejitno, and I.P. Wardana

AbstractSurveys were carried out in the districts of lndramayu, Subang, and Karawang on the north coast of West Java in 1991 and 1993. The first survey was designed to evaluate farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices in controlling rice pests. A more in-depth survey of rice pest management was conducted in 1993 in Desa village, Cikalong, representing Karawang district. Farmers ranked the white stem borer as the most important rice pest on the north coast of West Java, followed by the brown planthopper. Most farmers agreed that rats were the most severe rice pest during the dry season. Farmers reported bacterial leaf blight, called kresek, as the most common rice disease in the field. Bacterial red stripe or bacterial orange leaf blight, a newly identified rice disease, was reportedly found in the field. In both surveys, farmers’ reliance on insecticides as a control method for rice pests was high. Surprisingly, most of them (76%) applied broad-spectrum insecticides that are not recommended for use against rice pests. Rice variety IR64 was widely used on the north coast of West Java (82% in the wet season and 46% in the dry season of 1991). But rice farmers in Cikalong avoided planting IR64 in both seasons to prevent white stem borer infestation. Farmers collected egg masses of white stem borer in rice seedbeds.

Introduction

In 1976, rice farmers experienced a catastrophe when more than 500,000 ha of rice fields were devastated by brown planthopper (BPH) Nilaparvata lugens. Following the BPH outbreak, the incidence of rice grassy stunt and ragged stunt virus hampered efforts to increase rice production (Hibino et al 1977, Palmer and Rao 1981). In 1986, approximately 76,000 ha of rice fields in Central Java were again destroyed by BPH. Which led the government to ban broad-spectrum insecticides (Oka 1991a). In the wet season of 1989-90, no fewer than 65,000 ha of rice fields were damaged by white stem borer Scirpophaga innonata (Oka 1991b). The following year, 7,000 ha of rice fields in Karawang were again infested by white stem borer, resulting in zero rice yield.

Sudarmadji et al (1994) discovered that more than 10,000 ha of rice fields in Indramayu were heavily attacked by white stem borer. This outbreak, apparently localized in these districts, occurred during the early years of implementation of the integrated pest management (IPM) program in Indonesia (Oka 1991a).

Banning 57 broad-spectrum insecticides along with the government policy to eliminate insecticide subsidies marked the government’s effort to implement IPM nationwide. But pesticides are believed to cause pest problems rather than to solve them (Stern et al 1959). And we cannot simply tell farmers not to use insecticides to protect rice plants from insect damage. Rice farmers in irrigated areas have been participating in the rice production intensification program for a long time, in which controlling rice pests with insecticides is mandatory. Escalada and Heong (1993) stated that the use of pesticides has led farmers to associate pesticide use with modernism.

Efforts are being made to change these farmers’ attitudes and perceptions. The farmer field school (FFS) (Oka 1991a) and farmer participatory research (FPR) (Escalada and Heong 1993, Fujisaka et al 1993) are possible methods to be used to convince farmers that insecticide use is not always necessary.

Studies on farmers’ behavior and state of knowledge have not been made in Indonesia. Research on rice pest management is based mostly on what researchers think is best for farmers. But this approach is no longer acceptable. Instead, farmer-driven research has to be done before developing the research strategy. Therefore, the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of rice farmers in pest management should be determined. Escalada and Heong (1992b) revealed that the slow adoption of IPM has been attributed to the widespread gaps in farmers’ knowledge on rational pest management.

This paper presents a profile of farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices in rice areas where pest occurrence is high. In endemic areas, farmers tend to apply excessive insecticides. Strategic research can be designed to examine the problem of the insect pest complex arising from this situation. Where rice planting time is determined by the allocation of irrigation water and resistant cultivars are not available, farmers might rely on insecticides to control rice pests. Successful implementation of IPM would depend on farmers’ understanding of it.

Methods

The data in these studies were collected using a questionnaire written in the Indonesian language. The questionnaire was pretested before a formal survey was carried out. The questionnaire was revised to avoid ambiguity, redundancy, and bias. One farmer group in Ciasem Tengah village, Subang, was selected for the survey. In this village, farmers have experienced white stem borer damage to their rice crop. The first KAP survey was conducted in 1991 in three major rice-producing districts in West Java. In 1993, a farmer participatory research, one approach to implementing IPM, was conducted in Cikalong village. A KAP survey was conducted in this village before FPR began. The same questionnaire developed for the first survey was used in the second one. Key data were analyzed using the chi-square test.

First survey

The districts of Indramayu, Subang, and Karawang on the north coast of West Java, the main rice-producing areas, were selected as survey sites. The survey was conducted in September-October 1991. The total irrigated rice area in these districts is 271,000 ha or 60.3% of the total irrigated area in Jalur Pantura (north coast of West Java), which represents 30.8% of that area in West Java (Fig. 1). Two agricultural extension agency working areas (WKBPP) from each district were selected based on the high incidence of white stem borer in the previous year. A WKBPP covers an area equivalent to a subdistrict. From each WKBPP, two villages were selected (Table 1). Every village has 14 farmer groups, each with 50–70 members. For the purpose of this survey, only two farmer groups were selected. The respondents from each group were chosen randomly. Before the survey, the field interviewers were briefed on the content of the questionnaire. They were also asked to be neutral.

Second survey

Cikalong village in the district of Karawang was selected as the survey site because it (1) has been chosen by local administrators as a promising village in the district, (2) has high accessibility in terms of transportation and communication, (3) experienced severe damage to the rice crop from white stem borer, and (4) has a high percentage of farmers who have attended the farmer field school. All 446 farmers in the village were members of seven farmer groups, and 47 were FFS alumni. A total of 128 farmers were selected randomly from all farmers who had not attended the FFS. Likewise, all 47 FFS alumni and 6 FFS alumni from neighboring villages, but who were members of farmer groups in Cikalong village, were included as respondents in this survey.

Results

Demographic profile

The average age of farmers interviewed in Indramayu, Subang, and Karawang was 42.9. Most had 3–5 years of schooling. But their experience in rice farming was relatively long (17–22 years). Some had experienced severe outbreaks of brown planthopper, rice grassy stunt, and rice ragged stunt. The average landholdings in Indramayu, Subang, and Karawang were 1.0, 1.1, and 1.5 ha, respectively. In the three districts, the percentage of farmers who own and cultivate land was relatively higher than those who share it with other farmers. The farmers’ profile was similar in these districts, as it was in Cikalong village (Table 2).

Farmers’ perceptions of rice pests

In the first survey, farmers were asked about any rice pests and diseases they were familiar with. Perhaps because the rice fields in Karawang, Subang, and Indramayu had been severely damaged by white stem borer (WSB), farmers could easily recognize this infestation through the plant appearance, which showed deadheart and whitehead. Under strong light, the WSB moth could be detected in houses or streets. We were not able to measure farmers’ knowledge in differentiating BPH from whitebacked planthopper (WBPH), simply because in the first survey the interviewers were not provided with pictures of both insects. But farmers were quite familiar with hopperburn as a symptom of rice plants damaged by BPH. Farmers referred to bacterial leaf blight as kresek, bacterial red stripe as red disease, and gall midge as onion leaves of rice. Using this approach, farmers were asked to name the rice pests and diseases they considered important. They were allowed to list more than one rice insect pest and disease.

During the wet season, WSB was ranked as the most important pest (35%), followed by BPH (31 %), bacterial leaf blight (31%), and rats (30%) in the three districts. In the dry season, rats were considered as the major pest (65%), followed by bacterial red stripe (42%) and WSB (18%). Farmers in Cikalong village were asked about friendly insects or those that could help control rice pests. Having been shown pictures of common predators of rice pests, farmers listed them in order of importance as spiders, frogs, snakes, dragonflies, Ophionea sp. (Scarabidae), and Tenodera sp. (Mantidae).

Rice varieties

First introduced in Indonesia in 1986, rice variety IR64 has become popular with farmers. Farmers were asked to recall the varieties they planted during the past four seasons, from the wet season of 1989-90 up to the dry season of 1991. Throughout these seasons, IR64 appeared to be the dominant variety in Karawang, Subang, and Indramayu. In the wet season of 1989-90, 89% of the respondents planted their fields with IR64, and only 11% planted a variety other than IR64, such as Ciliwung, Cisadane, IR42, and Way Seputih. The percentage of farmers planting IR64 in the dry season was relatively lower than that in the wet season. About 42% of the farmers interviewed in Karawang, Subang, and Indramayu had been growing IR64 for at least four consecutive seasons. To our surprise, few farmers in Cikalong village grew IR64 during the wet season of 1992-93 and dry season of 1993 (Fig. 2). A more diverse set of rice varieties was found in Cikalong village, such as Muncul, Cisadane, and IR42.

When farmers were asked why they chose a particular variety, both surveys revealed that the high price of rice, resistance to pests and diseases, and high yields were the most important considerations in deciding which variety to grow.

Physical and mechanical control

Following the outbreak of WSB in the wet season of 1989-90, it was recommended that farmers cut and burn the standing rice plants to avoid further dispersal of the white stem borer. School children collected egg masses, particularly those in seedbeds. Among the farmers interviewed, 34% collected egg masses and 33% burned rice straw. Only 8% of the farmers practiced trapping WSB with a kerosene lamp. The situation was similar in Cikalong village. About 15% of the farmers trapped WSB moths using kerosene lamps and another 15% burned rice straw. Some 49% of the FFS alumni interviewed reported collecting WSB egg masses in seedbeds, whereas only 17% of non-FFS alumni collected egg masses.

Chemical control

Non-recommended insecticides. The 1991 survey revealed a high percentage of farmers interviewed who applied broad-spectrum insecticides, which are not recommended for use against rice pests. More than three-fourths of the farmers (76%) used recommended and non-recommended insecticides. Only 23% of the farmers used recommended insecticides, and only 1% did not apply any insecticides. The survey in Cikalong village showed that 63% of non-FFS alumni applied non-recommended insecticides and 23% of FFS alumni were still using the same group of insecticides. A survey conducted by Central Policies for Implementation Studies (CPIS) (Suyanto et al 1994) in some districts of Java revealed that FFS farmers (25%) were no different from non-FFS farmers (29%) in their use of non-recommended insecticides.

Time of application. Some 62.5% of the farmers in Karawang, Subang, and Indramayu applied insecticides at least once in seedbeds. The preferred time for farmers to apply insecticides was during the first 30 days after transplanting. Some 36-86% of the farmers followed this calendar system. The 1993 survey showed a similar pattern, in which FFS farmers (75%) and non-FFS farmers (82%) applied insecticides in seedbeds.

The application of insecticides by both groups of farmers during this stage was not significant. During the first 30 d after transplanting, 86% of non-FFS farmers applied insecticides to their rice fields, a much higher percentage than their FFS counterparts (Fig. 3). The survey by CPIS (Suyanto et al 1994) showed that 57% of FFS farmers and 60% of non-FFS farmers sprayed insecticides during the first 30 days after transplanting.

Frequency of application. The 1991 survey showed that farmers applied carbofuran in seedbeds and in fields. Other insecticides used were BPMC and organophosphate. A clearer picture of the frequency of farmers’ insecticide applications emerged in Cikalong village (Fig. 4). The statistical analysis showed that the non-FFS alumni applied insecticides more than four times in one cropping season, which is significantly higher than what the FFS alumni did. Few non-FFS alumni applied fewer than two times, in contrast to FFS alumni, who preferred to apply once or not at all in a cropping season. The same percentages of FFS and non-FFS alumni, however. Frequently apply insecticides two to three times per season.

Discussion

The districts of Karawang, Subang, and Indramayu are among 20 districts in West Java. These three districts may not represent the agricultural situation in the province, especially with respect to knowledge, attitudes, and practices of rice farmers in pest management. But almost certainly the three districts represent the seven districts on the north coast of West Java. The main difference between districts on the north coast and in the central plain or southern part of West Java is the occurrence of rice pests and diseases. More frequent outbreaks have been reported on the north coast compared with almost none in the southern part of West Java (Sudarmadji et al 1994).

Results for these three districts, however, may reflect similar situations in other provinces having the same problems with rice pests and diseases. The two surveys focused on issues that might affect farmers’ decision making in rice pest management: (1) perceptions of pests and diseases, (2) knowledge of the importance of predators, (3) goals in the farming system, (4) perceptions of control practices recommended by authorities, and (5) views on the use of chemical control, particularly insecticides.

In the past, much attention was given to BPH control and even policies to implement IPM were mostly based on the BPH experience. Much effort was directed to developing rice varieties resistant to BPH and banning 57 broad-spectrum insecticides. This is shown by the outbreak of

white stem borer on the north coast of West Java in early 1990, which devastated 65,000 ha of rice.

When the survey respondents were interviewed in 1991, most farmers mentioned WSB as an important pest during the wet season. The response might have been different if farmers had been asked before the WSB outbreak. Farmers’ knowledge of rice pests and diseases and how they perceive these in relation to yield loss is unclear. It has been shown that they equate the importance of bacterial leaf blight to that of BPH and WSB, which in fact was not always the case. Bacterial leaf blight may, to some extent, cause reduced yield, but this may not be as high as the yield loss caused by BPH and WSB. It seems that farmers use visible plant symptoms as a criterion for ranking pest importance. Noticeable predators would attract farmers’ attention, such as snakes as predators of rats.

Farmers on the north coast of West Java are usually commercial rice farmers. For example, interviewed farmers (FFS and non-FFS alumni) mentioned the high price of rice as their most important criterion in deciding what variety they should grow. Because of its resistance to BPH, along with other preferred varietal characteristics, IR64 has been widely accepted by farmers in West Java. But once farmers found that IR64 was more susceptible to WSB, they switched to other varieties that offered more reliable yields. Only a few farmers in Cikalong planted IR64. Many Indonesian farmers clearly considered resistant rice varieties as an essential component of IPM. Therefore, breeding for resistance to the main pests and diseases will remain important.

Farmers’ reluctance to destroy rice plants infested with WSB or BPH is understandable. Those farmers who have suffered severe yield losses could not afford to spend more money to cut and burn rice straw, and they did not see a direct advantage for themselves. Collecting egg masses to control WSB might be useful when done in seedbeds and when the number of egg masses is quite low. Rauf et al (1992) revealed from their study in Karawang, West Java, that kerosene lamps were not effective as a tool to trap the WSB moth because these lamps trapped only a few moths. Some of the trapped moths had already laid their eggs in the field before entering the lamp. The depth of farmers’ knowledge and practices of pest management can be measured in a number of ways. The variables could be an appreciation of natural enemies, the ability to detect and identify a pest problem, or attitudes toward insecticide applications.

The National IPM Program in Indonesia promotes the conservation of natural enemies. To enhance this natural biological control, pesticide application has to beminimized and, if possible, stopped. It is possible that in SLPHT (FFS), farmers did not receive adequate knowledge or gain enough experience in using and handling insecticides. Suyanto et al (1994) used insecticide knowledge and practices as indicators of the level of farmers’ knowledge of IPM. Their finding is somewhat astonishing among FFS farmers interviewed; 55–60% of them used insecticide sprays at least once during the first 30 days after transplanting, and 51–58% of those who sprayed used a non-recommended insecticide, that is, approximately 26% of the FFS farmers interviewed.

This result was consistent with findings obtained from surveys conducted in Karawang, Subang, and Indramayu. Similar findings were reported by groups of researchers from IPB (1995), RILET (1996), and RIR (1996). The question is why these findings differ from those reported by the National IPM Program (1993). The discrepancy may be due to differences in the survey methods.

Both surveys indicated that most farmers in an endemic area did not apply insecticides prophylactically. When queried why he applied insecticides without waiting until the pest

population reached the economic threshold, one farmer said that he was warned that all rice pests from the neighboring areas would move into his field (Soejitno 1991). Farmers’ negligence in the use of recommended insecticides has been reported to occur in other places (Kartaatmadja et al 1991). Farmers might not be aware of the weaknesses of broad-spectrum insecticides as a possible cause of insect resurgence and hazards to beneficial insects. Farmers’ continuous use of broad-spectrum insecticides could trigger the buildup of other insect pests, particularly BPH.

The high percentage of rice farmers who applied broad-spectrum insecticides, including those who attended the FFS, can be explained by the following: (1) WSB was considered as their most important rice pest, (2) the first survey was conducted just a year after the outbreak, and (3) this group of insecticides is available in the market.

To improve pest management, farmers must have the knowledge and skills to diagnose pests and diseases, assess the presence of natural enemies, and decide on appropriate control measures. The FFS was designed to meet this objective. Apparently farmer adoption of the IPM concept is not only determined by the degree of farmers’ knowledge but also by how they view IPM. Researchers at IPB (1995) demonstrated that the low adoption of IPM by FFS alumni is due to the rejection of the IPM concept itself by farmers, because they were not confident about implementing it. Norton and Heong (1988) stated that farmers might not adopt IPM because it may not make them better off.

Winarto (1996) pointed out that a simple analysis of pest management by trainers could lead to a simple conclusion, that is, to spray or not spray, instead of a general crop management strategy. Farmers could not appreciate that the absence of predators was caused by the spraying of insecticides. In her study in Ciasem subdistrict, Subang, Winarto (1996) mentioned three possible reasons why FFS alumni did not practice what they learned from their trainers.1. Training itself is too scientific. The training began in grade three instead of grade one.2. Farmers believed that FFS and IPM knowledge originated from the government and scientists who emphasized insect pests and diseases and how to control them, rather than the broader problems of rice cultivation. Farmers perceived the FFS as only a school about pests and diseases.3. Trainers did not carry out any cultivation practices along with the farmers to demonstrate the validity of the new approach.

References

Escalada MM, Heong KL. 1993. Communication and implementation of change in crop protection. In: Crop protection and sustainable agriculture. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. p. 191-207.

Fujisaka S, Guino R, Medrano P, Obusan L. 1992. Establishing a farmer participatory pest management experiment. Paper presented at the ARFSN-INSURF-IPM Joint Meeting, 12- 17 October 1992, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 11 p.

Hibino H, Roechan M, Sudarisman S, Tantera DM. 1977. A virus disease of rice (kerdil hampa) transmitted by the brown planthopper in Indonesia. Contributions 35:1-15.

IPB (Bogor Agricultural University). 1995. Characteristic relationship of Farm Field School with knowledge and adoption gap of IPM in selected villages in Indramayu district, West Java. National IPM Project. 113 p. (In Indonesian.)

Kartaatmadja S, Baehaki SE, Suparyono, Swastika dan DKS. 1991. The status of rice pests and diseases at farmer’s level. A case study in WKBPP Sumbang and Jompo Kulon. Banyumas. Reflector 4:34-36.

National Integrated Pest Management Program. 1993. The impact of IPM training on farmer behavior: a summary of results from the second field school cycle. National IPM Program. 42 p.

Norton GA, Heong KL. 1988. An approach to improving pest management of rice in Malaysia. Crop Protection 7:84-90.

Oka IN. 1991 a. Success and challenges of the Indonesian National Pest Management a rice-based cropping system. Crop Protection 20: 163.165.

Oka IN. 1991b. Assessment of control for rice stem borer based on IPM concepts. National IPM Program. 19 p.

Palmer LT, Rao PS. 1981. Grassy stunt, ragged stunt, and tungro diseases of rice in Indonesia. Tropical Pest Management 27:212-217.

Rauf A, Santosa S, Nurmansyah A, Santosa TH. Rudianto dan SA. 1992. Spatial and temporal development of white stem borer, Scirpophaga innotata and its implication for research strategy. National IPM Program. 9 p. (In Indonesian.)

RILET (Research Institute for Legumes and Tuber Crops). 1996. Evaluation of farmer field school impact, institutional involvement and farmer participation in IPM implementation in East Java. National IPM Project. 115 p. (In Indonesian)

RIR (Research Institute for Rice). 1996. Social and economic impact of IPM implementation in West Java. National IPM Project. 100 p. (In Indonesian)

Soejitno J. 1991. Biology and control of rice stem borer. In: Soenarjo E, editor. Rice. Central Research Institute for Food Crops. Bogor (Indonesia): Book 3:713-735. (In Indonesian)

Stern VM, Smith RF, Van den Bosch R, Hagen KS. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81-101.

Sudarmadji, Rahayu A. Kusdiaman D, Suharto H, Wardana dan P. 1994. Rice plants damaged by white stem borer Scirpophaga innotata in Indramayu in the wet season 1993/1994. Reflector 7:21-25.

Suyanto, Hariyadi B, Budiyati S, Quizon J. 1994. Insecticide use in rice farming on Java: a preliminary study comparing the behavior of SLPHT and non-SLPHT farmers. Agriculture Group Working Paper No. 20. Centre for Policy and Implementation Studies. 25 p.

Winarto YT. 1996. Farmers’ perspectives on integrated pest management. Agricultural Research Extension Newsletter 34: 16-20.

Notes

Authors’ addresses: S. Kartaatmadja, Central Research Institute for Food Crops, Bogor 16111, Indonesia. J. Soejitno and I.P. Wardana, Research Institute for Rice, Sukamandi, Subang 41256, Indonesia.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) for supporting the first survey through the Rice IPM Network coordinated by IRRI, Philippines. The second survey was funded by the Government of Indonesia.

Citation: Kartaatmadja S, J Soejitno, IP Wardana. 1997. Pest management practices of rice farmers in West Java, Indonesia. p. 87-98. In: Heong KL, Escalada MM (editors). 1997. Pest management of rice farmers in Asia. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, 245 p.