Study sites and methodological approach The study was conducted in two selected flood plain areas of Koitta (population 1500) in Manikganj district, and in Gabtali (population 1700) in Bogra district. In these two thanas (administrative units) farmers had been heavily influenced by the non-government organization (NGO) PROSHIKA and other NGOs that promoted sustainable and ecological agriculture and IPM. As a consequence, even farmers who had not attended specific training may have been exposed to such practices and so may not have been being representative of the flood plain farming community at large in areas where training has not been undertaken. In this paper, ‘‘trained’’ farmers are those that received ecological training from PROSHIKA or CARE, both NGOs (though not all were necessarily following all the practices suggested in the training at the time of interview). ‘‘Untrained’’ farmers had not received such training.2 Over the three years of the project, the methodological approaches taken by the socio-economics team, comprised of both agricultural and resource economists and a sociologist, were diverse. Individual semi-structured interviews with key informants such as pesticide dealers and government extension officers, combined with farmer focus group discussions, were used during the early part of the project to get a general understanding of pesticide use and pest management decisions. Next, a structured 54-item farmer questionnaire was undertaken to obtain quantitative data on farmers' perceptions of the effectiveness of pesticides and anticipated yield gaps from not using pesticides. Farmers were asked how badly they perceived pest damages to have been in the most recent boro season compared with other years. They were also asked to provide general perceptions of the number of severe pest damages that they would expect in a ten-year period. They were then asked to provide their perceptions of the extent to which they felt that the use of precautionary pesticide (applied before damage) and pesticide applied after damage would improve their yields compared with not using any pesticide; this was asked for years when there were severe, moderate, and mild pest damages. The sample comprised 17 trained farmers and 14 untrained farmers in Gabtoli, and 9 trained and 14 untrained farmers in Koitta.3 Trained farmers were selected randomly from one village in each of the two thanas where ecological training had been undertaken, either by PROSHIKA or CARE. Non-trained farmers were selected randomly from villages nearby to the villages where training had been undertaken.4 Although the sample size was relatively small, the overall objective of the research was to determine different farmer motivations, and norms rather than variation; consequently, this sample size, combined with information from participatory and qualitative approaches, was considered appropriate. The socio-economics team worked closely with the biological scientists on the project in both formulating questions and questionnaires and data collection.
In the cropping systems that we studied, rice is grown in two seasons: boro (dry season) and Aman (monsoon or rainy season). In the boro season, rice is irrigated and generally transplanted. In the Aman season, irrigation is not used, and again the rice is transplanted. At Gabtoli, which is situated on medium-high land, vegetables are often grown after the Aman rice crop. In other lower-lying fields, only rice is planted. Farmers tend not to use pesticides during the Aman season, principally because flooding which harms the crop is common; farmers reported that they do not want to ‘‘waste’’ money spent on pesticides. Hence this paper focuses on pesticide use in the boro season.
Farmer's knowledge and pesticide use Farmer's detailed knowledge of insect pests and natural enemies of rice pests, in particular, was found to vary considerably. Farmers were shown actual specimens of arthropods that the researchers were able to collect by suction machine and pictures of those that could not be collected. Whether or not they were trained, farmers were typically able to identify most of the different arthropods that would be found in their fields. For example, all farmers interviewed in the quantitative survey, whether trained or untrained, recognized stem borer (stem borers in Bangladesh rice systems are collectively known locally as masrapukka and may include Scirpophaga incertulas, Chilo polychrysa, C. suppressalis, and Sesamia inferens) as the most harmful pest in the boro season, and stated that stem borer damaged at the tillering stage.6 However, trained farmers are more likely to recognize that some arthropods were natural enemies to pests and so beneficial for the farmers, whereas untrained farmers typically assumed that all arthropods were pests. Figure 2a shows the percentage of farmers, trained and untrained, who correctly identified different arthropods. Three arthropods (the nymph stages of the brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) and the green leafhopper (Nephotettix spp.), and the Tetragnathidae spider) were not identified by any of the 54 farmers interviewed. Indeed, farmers often mistook the hopper nymphs for stem borers. Figure 2b shows the percentage of farmers who correctly identified a particular arthropod and who also were able to determine whether the arthropod was harmful or beneficial. The findings demonstrate that although farmers may not understand that many of the arthropods they see in their fields play a beneficial role in managing pests, a large proportion of untrained farmers do recognize (i.e., can identify) species that serve as natural enemies of rice pests, such as damselflies (Agriocnemsis spp.), spiders (Lycosidae), ladybirds (Coccinelidae), and ground beetles (Ophionae spp.), thus providing a useful starting point for training.