Awareness levels of rice growers about the harmful effects of agrochemicals on health and environment

Introduction

Agriculture plays a crucial role in the economy of India, with rice cultivation being a key activity in the Chhattisgarh plains. The extensive use of agrochemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers, has raised concerns over their adverse effects on human health, the environment, and soil quality. While agrochemicals can boost productivity, their misuse or overuse poses significant risks, including contamination of water, soil degradation, and health issues such as allergies and cancer. Despite these risks, many farmers remain unaware of the potential hazards associated with agrochemicals. This study aims to assess the awareness levels of rice farmers in the Chhattisgarh plains regarding the harmful effects of agrochemicals on health and the environment. The findings will provide insights into the current awareness among farmers and identify areas for improvement, with the goal of promoting safer agricultural practices and sustainable farming in the region.

Material and Methods

The present study was carried out in the Chhattisgarh Plains of Chhattisgarh state during the years 2022-23 and 2023-24. Chhattisgarh state is comprised of 33 districts. From each of the selected districts, sixteen representative blocks were chosen: Arang and Dharsiwa from Raipur district, Durg and Patan from Durg district, Kota and Takhatpur from Bilaspur district, Dhamtari and Kurud from Dhamtari district, Mahasamund and Bagbahra from Mahasamund district, Gariyaband and Fingeshwar from Gariyaband district, Bemetara and Saja from Bemetara district, and Mungeli and Patharia from Mungeli district. From each selected block, two representative villages were chosen randomly (Total: 16 x 2 = 32). Thus, a total of 32 villages were selected for the study. Data were collected through personal interviews using a well-prepared, structured, and pretested interview schedule. The collected data were tabulated and analyzed using appropriate statistical tools and methods.

Results and Discussion

Awareness about hazardous effect of agro-chemicals

The findings of Table 1 Provide a detailed overview of the respondent's awareness levels concerning the hazardous effects of agro-chemicals on humans, animals, water bodies, and soil. The results indicate varying levels of awareness across different categories of hazards. Hazardous effects on humans, the majority of respondents (45.00%), were aware of the effects of agro-chemicals causing allergies and sensitivities. This was followed by 32.50 per cent of respondents who recognized the carcinogenic potential of these chemicals. Environmental impacts were acknowledged by 25.94 per cent of respondents; while toxicity was noted by only 7.50 per cent Awareness of reproductive and developmental issues was the lowest, with only 9.38 per cent of respondents recognizing these effects. Hazardous Effects on Animals In the context of animals, the data shows that the highest awareness was regarding behavioral changes, with 51.56 per cent of the respondents www.extensionjournal.com recognizing this hazard. This was followed by awareness of long-term health issues (19.38%) and acute poisoning (13.44%) awareness of reduced habitat and bioaccumulation was notably lower, with each category recognized by only 7.50 per cent of respondents. Hazardous Effects on Water Bodies the highest level of awareness concerning the hazardous effects of agrochemicals on water bodies was related to drinking water contamination, recognized by (75.00), of respondents. This was followed by toxicity to aquatic life 66.56 per cent and water contamination (61.56%). Eutrophication was acknowledged by 48.13 per cent of respondents. However, awareness was much lower for disruption of ecosystem balance (15.94%) and bioaccumulation (13.13%), Hazardous Effects on Soil Regarding soil, the highest awareness was observed for soil contamination, with (80.94%), of respondents recognizing this hazard. This was followed by soil degradation (69.69%) and biodiversity loss (41.56%). Awareness of resistance development and residue build-up was significantly lower, with 19.06 per cent and 15.31 per cent of respondents, respectively, acknowledging these hazards. 2, Distribution of the respondents according to their overall awareness about hazardous effect of agro-chemicals majority of the respondents (56.25%) had medium level of awareness regarding the hazardous effects of agrochemicals. Followed by 32.81 per cent of respondent's high level of awareness, while a smaller group 10.94 per cent has low level of awareness.

Awareness towards insect-pest, diseases and weeds

The awareness of respondents regarding insect pests of rice in the study area is presented in Table 3 the data reveals that the majority of respondents (90.94%) of respondents are aware of the stem borer, making it the most recognized pest. This is followed closely by the brown plant hopper at (89.69%) and the green leaf hopper at 81.25 per cent, awareness of the leaf folder stands at (74.38%) while the www.extensionjournal.com case worm is recognized by 58.44 per cent of respondents. In contrast, lower awareness levels are observed for the grasshopper (53.75%), ear head bug/stink bug (51.56%), army worm/cut worm (42.81%), and gall midge (38.75%). Nut grass is the most recognized weed, with (97.81%), awareness followed by doob grass (96.25%), Jungle rice (94.69%), White heads (85.63%), and Snake weed (83.75%). These findings find supported from Ashappa (2014) [1] . 4 the finding reveals that that the majority of respondents (60%) had a medium level of awareness regarding insects-pest, disease and weeds. Followed by (21.56%) of respondent's low level of awareness, while a smaller group (18.44%) had high level of awareness.

Awareness towards IPM practices

Table 5. Distribution of the respondents according to their awareness towards cultural practices in IPM The awareness of respondents regarding cultural practices in IPM Table 5. The data reveals that the highest awareness among respondents was observed for deep summer ploughing, with (82.19%) recognizing its importance in IPM. This is closely followed by timely sowing, acknowledged by 79.06 pre cent of respondents, and trimming of bunds, with 75.00 per cent awareness. Interculture operations/weeding were recognized by 71.25 per cent of respondents, while 63.44 per cent were aware of the need for field cleaning to manage pests. Awareness about seed treatment for plant protection stood at 61.56 per cent and cultural operations like Biasi were known to 58.13 per cent of respondents. Timely transplanting was recognized by 54.06 per cent of respondents whereas crop rotation was noted by 47.50 per cent Awareness regarding water management was lower, with 38.13 per cent of respondents recognizing its role in IPM. Proper plant spacing (PP X RR) was acknowledged by 24.38 per cent, and the use of improved varieties for controlling insect pests had the lowest awareness, with only 20.00 per cent of respondents recognizing its significance. These findings suggest that while some practices are wellknown and widely adopted, others require more focused extension efforts to enhance their recognition and implementation among rice growers.

The awareness of respondents regarding mechanical practices in IPM Table 6 the highest awareness among respondents was observed for the removal and destruction of insect pest-infested plant parts, with (99.06%) www.extensionjournal.com recognizing its importance. This is followed by the use of the coir rope method, acknowledged by (83.44%) of respondents, and the manual destruction of insects by hand, with 72.50 per cent awareness. The trapping of pests by net was recognized by 55.31 per cent of respondents, while awareness about the use of light traps stood at 40.00 per cent, awareness regarding the use of sticky traps was notably lower, with 13.13 per cent of respondents recognizing their importance, and pheromone traps had the lowest awareness, with only 6.88 per cent of respondents. Notably, none of the respondents (0.00%) were aware of the practice of collecting egg masses and larvae and placing them in a bamboo cage. 6 highlights the awareness of respondents concerning biological practices in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for rice crops, specifying the biological agents and the insects they target. The highest level of awareness was observed for dragonflies, with (19.69%) of respondents recognizing their role in controlling harmful insects. This is followed by the conservation of natural enemies such as spiders, known to (15.31%) of respondents for their effectiveness against green leaf hoppers and caterpillars. Awareness about parasitoids (Trichogramma), used against stem borers and leaf folders, was reported by (5.63%) of respondents. The knowledge of predators like ladybird beetles, which target brown plant hoppers and green leaf hoppers, was noted by 4.06 per cent of respondents. Similarly, awareness of Beauveria bassiana for controlling leaf folders was recorded at 4.38 per cent, while Bacillus thuringiensis targeting leaf folders had the lowest awareness at (1.88%) These findings reveal a varied level of awareness among respondents regarding the biological practices in IPM, with significant potential for increasing understanding and implementation of these methods for more effective pest management. These findings reveal a varied level of awareness among respondents regarding the biological practices in IPM, indicating significant potential for increasing understanding and implementation of these methods to achieve more effective pest management. The awareness of respondents regarding insecticide in IPM Table 8, The highest awareness among respondents was for Acephate 75% SP, with (76.88%) recognizing its use against stem borer, brown plant hoppers, and green leaf hoppers. This is followed by Fipronil 05% SC, known by 25.63 per cent of respondents for its effectiveness against stem borer, brown plant hopper, green leaf hopper, rice leafhopper, and rice gall midge. Deltamethrin 02.50% WP was recognized by 19.69 per cent of respondents for controlling aphids, thrips, and mites. Cartap hydrochloride 50% SP was acknowledged by 15.31 per cent of respondents for stem borer and leaf folder control. Awareness of Imidacloprid 17.8% SL for controlling brown plant hopper stood at 4.38 per cent while Chlorpyriphos 50% + Cypermethrin 5% EC for gall midge, stem borer, and leaf folder control was known by 5.63 per cent of respondents. Bifenthrin 10% WP was recognized by 4.06 per cent of respondents for stem borer, leaf folder, and green leaf hopper control, and the lowest awareness was noted for Profenophos 40% EC + Cypermethrin 4% EC, with only 1.88 per cent of respondents acknowledging its significance for leaf folder and panicle mite control. The awareness of respondents regarding herbicides in IPM 9 the finding reveals that the majority of respondents per cent had a medium level of awareness regarding overall awareness towards IPM practices for insect-pest management in rice crop followed by 17.50 per cent of respondent's with a low level of awareness, while a smaller group 15.00 per cent had a high level of awareness

Conclusion

The findings indicate that 45% of respondents were aware of the allergic and sensitivity effects of agrochemicals on humans. For animals, 51.56% recognized behavioral changes as a hazard. Regarding water bodies, 75% were aware of drinking water contamination, while 80.94% recognized soil contamination as a major issue. On pest management, 90.94% of respondents were aware of the stem borer, while 97.81% recognized rice blast as the most common disease and Nut grass as the most recognized weed. Awareness of cultural practices in IPM was highest for deep summer ploughing (82.19%), while mechanical practices were most recognized for the removal of pestinfested plant parts (99.06%). Among biological agents, 19.69% were aware of dragonflies in pest control. The most recognized insecticide was Acephate 75% SP (76.88%), while 90.31% were aware of Pendimethalin 30% EC as an herbicide. Carbendazim 50% WP was the most recognized fungicide (58.13%). The most recognized effect of indiscriminate pesticide use was cancer (34.69%). Overall, 67.50% of respondents had a medium level of awareness regarding IPM practices for insect-pest management in rice crops.

References

1. Ashappa R. Awareness of Women Panchayat Members on Panchayat Administration: A Sample Survey in Gulbarga dist. Indian J Res. 2014;3(12):95-98.
2. Gocchayat A. Political Participation of Women in Gram Elections in Odisha: A Case Study of Hindol Block in Dhenkanal dist. Int J Humanities Soc Sci Invention. 2013;3(11).
3. Hardik NP. Comprehensive awareness about global warming among extension functionaries. M.Sc. (Agri) Thesis. Anand Agricultural University, Gujarat, 2015.
4. Makoni JL. Analysing brand awareness pertaining to seed adoption by small-scale farmers [Doctoral dissertation]. Potchefstroom: North-West University (South Africa), Potchefstroom Campus, 2016.
5. Mankar DM, Hirevenkangoudar LV, Manjunath L. Awareness and Performance of the Role in Agricultural Development by Panchayat members. Karnataka J www.extensionjournal.com Agric Sci. 2011;24(2):193-197.
6. Pandey D, Doharey M, Meena. Awareness of farmers about hybrid rice production practices. The Pharma Innovation J. 2021;10(1):731-733.
7. Rebeka S, Noor M. Farmers' attitude towards safe food production in Bangladesh: A study in Bogra district. Asian Res J Agric. 2018;8(1):10-14.
8. Sharma DD, Mai Chand, Singh UC. Dealers' brand preference of spray oil in Himachal Pradesh. Agric Res Commun Centre. 2009;29(3):169-173.
9. Sulagitti A, Raghuraman M, Reddy MS, Sathua SK. Seasonal variation in major insect pests incidence on rice and impact of various abiotic factors on their incidence under Varanasi conditions. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2017;5(3):1060-1063.
10. Thorat CA, Pawar SN, Ghewari AA. A study on awareness of natural farming vegetables and fruits among consumers in Pune city. PIMT J Res. 2020;12(4):61-65.