Although the farmers in Magassi, who live nearest to the
highway, have the highest income—which in turn suggests
that, of all farmers in this study, they are in the most
favourable position to take protective measures—they or
their labourers are most at risk. They plant high-yielding
rice and corn varieties requiring high chemical inputs to
achieve optimal production levels. Moreover, they have
easy access to pesticides. They earn the highest income,
enabling them to purchase pesticides and spray the largest
quantities of pesticides per hectare per year, compared with
the farmers living further away from the highway. At the
same time, most farmers who own commercial rice farms
do not usually apply the pesticides themselves, but hire
labourers to do the work instead. The latter often have
inadequate knowledge about pesticide application. The
vast majority of interviewees in this study have never
received any formal training on using pesticides and
knapsack sprayers, learning how to spray and fill their
tanks by imitating relatives or neighbours. Besides pesticide
spraying being not a topic of high priority for government
institutions, villages with difficult access located at greater
distance from the highway are clearly less involved in
training programs.
Finally, it is expected that pesticide usage and the
associated risks to human health and the environment will
increase rather than decrease in the near future unless
external interventions or forces induce changes towards
more sustainable forms of (most ideally pesticide-free) crop
cultivation without economic loss to smallholder farmers.
This expectation is based partly on discussions in the
literature, as for example in Wilson and Tisdell (2001), who
point out that pesticide use may increase supply of highinput
crops and thus reduce market prices, thereby forcing
non-adopters to apply pesticides, despite their reservations,
in order to avoid economic losses and ensure their survival.
Within this context, Tisdell (1999) discussed the so-called
economic ‘lock-in’ effect, referring to farmers becoming
increasingly dependent on chemical inputs to sustain their
agricultural yields or returns which, in turn, imposes an
economic barrier on those willing to switch to sustainable
organic systems (unless withdrawal costs are minimized by
a high price premium for pesticide-free produce, for
example).
Although the farmers in Magassi, who live nearest to the
highway, have the highest income—which in turn suggests
that, of all farmers in this study, they are in the most
favourable position to take protective measures—they or
their labourers are most at risk. They plant high-yielding
rice and corn varieties requiring high chemical inputs to
achieve optimal production levels. Moreover, they have
easy access to pesticides. They earn the highest income,
enabling them to purchase pesticides and spray the largest
quantities of pesticides per hectare per year, compared with
the farmers living further away from the highway. At the
same time, most farmers who own commercial rice farms
do not usually apply the pesticides themselves, but hire
labourers to do the work instead. The latter often have
inadequate knowledge about pesticide application. The
vast majority of interviewees in this study have never
received any formal training on using pesticides and
knapsack sprayers, learning how to spray and fill their
tanks by imitating relatives or neighbours. Besides pesticide
spraying being not a topic of high priority for government
institutions, villages with difficult access located at greater
distance from the highway are clearly less involved in
training programs.
Finally, it is expected that pesticide usage and the
associated risks to human health and the environment will
increase rather than decrease in the near future unless
external interventions or forces induce changes towards
more sustainable forms of (most ideally pesticide-free) crop
cultivation without economic loss to smallholder farmers.
This expectation is based partly on discussions in the
literature, as for example in Wilson and Tisdell (2001), who
point out that pesticide use may increase supply of highinput
crops and thus reduce market prices, thereby forcing
non-adopters to apply pesticides, despite their reservations,
in order to avoid economic losses and ensure their survival.
Within this context, Tisdell (1999) discussed the so-called
economic ‘lock-in’ effect, referring to farmers becoming
increasingly dependent on chemical inputs to sustain their
agricultural yields or returns which, in turn, imposes an
economic barrier on those willing to switch to sustainable
organic systems (unless withdrawal costs are minimized by
a high price premium for pesticide-free produce, for
example).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..