IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Research articleerd

Risk Assessment of Pesticide Use in Chinese kale Cultivationof GAP and Conventional Practice by EIQ in North-EastThailand
JARUPONG PRASOPSUK
Office of Agricultural Research and Development Region 3,
Ministry of Agricultural and Cooperatives, Khon Kaen, Thailand

ARUNEE PROMKHAMBUT*
Faculty of Agriculture,Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

SUWIT LAOHASIRIWONG
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

CHULEEMAS BOONTHAI IWAI*
Faculty of Agriculture,Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Email: chuleemas1@gmail.com
Received 10 September 2019

Accepted 21 July 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This study reports the pesticide application and environmental impact in Chinese
kale cultivation under Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) and conventional practice in NorthEast, Thailand. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) model was applied in this study.
The data were collected by using semi-structured interviews and observation. GAP farmers(farmers in GAP's system) and conventional cultivation farmers (non-GAP farmers) werepurposive selected, 10 per each group with a total of 20 farmers. Data from farmer interviewson pesticides application, type of substances, application rates, frequency, and plot size wereused in the EIQ Field Use equation to assess environmental risks between the two practices.
The criteria are EIQ Field Use; <25 = very low risk <50 = low risk 50-99 = moderate risk
100-199 = high risk and> 200 = very high risk. The results showed that 15 active ingredientsin pesticide were found in GAP farms and 19 active ingredients in pesticide use were foundin non-GAP farms. The GAP Chinese kale has a lower level of impact on environmental
risks than the conventional one (Average EIQ Field Use: GAP = 87.4, non-GAP = 136.87).
This data indicates that the GAP system could reduce the risk of pesticides in the environmentof commercial vegetable-growing village.
Keywords environmental impact quotient, pesticide risk, good agricultural practice

INTRODUCTION
The increasing rate of pesticides application poses enormous challenges to manage the associatedrisks to people and ecosystems (Schreinemachers et al., 2017; Harnpicharnchai et al., 2013). In
conventional agricultural practice, the application of pesticides is a common practice among
vegetable grower due to the prevalent pest and disease problems. Pesticides are products that
improved agricultural productivity, although their inherent toxicity and misuse have led to various
adverse effects on important ecosystems and human health (Páez et al., 2013). Although nowadays
consumers are increasingly concerned about food safety and looking for safer food (Schreinemacherset al., 2012). To reduce potential food hazards and increase the good image of Thai horticultural
products abroad, the Thai government introduced public standards of Good Agricultural Practice(GAP). This has been shown that the application of pesticides in a GAP system is a production
strategy that ensures sustainability and competitiveness. An environmentfriendly agriculturalⒸ ISERD

7

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

production and a contribution to the health of workers, consumers and other stakeholders in the foodchain, facilitate trade and international opportunities (Páez et al., 2013).
The long-term strategies to manage risks in the GAP system, farmers can pesticide to control
weeds, pests, and diseases following the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) because
Good Agricultural Practice will be decided on interventions following consideration of all possible
methods and their short and long-term effects on-farm productivity and environmental implications
in order to minimize the use of agrochemicals, in particular, promote IPM (FAO, 2004). However,some growers and pest management practitioners did take into account the effect of the pesticides on
the applicator or beneficial natural enemies such as predatory mites when making pesticide
recommendations, but no formal method was available to assist them in making environmentally
based pesticide choices. Because there is no easy method to assess pesticide impacts, each individual
had to rely primarily on their own judgment to make these decisions (Kovach et al.1992).
The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) is a formula created to provide growers with data
regarding the environmental and health impacts of their pesticide options, so they can make better
informed decisions regarding their pesticide selection. (Cornell University, 2018) The formula helps
to calculate the environmental impact of most common fruit and vegetable pesticides (insecticides,acaricides, fungicides and herbicides) used in commercial agriculture. The values obtained fromthese calculations can be used to compare different pesticides and pest management programs toultimately determine which program or pesticide is likely to have the lower environmental impact.
The method addresses a majority of the environmental concerns that are encountered in agriculturalsystems including farm worker, consumer, wildlife, health and safety (Kovach et al., 1992). Since
2000, the EIQ has been used in several IPM projects in Asia for different purposes ranging from
impact assessment to pesticide selection (FAO, 2008).
Chinese kale is one of the main vegetable growing in Khon Kaen province in North-East,
Thailand and is one of the major vegetable consumed in the region (National Bureau of Agricultural
Commodity and Food Standards, 2016). The vegetable is also susceptible to a substantial number ofarthropod pests and plant diseases, which farmers need a lot of pesticides to prevent crop damage.
For the commercial vegetable village in this study area, GAP farmers have used pesticides less than
non-GAP farmers because they were supported to pesticides used in accordance with IPM. However,there are no indicators that GAP can reduce the risk of pesticides used. Therefore, the EIQ impact
assessment will show the risk levels of both Chinese kale cultivation (GAP and non-GAP). This will
be answered that whether GAP compliance can reduce the risk of pesticides on environmental andhealth impacts or not. Moreover, it is expected that the results of the study can also be used to help
governmental agencies to implement better GAP programs in this region.
OBJECTIVE
To assess pesticide risk and environmental impact in Chinese kale cultivation among GAP andconventional practices.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
The commercial vegetable growing village in Muang District, Khon Kaen Province, Thailand waspurposively selected as a study site in this research. This village is a large vegetable production in
the area which farmers continue to grow vegetables for more than 30 years as it is the main sourceof their incomes. At the same time, this village is one of the pilot GAP vegetable production areasby the government. Since it is a voluntary scheme, there are both GAP farmers and non-GAP farmers
in the village. In this study, Chinese kale plots were purposively collected from 10 GAP and 10 nonGAP plots, as their farms scattered across the village. Pesticide application data were collected byusing a semi-structure interview and making observations, during January to October 2018. Data ofⒸ ISERD8

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

pesticide compound, common name, active ingredient, % active ingredient, rate of application,
frequency of application and plot size were collected from sample plots.
Risk Assessment of Pesticide used by EIQ
The EIQ value for a particular active ingredient is calculated according to a formula that includes
parameters of toxicity (dermal, chronic, bird, bee, fish, and beneficial arthropod), soil half-life,
systemicity, leaching potential, and plant surface half-life are considered. The formula for
determining the EIQ value of individual pesticides is listed below and is the average of the farmworker, consumer, and ecological components. The EIQ Equation as in Eq.(1) (Kovach et al., 1992).
EIQ={C[(DT*5)+(DT*P)]+[(C*((S+P)/2)*SY)+(L)]+[(F*R)+(D*((S+P)/2)*3)+(Z*P*3)+(B*P*5)]}/3(1)

Where DT = dermal toxicity, C = chronic toxicity, SY = systemicity, F = fish toxicity, L =leaching potential, R = surface loss potential, D = bird toxicity, S = soil half-life, Z = bee toxicity, B= beneficial arthropod toxicity, P = plant surface half-life.
Field Use EIQ is calculated by multiplying the table EIQ value for a specific chemical by thepercentage of active ingredient in the formulation and its dosage rate per hectare, as in Eq. (2)Field Use EIQ = EIQ value x % active ingredient x Dosage rate

(2)

The risk level according to the EIQ Field Use Rating Levels; when EIQ Field Use less than 25= very low risk, less than 50 = low risk, 50-99 = moderate risk, 100-199 = high risk, over than 200= very high risk (Cornell University, 2018).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pesticide Applied in Chinese Kale Cultivation
In each crop production, different frequencies of different types of pesticides were found applied inboth GAP and non-GAP plots. The insecticides that commonly applied in all production cycle in bothplots indicating that insect damage in Chinese kale production in this area was critical and approaches
to reduce the infestation of insect must be seriously taken in to account. The types of pesticides
applied by farmers (GAP and non-GAP) were not different because most farmers buy pesticides at
the agro-chemicals shops in the village. For example, imidacloprid was commonly used for control
worms and aphids because this product is inexpensive, and easy to obtain from shops in the village.
In the rainy season, during the high pest epidemics, farmers will use pesticides with higher toxicity
levels, such as tolfenpyrad, profenofos and cypermethrin. However, considering number ofchemicals used, GAP farmers used less than non-GAP farmers (Table 1).
Based on a survey of pest control in the field, GAP farmers tried to use integrated pest
management methods, which were bio pesticide such as azadirachtin, Baciluss thuringiensis,
Trichoderma harzianum and Steinernema sp. Moreover, they also applied insect net for protection
against pests with government support, which non-GAP farmers do not have. This may be the reasonof fewer number of pesticides applied by GAP farmers and also indicate the important of intervention
form government agencies in terms of production and reducing pesticide application. However,factors affecting farmers' decision to apply pesticides include labor, market motivation, disease andinsect outbreaks, and size of vegetable plots.
Risk Assessment of Pesticide Applied in Chinese Kale Cultivation
The EIQ Field Use values were calculated by using data of pesticide applied in farmlands. The results ofⒸ ISERD

9

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

calculated EIQ Field Use for assessing pesticide risk revealed that EIQ Field Use (n =10) of GAPfarmers was in the range of 28-131 and the average EIQ Field Use values is 87.42 (Ratinglevel=moderate risk). Although the EIQ Field Use (n =10) of non-GAP farmers was in the range 30–393
and the average EIQ Field Use values is 136.87 (Rating levl= high risk). This data shown in Table 2.
Table 1 Pesticide application of GAP and non-GAP farmers in Chinese kale plots

Pesticides%Active
ingredientTypeabamectin
acetamiprid
alachlor
carbarylchlorfenapyr
chlorantraniliprole
chlorpyrifos+cypermethrin
cypermethrin
diazinondichlorvos
dinotefuranemamectin benzoate
haloxyfop-p- methyl
imidacloprid
indoxacarb
mancozeb
oxadiazon
profenofos
spinetoram
tolfenpyrad

I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
F
H
I
I
I

1.8%W/V EC
20% SP
48%W/V EC
85%WP
10%W/V EC
5.17%W/V SC
50%+5%W/V EC
35%W/V EC
60% W/V EC
50%W/V EC
10% WP
5% WG
10.8%W/V EC
70% WG
15%W/V EC
85%WP
25%W/V EC
50%W/V EC
12% W/V SC
16% EC

Application rate per 20 L
water

Frequency ofapplication per crop

GAP
20-30 ml
5g
150 ml
20 g
40 ml
40 ml
10-20 ml
40 ml
50 ml
5g
50 g
100 ml
20 ml
15 ml
20 ml

GAP

non-GAP
20-30 ml
5g
100-175 ml
30 g
40 ml
20 ml
10-30 ml
40 ml
10-60 ml
10-15 g
10 g
50 ml
10 g
10 ml
40 g
100 ml
10 ml
10 ml
40 ml

3-6
2
1

1
1
2
1-6
3
1
2

1

1
3
3
1

non-GAP
3-621316312-6
1-421216144
1-5

Remark: Collected samples (N=20) from 10 GAP and 10 non- GAP farmers interviews in March to May 2018 of Muang
District Khon Kaen Province Thailand. I= Insecticide, H=Herbicide, F= Fungicide, Application rate per 400 m2 plot size.

Table 2 EIQ Field Use of GAP and non-GAP Chinese kale cultivation
Type of Chinese
kale cultivationEIQ Field Use(Min-Max)

Average
EIQ Field Use

S.D.

Risk rating

GAP (N=10)
non-GAP (N=10)28-13130-39387.42
136.8731.38
115.76Moderate risk
High risk

Remark: when EIQ Field Use less than 25 = Very low risk, less than 50 = Low risk, 50-99 = Moderate risk,
100-199 = High risk, over than 200 = Very high risk (Cornell University, 2018).

The numbers of GAP and non-GAP Chinese kale farms classified by EIQ Field Use rating arepresented in Fig.1. The result of calculated EIQ Field Use risk assessment of pesticide application
revealed that in 10 GAP farms there are4 farms with high risk levels (40%), 5 farms with moderaterisk levels (50%) and 1 farm with low risk levels (10%). Within the 10 non-GAP farms, there are 3very high risk levels (30%), 2 farms with high risk levels (20%), 4 farms with moderate risk levels(40%), and 1 farm with low risk levels (10%).

Ⓒ ISERD10umber of farmers

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2Risk
ratingFig.1 Number of GAP and non-GAP Chinese kale farms classified by EIQ Field Use rating
CONCLUSIONGAP Chinese kale cultivation has a lower level of impact on environmental risks than that ofconventional one (Average EIQ Field Use: GAP = 87.4, non-GAP = 136.87). This data indicates that
the GAP system could reduce the risk of pesticides application in the environment of commercial
vegetable-growing village.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by The Agricultural Research Development Agency (Public Organization)
Bangkok, Thailand. The authors would like to thank the Office of Agricultural Research andDevelopment Region 3, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,
Thailand for participating in this research.
REFERENCES
Cornell University. 2018. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. Environmental Impact
Quotient: An Introduction. https://nysipm.cornell.edu/eiq.
FAO. 2004. Good agricultural practices a working concept background paper for the FAO internal workshop
on good agricultural practices, FAO Agriculture Department. FAO GAP Working Paper Series 5. Foodand Agricultural Organization of the United Nation. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2008. IPM impact assessment series. Review use of environmental impact quotient in IPM programmedin Asia. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation, Rome, Italy.
Harnpicharnchai, K., Chaiear, N. and Charerntanyarak, L. 2013. Residues of organophosphate pesticides usedin vegetable cultivation in ambient air, surface water and soil in Bueng Niam Subdistrict, Khon Kaen,Thailand. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health, 44, 1088-1097.
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degnil, J. and Tette, J. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact ofpesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin. New York, Cornell University, New York, USA.
National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards. 2016. Food consumption data of Thailand.
Bangkok, Thailand.
Paez, M., Sánchez, R. and Castro, R. 2013. Environmental impact quotient (EIQ) as an indicator for thesustainability in tomato crops with traditional and GAP’s systems. Department of Caldas. Colombia.
https://www.york.ac.uk/conferences/yorkpesticides2013/pdfs/134.pdf.
Schreinemachers, P., Chen, H., Nguyen, T.T.L., Bontong, B., Bouapao, L., Guatam, S., Le, N. T., Pinn, T.,
Vilaysone, P. and Srinivasan, R. 2017. Too much to hand? Pesticide dependence of smallholder vegetable
farmers in Southeast Asia. Sci. Total Environ., 593-594, 470-477.
Schreinemachers, P., Schad, I., Tipraqsa P., Williams, P. M., Neef, A., Riwthong. S., Sangchan, W. andGroverman, C. 2012. Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit andvegetable farming in northern Thailand. Agric. Hum. Values, 29, 519-529.
Ⓒ ISERD11