Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Agrochemicals Use among Farmers in Kathmandu, Nepal
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and purpose: High agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizer and pesticides are unlikely to be sustainable for long unless the inputs are properly used in terms of both their quality and quantity. Because of limited knowledge and skills about the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, farmers are haphazardly using agrochemical, which not only disturbs the soil ecosystem, affecting the nutrient recycling process and decreases productivity, but also affects long-term human health. It has a potential connection to cancer, thyroid, and reproductive health in both humans and livestock. Heavy use of chemical herbicides, pesticides, and intensification of agricultural production during the past few decades has led to several harmful effects in surrounding areas of Kathmandu valley. In this context, this study was conducted to assess the farmer’s knowledge towards the use of agrochemicals, to explore the attitude, and practices methods of chemical fertilizer and pesticides in Sankhu and Machhegaun VDCs, Kathmandu, Nepal. As well, this study explored the famers’ self-reported problems associated with the use of agrochemicals. Materials and Methods: In this study, two sampling methods: purposive and snowball sampling was used to select 50 farmers from two villages in Kathmandu, Nepal. The data was obtained by interview and focus group discussion through structured questionnaires and checklists, which were analyzed with descriptive statistical tools. Results and conclusion: Almost half of the farmers (40%) access information about agrochemicals use from friends, elders, relatives, and other farmers followed by agrochemicals retailers and agriculture cooperatives (22%). All the farmers in the study area were aware of the hazards involved in agrochemicals and safety precautions. However, the majority of them (68%) ignored safety precautions while applying agrochemicals. Research revealed that females are more likely to use safety measures than males among those who used safety measures and the higher educational status of respondents plays a vital role in applying safety measures. The most common PPE used by slightly more than a quarter of farmers were rubber gloves, safety shoes, masks, hats, long-sleeved clothes, goggles, and respirators. Furthermore, only 26% of farmers have ever received some kind of training to use agrochemicals. All the farmers washed their hands with soap while only 18% of them took bath immediately after applying agrochemicals. Slightly more than half (52%) of the farmers stored agrochemicals in an unlocked cabinet inside the house and only 14% locked in the safe place outside. Almost half of the farmers (48%) threw away empty agrochemicals in the open space (48%) and 36% of them were reused for storage or other household purposes. Only 8% used the safe disposal procedure i.e., burn or bury. The common time interval (38%) between agrochemicals application and crop harvesting was between one to two weeks followed by two to three weeks (30%). More than half of the farmers (54%) reported that pest and insect activity increased after agrochemicals application. Similarly, some farmers also reported experiencing adverse impacts on their animals (14%) and the surrounding environment. The study revealed that the majority of the farmers 39 (78%) had ill-health symptoms after agrochemicals application. The most common symptoms experienced by them were eye irritation, headache, cough, skin rashes or allergy, vomiting, dizziness, and abdominal pain. Some farmers also reported chronic illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis. Inadequate knowledge and inappropriate practice have resulted in harmful consequences to the farmers' health and the surrounding environment. Based on the results of the study, training for farmers is strongly recommended to improve knowledge on agrochemical use, risk associated with agrochemical, safety precaution, safe storage and disposal and short and long-term health impact. Furthermore, to manage inappropriate disposal practices of the farmers, the local government should provide a common agrochemicals waste disposal site where there is no threat to public health and the environment. Key words: agrochemicals, pesticides, chemical fertilizer, human health, PPE, environment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».