Tomato pests and diseases in Bangladesh and India: farmers’ management and potential economic gains from insect resistant varieties and integrated pest management

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample of tomato producers in Bangladesh and India; sample means, 2017–18.

	Andhra Pradesh, India	Karnataka, India	Jashore, Bangladesh	Total
	(n = 252)	(n = 248)	(n = 244)	(n = 744)
Household size (persons)	4.60	4.39	4.28	4.42
	(1.69)	(1.29)	(1.38)	(1.47)
Household income (1000 USD/year)^a	2.89	3.27	2.07	2.74
	(2.40)	(1.95)	(1.74)	(2.11)
Household income from agriculture (1000 USD/year)^a	2.59	3.20	1.18	2.33
	(2.29)	(1.96)	(1.17)	(2.05)
Farm size (ha)	1.34	2.34	0.47	1.39
	(0.95)	(1.69)	(0.43)	(1.38)
Number of different crops cultivated	2.17	4.48	3.15	3.26
	(0.64)	(1.01)	(1.30)	(1.39)
Person in charge of tomato production is a man (proportion)	1.00	0.95	1.00	0.98
Age of person in charge of tomato (years)	46.54	48.17	44.53	46.42
	(10.32)	(13.43)	(11.99)	(12.05)
Formal education of person in charge of tomato (years)	6.35	6.66	5.61	6.21
	(4.91)	(4.50)	(4.03)	(4.52)

^a Includes investment in livestock but excludes other capital investments. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.

Table 2. Participation of women in the management of tomato pests in Bangladesh and India; in proportion of households, 2017–18.

	Andhra Pradesh, India	Karnataka, India	Jashore, Bangladesh	Total
	(n = 252)	(n = 248)	(n = 244)	(n = 744)
Decision making on pest control	0.01	0.01	0.32	0.11
Involved in spraying pesticides	0.21	0.01	0.13	0.12
Involved in other pest control (e.g. scouting)	0.61	0.20	0.02	0.28
Worked in the field on the day it was sprayed	0.01	0.27	0.09	0.12

Table 3. Characteristics of tomato production in India and Bangladesh, mean per farm and per hectare 2017–18.

	Andhra Pradesh, India	Karnataka, India	Jashore, Bangladesh	Total
	(n = 252)	(n = 248)	(n = 244)	(n = 744)
Tomato area planted (ha/farm)	0.52	0.47	0.07	0.36
	(0.32)	(0.22)	(0.04)	(0.30)
Length of production period (days)	116.39	164.86	139.38	140.09
	(31.45)	(58.30)	(37.82)	(48.24)
Production cycles per year	1.08	1.52	1.02	1.21
	(0.29)	(0.53)	(0.16)	(0.42)
Proportion of production cost spent on crop protection	0.17	0.24	0.11	0.17
	(0.05)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.09)
Marketable yield (t/ha)^a	36.74	44.51	35.02	40.66
	(14.05)	(9.99)	(7.25)	(12.47)
Revenues (1000 USD/ha)	3.10	4.37	13.89	4.32
	(1.69)	(1.63)	(6.17)	(3.16)
Input costs (1000 USD/ha)	2.63	2.55	4.34	2.68
	(1.11)	(0.79)	(2.24)	(1.13)
Gross margin (1000 USD/ha)^b	0.47	1.82	9.55	1.64
	(1.76)	(1.60)	(5.98)	(2.89)

Notes: ^aIncludes undamaged and damaged fruits, the latter sold at lower prices. ^b Excludes land rental cost and depreciation of equipment. Per hectare data are area-weighted averages over production cycles; all other data are averaged over households. For household averages total N = 744, for averages per hectare N = 905 from plot cycle specific data of the same households. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.

Table 4. Tomato pest management practices in India and Bangladesh, average per farm, 2017–18.

	Andhra Pradesh, India	Karnataka, India	Jashore, Bangladesh	Total
	(n = 252)	(n = 248)	(n = 244)	(n = 744)
Pesticide use^a:
Insecticides (kg/ha/month)	1.14	1.32	1.17	1.24
	(0.82)	(0.87)	(1.12)	(0.87)
Fungicides (kg/ha/month)	1.04	1.31	1.03	1.18
	(0.71)	(0.82)	(0.97)	(0.79)
Frequency of spraying (sprays/month/plot)	1.37	1.25	1.44	1.35
	(0.36)	(0.40)	(0.61)	(0.48)
Other control methods (proportion of farmers):
Regular scouting	0.99	1.00	0.91	0.97
Buy healthy seedlings	0.96	0.97	0.01	0.65
Resistant variety	0.65	0.99	0.45	0.70
Rotate with non-host crop	0.08	0.60	0.70	0.46
Barrier crop	0.75	0.33	0.02	0.37
Trap crop	0.64	0.32	0.02	0.33
Pick and destroy insects by hand	0.02	0.42	0.38	0.27
Sticky traps	0.24	0.25	0.07	0.18
Pheromone traps	0.18	0.00	0.09	0.09
Biopesticides	0.40	0.00	0.20	0.20
Release or promote natural enemies	0.00	0.00	0.13	0.04
Smartphone app to identify pests	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.01
Use of protective gear (proportion of farmers):
Facemask	0.96	0.97	0.77	0.90
Long-sleeved shirt	0.66	0.95	0.97	0.86
Hat	0.54	0.86	0.65	0.68
Hand gloves	0.69	0.51	0.09	0.43
Coverall	0.10	0.02	0.66	0.26
Long trousers	0.00	0.00	0.71	0.24
Glasses/goggles	0.00	0.22	0.14	0.12
Raincoat	0.12	0.00	0.02	0.05
Rubber boots/gumboots	0.00	0.00	0.10	0.03
Respirator	0.00	0.09	0.01	0.03

Notes:

^aQuantities are in market formulation and the reference period stretches from land preparation to the end of the last harvest. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.

Table 5. Tomato farmers’ knowledge and beliefs of pests and pesticides in India and Bangladesh with test of difference in means between genders, 2017–2018.

	Andhra Pradesh, India		Karnataka, India		Jashore, Bangladesh
	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women
	(n = 248)	(n = 248)	(n = 241)	(n = 241)	(n = 208)	(n = 208)
Pest management knowledge:
Able to identify arthropod pests (proportion)	0.85	0.78***	0.79	0.68***	0.87	0.82***
Able to identify beneficial arthropods (proportion)	0.43	0.37***	0.37	0.33***	0.30	0.22***
Aware of leaf miner P absoluta (proportion)	1.00	0.95***	0.95	0.76***	0.34	0.24**
Able to identify leafminer P. absoluta (proportion) ^a	0.88	0.69***	0.73	0.39***	0.14	0.08***
Pesticide beliefs:
Health risk understanding (proportion)^b	0.69	0.68	0.74	0.74	0.78	0.74**
Pesticides are effective & necessary (proportion) ^c	0.77	0.75	0.81	0.81	0.72	0.72

Notes: ^aSample only includes respondents that were aware of P. absoluta. ^b Proportion of correctly answered questions on health risks. ^c Proportion of statements supporting this perception which the respondent agrees with. Comparison of means between genders using t-test and comparison of ratios between genders using z-test; ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10.

Table 6. Farmers’ self-reported health effects after exposure to pesticides and associated cost, in India and Bangladesh, in proportion of farmers unless stated otherwise.

	Andhra Pradesh, India		Karnataka, India		Jashore, Bangladesh
	Men (n = 248)	Women (n = 56)	Men (n = 240)	Women (n = 65)	Men (n = 208)	Women (n = 54)
Headache	0.81	0.86	0.97	0.98	0.16	0.06
Fatigue	0.55	0.07	0.45	0.82	0.58	0.02
Dizziness	0.74	0.48	0.66	0.57	0.27	0.15
Loss of appetite with nausea	0.28	0.38	0.30	0.17	0.16	0.04
Stomach cramps	0.16	0.50	0.24	0.17	0.03	0.00
Blurred vision	0.05	0.00	0.33	0.60	0.26	0.00
Excessive sweating and salivation	0.15	0.25	0.05	0.06	0.20	0.02
Diarrhea	0.01	0.00	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.02
Vomiting	0.05	0.18	0.08	0.18	0.15	0.06
Muscle twitching	0.22	0.27	0.23	0.12	0.01	0.00
Chest discomfort and tightness	0.31	0.00	0.02	0.02	0.06	0.04
Unable to walk	0.19	0.02	0.32	0.62	0.00	0.00
Unconsciousness	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.12	0.00	0.00
Health costs (USD/person/year)^a	28.49	9.21***	24.19	21.11**	3.72	2.49

Notes: ^aIncludes money spent on treatment and opportunity cost of lost working days valued at the daily wage of hired workers in tomato production. Sub-sample of farmers who sprayed pesticides or worked in fields during or shortly after spraying. Health effects are those ever experienced, and health costs refer to a 12-month recall. T-test for comparing health costs (*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10); no test performed on health effects.

Table 7. Determinants chemical pesticide use (ln kg/ha/month), log-log specification.

	Reduced model		Full model
	Coefficient	Std. error	Coefficient	Std. error
Household and personal characteristics:
Farm size (ha)	0.081*	(0.042)	0.081*	(0.043)
Age of person in charge of pest management	0.093	(0.123)	0.101	(0.121)
Education of person in charge of pest management (years)	0.019	(0.023)	0.014	(0.024)
Woman participates in decision making (1 = yes)	0.121	(0.140)	0.130	(0.138)
Respondent advised >5 farmers (1 = yes)	0.184**	(0.082)	0.305***	(0.095)
Keen to use new technologies (1 = yes)	−0.114*	(0.068)	−0.003	(0.068)
Concern about health effects (0–6)	−0.239*	(0.141)	−0.043	(0.163)
Perceives pesticides as effective and necessary (0–6)	−0.038	(0.108)	−0.040	(0.108)
Respondent is more risk averse (BDT/INR)^a	−0.015	(0.053)	−0.036	(0.054)
Household tomato production:
Tomato area planted (ha)	−0.476***	(0.074)	−0.496***	(0.072)
Experience producing tomato (years)	0.038	(0.059)	0.041	(0.058)
Training in crop protection (1 = yes)	−0.232***	(0.074)	−0.216***	(0.077)
Identified harmful arthropods (%)	0.159	(0.137)	0.216	(0.144)
Identified beneficial arthropods as pests (%)	0.190***	(0.067)	0.200***	(0.072)
Identified P. absoluta (1 = yes)^b	0.049	(0.092)	0.068	(0.091)
Main advice from pesticide dealer (1 = yes)	0.246*	(0.142)	0.254*	(0.140)
Spatial lag of reported pest damages:
Viruses and vectors	0.037**	(0.016)	0.035**	(0.016)
Other insects	−0.029	(0.017)	−0.026	(0.018)
Fungal diseases	0.042	(0.057)	0.058	(0.056)
Bacterial diseases	−0.034	(0.023)	−0.010	(0.023)
Diseases without effective pesticide control	−0.033	(0.036)	−0.053	(0.035)
Applied IPM techniques (1 = yes):
Resistant variety			−0.092	(0.112)
Plastic mulch			−0.029	(0.076)
Sticky traps			−0.113	(0.080)
Rotating with non/host crop			0.005	(0.085)
Trap crop			0.060	(0.053)
Barrier crop			−0.278***	(0.082)
Seedlings in nethouse			0.219*	(0.132)
Purchase healthy seedlings			0.131	(0.162)
Pick and destroy insects by hand			0.166**	(0.081)
Observations	744		744
R^2	0.303		0.334

Notes: ^a Safe payout chosen in a hypothetical lottery following the staircase approach, ranging from 2,500 to 77,500 local currency units; ^bIdentified at least two of four pictures correctly. Log-log specification. Constant, region, and season dummies not reported. Robust standard errors in parentheses; *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Table 8. Farmers’ self-perceived tomato yield loss from pests and potential effects of new mitigation technologies.

	Andhra Pradesh, India	Karnataka, India	Jashore, Bangladesh	Total
	(n = 252)	(n = 250)	(n = 250)	(n = 752)
Yield, adjusted for value of damaged fruits (t/ha)^a	34.01	41.81	33.28	38.00
	(13.08)	(9.39)	(6.68)	(11.71)
Self-reported yield loss from pest damage (t/ha)	9.43	13.03	3.13	10.96
	(7.25)	(5.98)	(2.67)	(6.92)
Self-reported pest damages by category (t/ha):
Insects (excluding virus vectors)	3.75	4.93	1.59	4.25
	(5.36)	(3.61)	(1.83)	(4.47)
… of which P. absoluta	1.78	2.57	0.04	2.10
	(3.59)	(2.48)	(0.17)	(3.02)
Fungal diseases	1.83	6.69	0.14	4.25
	(2.42)	(4.63)	(0.54)	(4.48)
Bacterial diseases	2.06	0.41	0.04	1.11
	(2.23)	(1.16)	(0.25)	(1.88)
Viruses and vectors^b	0.47	0.30	1.17	0.42
	(0.92)	(0.91)	(1.52)	(0.97)
Other causes^c	0.00	0.17	0.01	0.09
	(0.00)	(0.76)	(0.11)	(0.55)
Potential yield gains (proportion):^d
Insect resistant cultivars	0.11	0.04	0.02	0.07
	(0.32)	(0.04)	(0.03)	(0.21)
IPM package against P. absoluta	0.05	0.04	0.00	0.04
	(0.13)	(0.04)	(0.00)	(0.09)

Notes: ^aDamaged fruit weighted by the ratio of their price over the price of undamaged fruit. ^bIncludes damage by aphids, thrips, and whiteflies. ^cBlossom end rot, fruit cracking, nematodes, slugs, and snails. ^dBased on expert estimates of potential effects of the technologies and farmers’ perceived losses. Sample size reflects the number of tomato plots. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.

Table 9. Estimated economic gains from insect resistant tomato cultivars and an IPM package against P. absoluta, 2020–2040.

	Insect resistant cultivar			IPM package for P. absoluta
	Lower	Baseline	Upper	Lower	Baseline	Upper
Assumptions about technology:
Change in crop yield (%)	5.58	7.26	8.93	0.00	0.00	4.09
Change in production cost (%)	0.00	−4.25	−8.50	−2.13	−4.25	−4.25
Research lag before adoption (years)	6	6	6	3	3	3
Economic gain (million USD):
Bangladesh	498	694	890	8	16	154
India	6,035	8,564	11,089	132	264	1,938

Table 10. Sensitivity of the ex-ante economic gain created by an insect resistant cultivar to changes in elasticities.

	Bangladesh			India
Supply elasticity	0.20	0.34 (baseline)	1.00	0.20	0.50	1.00 (baseline)
Economic gain (million USD)	1,152	694	263	40,319	16,475	8,564
Demand elasticity	0.35 (baseline)	0.50	0.70	0.28 (baseline)	0.50	0.70
Economic gain (million USD)	694	695	696	8,564	8,586	8,602

The table shows the difference in the estimated economic surplus for different supply and demand elasticities; all other values are the same as in the baseline.

Data availability statement

Farm survey data are available from https://doi.org/10.22001/wvc.7455.