READABILITY OF LITERATURE SUPPLIED WITH PLANT PROTECTION CHEMICALS

Basavaprabhu Jirli and Amit Kumar

Department of Extension Education, Institute of Agricultural Sciences

Banaras Hindu University,  Varanasi-221005 UP)

Email: bjirli@gmail.com

Introduction

Use of plant protection chemicals is an important factor in increasing Agriculture production. The success of Rainbow Revolution (Green revolution, pink revolution, yellow revolution etc.) can be attributed to breakthrough in use of plant protection chemicals along with other factors. Farmers were motivated to use plant protection chemicals in the early part of Green Revolution; hence the entire extension machinery was assigned the sole task of convincing the farmers on use of plant protection chemicals and other factors of agricultural production. Also Govt. supported the farmers by formulating appropriate policy for proper use of plant protection chemicals.

In the post green revolution era the use of Plant Protection Chemicals has grown to the extent that it is becoming threat to the cultivation practices of cultivators, as well as a source of health problem for consumers and also leading to environmental hazards. There are good numbers of reports in this regard.

Pesticides have been established as indispensable input in modern agriculture for attaining higher food production. But their indiscriminate and non-judicious use has resulted into widespread pesticide contamination in food as well as various components of environment in the region, out of twenty samples of  total diet collected from in an around Kanpur, U.P. during July to October 1999 and analyzed, it was found 90 percent sample were contaminated with pesticide residues, (Shukla 2002). Magnitude of contamination was more in non-vegetarian (Mutton, Chicken, etc.) than vegetarian diet (Chapatti, Rice, Dal, Salad, etc.) HCH, Aldrin, Dialdrin were the main contaminants. Average daily intake of their residues were more than there acceptable daily intake (ADI) accounting 1448.22, 35.52 and 36.86 µg/person/day, through non-vegetarian diet and 1501.44, 95.93 and 367.02 µg/person/day through vegetarian diet respectively.

Attempts were also made to evaluate the residue status of pesticide in ground and surface (Ganga River) water entering through leaching and run-off respectively after application of pesticide in rice wheat system for more than five decades in Varanasi and adjoining areas. Runoff of long persistence pesticides viz. BHC, DDT and Endosulfan were analyzed in the middle stream Ganga River. The river water samples were collected from different sports along both the bank of the river in between Ramnagar and Rajghat. The BHC, DDT and Endosulfan were present in almost all the ghats and the amounts were alarming stage. The results indicate that at same location pesticide contamination exceeded the safe limit of WHO (Nayak et.al., 1995).

Thus, it is clear from these discussions that farmers are not taking serious steps in pesticide application in major cropping systems or they are not trained in the application of pesticide. After a long journey of pesticide development irrespective of new low dose pesticide chemicals, formulation, application equipments, pesticide residues are still present in food materials even in mothers milk and it needs immediate development of  good package of practices in all the cropping systems with sound plant protection measures covering proper dose, application schedule and application methodology of pesticide.

Under such circumstances consumers are also becoming quality conscious. They are asking for agricultural produce free from residues of Plant Protection Chemicals. To support such issue research institutions have developed technologies like IPM for various crops. Govt. along with research and development institutions have come out with various strategies in which supplying the literature along with every Plant Protection Chemicals package has been made mandatory.

It is mandatory for the producer to supply a sheet containing instructions to the users on how to use the chemical, what amount of dilution is essential, what are the precautions to be taken before and after the use of chemical etc., but the issue is.. Is the farmers using this information? If yes, what is the extent of usage, if no, what are the reasons for the same, was it readable? Did readers understood it? So many such questions arises at this juncture.

Against this backdrop the present study was planned to address the issue of readability of the literature supplied with Plant Protection Chemicals. The study is going to address the question like:

• is the farmers reading the instruction sheet which they get along with Plant Protection Chemicals?
• is that material readable?
• are there any problem associated with its understanding?

Keeping the above issues in view the present study entitled "A study on Readability of literature supplied with Plant Protection Chemicals"   was undertaken with the objective of studying the readability of the literature supplied with the plant protection chemicals and to identify the constraints faced by the respondents in efficient use of literature supplied with  plant protection chemicals.

Readability of reading materials.

Readability is defined as reading ease, especially as it results from a writing style. Extension research has shown that easy-reading text improves comprehension, retention, reading speed, and reading persistence. Readability is the degree to which the meaning of text is understandable, based on the complexity of sentences and the difficulty of vocabulary.

According to UNESCO, a piece of written material is said to be readable if it could be read and understood by the reader for whom it was intended (Anonymous, 1963).

Klare (1963) conceptualized the term readability in three ways;    (i) to indicate legibility of either hand writing or typography, (ii) to indicate ease of reading due to either the interest value or the pleasantness of writing, and (iii) to indicate the ease of understanding or comprehension due to style of writing.

Kamath (1969) stated that readability always would go with understandability. Zalaki (1973), in his study on agricultural publications, used the term readability to denote reading comprehension, reading efficiency and readers' judgment of readability.

Crump (1974) visualized readability as transforming of information into words and sentences that the average reader would understand and enjoy. Ahuja (1979) felt that the term readability usually described the stylistic factors in writing, which would make it easier to read.

Neihley and William (1980) defined readability as the characteristic of the material that determines how difficult or easy it is to read and understand. They, further indicated that, the effectiveness of printed materials depends on a variety of factors including (i) readability, (ii) comprehension and (iii) the amount and type of information presented.

Methodology

The study was conducted in purposively selected district of Varanasi in U.P in the year 2009. Sevapuri block of Varanasi was randomly selected for the study. Four villages of the Sevapuri block were randomly selected for the study. A total of 110 respondents constituted sample of the study.

Use pattern of plant protection chemical by the respondents   

           

Table 1. Distribution of Plant Protection chemicals according to their use in kharif season.

Sl.No.	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Fungicide
1.	Cereson	65	59
Insecticides
2.	Carbofuron 3G	35	32
3	Malathion	72	65.45
4	Endosulfan(Thiodan)	38	34.54
5	Rogor (Dimethoate)	22	20
Rodenticide
6	Celphos	78	70
Weedicide
7	Simazime	42	38.18

It is evident from the above table that in Kharif season Celphos was mostly used by the respondents (70%) followed by  Malathian in rice and okra crop (65%) for disease control, Sereson was used by 59% of respondents followed by Sizazime 39% of respondents.   While endosulphon (34%) was used in the various crop of the kharif for the insect control and only 20% farmer used Diamethoate for control of insect in their field same as the Rabi season. Celphos were use in high amount as a fumigant for controlling the Rat in the Kharif season crop like rice, maize, okra.

Table 2. Use frequency of Plant protection chemicals by the respondents in Rabi season

Sl.No.	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Weedicide
1.	Isoproturon	92	84
Fungicide
2.	Diathane M.45	74	67
3	Vitavex	28	25
4	Capton	46	42
5	Mancozeb 75%wp	64	58
Rodenticide
6	Celphos	84	76
Insecticides
7	Endosulphon	92	83
8	Aldrin	56	50

The above table shows that in the Rabi season high amount of chemicals were used compared to other seasons. Farmers (84%) used Isoprotron herbicide due to heavy infestation of weeds in the wheat crop followed by fumigant Celphos (76%). In pesticide category Diathane M-45 (67%) was used to the greater extent followed by the Vitavex (25%) Mancozeb-75% (w.p.) (58%).  Only 42% respondents treated their field by soil treatment chemical like capton.

 

Table 3. Use frequency of plant protection chemicals by the respondents in Zaid Season

Sl.No.	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Fungicide
1	Dithane Z-78	74	67
2	Indofil M-45	84	76
3	Bavox	92	74
4	Bavistin	54	49
Rodenticide
5	Celphos	56	50

In the zaid season indofil M-45 (76%) used for the controlling of diseases of cucurbits, followed by Borax (74%) and Bavistin (49%) for the disease control. About 50% respondents used Celphos as a fumigant for controlling the rat in cucurbits crop in zaid season.

 

Readability of literature supplied with plant protection chemicals

 

Table 4. Distribution of respondent according to respondent                               N=110

S. No.	Statement	Yes	%	No	%
1.	Observing the literature supplied with plant protection chemicals.	110	100%	0	0
2.	Reading the literature	41	37%	69	63
3.	Understanding the things mentioned in the literature	9	8%	101	92
	(i) Font size is too small	110	100%	0	0
	(ii) More technical terms	110	100%	0	0
	(iii) Language too complex	84	78%	26	22
	(iv) No  illustration	110	100%	0	0
	(v) Complex technical term written in local language	110	100%	0	0
4.	Following the method suggested in the reading material	0	0	110	100
5.	Satisfaction with the method suggested in the reading material	0	0%	110	100
6.	finding difficulty in following the method suggested in the literature	100	100%	0	0
7.	Was the information accurate	0	0%	110	100
8.	Was the information brief	88	88%	22	20
9.	Was the information clear	0	0%	110	100
10.	was the information useful	33	30	77	70

The above table shows that all the respondents (100%) have seen the literature those are supplied along with plant protection chemicals but out of 110 only 37% of the respondents had gone through the literature, among them only 8% could understand it. The pivotal reasons reported by the respondents were the font size is small, more technical words usage which is not easy to understand for a lay man. There are no illustrations and complex words were given in local language which is not understandable to all the respondents (100%). While 78% respondents said that the use of language was very complex because of which they were not able to understand the same. All the respondents said that there were no illustrations hence they could not follow the methods mentioned in the literature. Every respondent felt that the information is not accurate and not clear. At least 30% felt that the information was useful and 88% felt that the information was brief.

 

Table 5. Distributing respondent according to readability. N=110                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

S.No.	Category	Frequency	Per cent
1.	Low	110	110
2.	Medium	0	0
3.	High	0	0
	Total	110	100%

Mean 4.795                 SD 0.775                                 Min. 4              Max 7

The above table shows clearly that the entire community faced severe problem regarding the literature. The results show that the readability of the literature was very low. It seems that the plant protection chemicals manufacturing companies are merely fulfilling the formality of supplying information but it is not benefiting the masses.

 

 

Table 6. Distribution of respondents according to constraints faced in using the literature supplied with Plant Protection Chemicals

S. No.	Statements	Yes	%	No	%
1.	Could not read the folder because of closeness.	94	86%	16	14%
2.	The language is too complex.	92	84%	18	16%
3.	Too many technical words.	110	110%	0	0%
4.	The font size in folder readable.	0	0	110	100%
5.	The paper quality is good.	0	0	110	100%
6.	The folder was attractive.	0	0	110	100%
7.	The method mentioned is too complex.	110	100%	0	0%
8.	The method suggested in the literature is different from method that is being followed.	110	100%	0	0%
9.	Satisfaction with the performance of the pesticide	26		84	76%

The above table shows the range problems is faced by the respondents while reading the literature supplied with plant protection chemicals. According to the study (94%) respondents said that they could not read the literature. Majority of the respondents (92%) felt that language is too complicated and difficult to understand. Only (18%) were satisfied with the language of literature.

The main complexity in the language was use of complex technical words was felt by 100% respondents.  They could not be able to understand technical words were the major issue. Cent percent of the respondents felt that the paper quality is not good, no illustration available and methodology mentioned is difficult to understand and follow.

 

Table 7. Distribution of respondents according to constraint faced.                     N-110

S. No.	Statement	Frequency	Per cent
1.	Low < (5)	0	0
2.	Medium (5-11)	0	0
3.	High > (11)	110	100
	Total	110	100

Mean 11.7091             SD. 0.708 Min. 10                  Mix 12

The above table clearly shows every respondent faced high level of constraints regarding reading the literature supplied with Plant Protection Chemicals.

 

Preference for font sizes:

Table No. 8: Respondents preference of font size

Sl.No.	Font Size	Frequency	Percent
1	6	0	0
2	7	0	0
3	8	0	0
4	9	46	41
5	10	64	59
6	11	0	0
7	12	0	0
	Total:-	110	100

Above table shows that majority of the respondent 59 per cent said they prefer 10 font size and rest of 41 percent respondent said they prefer 9 font size. Because 6, 7, 8 is very small and it's not readable while 11 & 12 font size are little bit large which occupy more space in the literature.

Since every respondents felt that the font size is too small to read, a paragraph written in Hindi in different font size (6-12) was administered to the respondents in which 59 per cent of respondents preferred font size 10 and 41 per cent preferred font size 9. Hence, it can be concluded that font size 10 is preferable to farmers.

Conclusion

Government of India made the rule for the input supply agencies to provide the literature with their product which provide comprehensive information about the product and how to use the particular product.  Hence, mostly input supply agencies are providing the literature but they are just fulfilling the formality. Hence, majority of the respondents are not able to read and understand the given literature and they reported several problems in the literature problem like font size, its language, methodology, quality of paper, technical word, lack of illustration etc.  Due to above problems farmers are not understanding and reading the literature.  Also they are not following the suggested methods.

Suggestions

1. Even though the respondents have asked for font size of 9 or 10, the font size of the text used in reading material supplied along with plant protection chemicals should be between 10 to 12.
2. The plant protection chemicals manufactures/suppliers/distributors should make use of good quality paper for printing the instructions for the benefit of farmers.
3. As reported in many of the cases the print quality is such that instructions are not visible. Hence, appropriate instructions are needed to be issued to plant protection chemicals manufacturers.
4. The entire focus of the study was on the issue of complexity of language used in the folder supplied with plant protection chemicals. As it is evident from the study that language used is too complex hence plant protection chemicals manufacturers should be made aware of fact and they should go for simple language for better understanding.
5. Lack of illustrations is one more important factor in the folder. An instruction for safe and judicious use of plant protection chemicals in the form of illustrations and/or photographs makes it more acceptable and understandable. Also it helps for illiterate users.