Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 167–177 | Cite as

Weed control practices on Costa Rican coffee farms: is herbicide use necessary for small-scale producers?

Article

Abstract

This paper presents research conducted during two coffee farming seasons in Costa Rica. The study examined coffee farmers’ weed management practices and is presented in the form of a case study of small-scale farmers’ use of labor and herbicides in weed management practices. Over 200 structured interviews were conducted with coffee farmers concerning their use of hired labor and family labor, weed management activities, support services, and expectations about the future of their coffee production. ANOVA and regression analyses describe the relationships between farm size, labor, and herbicide use, and three farm types (i.e., conventional, semi-conventional, and organic). Based on findings regarding the amount of labor used to manually control weeds on different types of farms (large farms, small conventional, semi-conventional, and organic farms) I am able to challenge small conventional farmers’ perceived need for herbicide use. Semi-structured interviews of coffee farmers and extension workers further revealed a dominant role played by agro-chemical companies in assisting farmers with production problems, and documented a high transaction cost for information provided from elsewhere. Chemical companies hire extension workers to visit farmers at their farms, free of charge, to offer recommendations on how to treat different pest problems, while government and cooperative extension agents charge for the service. There is a need to increase the amount of resources available to the National Coffee Institute to fund one-on-one farmer support services in order to balance the influence of agro-chemical company representatives and allow farmers to make better decisions regarding weed management.

Keywords

Coffee Costa Rica Extension services Herbicides Organic—Small-scale farmers Weed management 

Abbreviations

Icafe

National Coffee Institute (Costa Rica)

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

References

  1. Abeysekera, W.A.T. 1988. Pesticide use in the food production sector in Sri Lanka. In Use of pesticides and health hazards in the plantation sector, ed. G. Botterweck, 12–37. Colombo: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  2. Akobundu, I.O. 1997. Basic elements for improved weed management in the developing world. In Proceedings of the expert consultation on weed ecology and management conference, 22–24 September 1997, 86–92. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Altieri, M. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Altieri, M.A., and M. Liebman eds. 1988. Weed management in agroecosystems: Ecological approaches. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, W.P. 1996. Weed science. New York, NY: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Auld, B. A., and K. M. Menz. 1997. Basic criteria for improved weed management in developing countries. In Proceedings of the expert consultation on weed ecology and management conference, 22–24 September 1997, 93–99. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. Bentley, J.W., and G. Thiele. 1999. Bibliography: Farmer knowledge and management of crop disease. Agriculture and Human Values 16(1): 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernard, H. S., and N. David. 2001. Impediments to sustainable agriculture in China. In Promoting global innovation of agricultural science and technology and sustainable agriculture development. 7–9 November 2001. Beijing, China: International Conference on Agricultural Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Blair, A., and S.H. Zahm. 1993. Patterns of pesticide use among farmers—implications for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 4(1): 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyce, J., A. Fernandez, E. Furst, and O. Segura. 1994. Café y desarollo sostenible: del cultivo agroquimico a la produccion organica en Costa Rica. Heredia: Editorial Fundacion UNA.Google Scholar
  11. Bryman, A. 2004. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Conroy, M.E., D.L. Murray, and P.M. Rosset. 1996. A cautionary tale: Failed U.S. development policy in Central America. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Conway, G. 1997. The doubly green revolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Davidson, A. P., M. Ahmad, and T. Ali. 2001. Dilemmas of agricultural extension in Pakistan: Food for thought. In Agricultural research and extension network, No. 116. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  15. De Graaff, J. 1986. The economics of coffee. Wageningen: Pudoc Wageningen.Google Scholar
  16. Duell, E.J., R.C. Millikan, D.A. Savitz, M.J. Schell, B. Newman, J. Chiu-Kit, and D.P. Sandler. 2001. Reproducibility of reported farming activities and pesticide use among breast cancer cases and controls: A comparison of two modes of data collection. Annals of Epidemiology 11: 178–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fan, X. 2001. Agricultural science and technology and vertical integration in agriculture in China. In Promoting global innovation of agricultural science and technology and sustainable agriculture development, 7–9 November 2001. Beijing, China: International Conference on Agricultural Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Fleischer, G. 1999. The role of economic analysis of pesticide use and policy—experiences from country case studies. In Pesticides policies in Zimbabwe, ed. G. D. Mudimu, H. Waibel, and G. Fleischer. Pesticide Policy Project Publication Series, No. 1. Hannover, Germany: Institute of Horticultural Economics.Google Scholar
  19. Flynn, L.T. 1992. Pesticides: Helpful or harmful? In Rational readings on environmental concerns, ed. J.H. Lehr. New York, NY: International Thomson Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Gerowitt, B. 1997. Practical use of economic thresholds for weeds. In Proceedings of the expert consultation on weed ecology and management conference, 22–24 September 1997, 59–66. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  21. Hassanein, N. 1999. Changing the way America farms: Knowledge and community in the sustainable agriculture movement. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hernandez Navarro, L. 1995. Café con aroma de burocracia. La Jornada (Mexico City), 14 March, p. 11.Google Scholar
  23. Hoppin, J.A., F. Yucel, M. Dosemeci, and D.P. Sandler. 2002. Accuracy of self-reported pesticide use duration information from licensed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12: 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Icafe. 1998. Manual de recomendaciones para el cultivo del café. San Jose: Instituto del café de Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  25. IFAD. 2003. The adoption of organic agriculture among small farmers in Latin America and the Caribbean. Report No. 1337. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development.Google Scholar
  26. Labrada, R. 1997. Problems related to the development of weed management in the developing world. In Proceedings of the expert consultation on weed ecology and management conference, 22–24 September 1997, 8–13. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  27. Labrada, R., and C. Parker. 1994. Weed control in the context of integrated pest management. In Weed management for developing countries, eds. R. Labrada, J. Caseley, and C. Parker. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 120. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  28. Lotz, L.A., M.J. Kropff, and R.M.W. Groeneveld. 1990. Modeling weed competition and yield losses to study the effect of omission of herbicides in winter wheat. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 39: 711–718.Google Scholar
  29. Matson, P.A., W.J. Parton, A.G. Power, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matteson, P.C. 2000. Insect pest management in tropical Asian irrigated rice. Annual Review of Entomology 45: 549–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matteson, P.C., K.D. Gallagher, and P.E. Kenmore. 1993. Extension of integrated pest management for plant hoppers in Asian irrigated rice. In Ecology, management of plant hoppers, ed. R.F. Denno and T.J. Perfect. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Monaco, T.J., S.C. Weller, and F.M. Ashton. 2002. Weed science: Principles and practices, 4th ed. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Mora, C., and M. Soto. 1996. Estudio comparativo de dos sistemas de producción de café: convencional y orgánico. PhD dissertation. San Jose, Costa Rica: Universidad Latinoamericana de Ciencia y Tecnología, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales.Google Scholar
  34. Mortimer, M. 1997. The need for studies on weed ecology to improve weed management. In Proceedings of the expert consultation on weed ecology and management conference, 22–24 September 1997, 15–22. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  35. Moses, M., E.S. Johnson, W.K. Anger, V.W. Burse, S.W. Horstman, et al. 1993. Environmental equity and pesticide exposure. Toxicology and Industrial Health 9(5): 913–959.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council. 1989. Alternative agriculture. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. Olson, K.D., and V.R. Eidman. 1992. A farmer’s choice of weed control method and the impacts of policy and risk. Review of Agricultural Economics 14: 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palis, F.G. 1998. Changing farmers’ perceptions and practices: The case of insect pest control in Central Luzon, Philippines. Crop Protection 17(7): 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, et al. 1992. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42: 750–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pontius, J., R. Dilts, and A. Bartlett. 2002. From farmer field schools to community IPM, ten years of IPM training in Asia. Jakarta: FAO Community IPM Programme.Google Scholar
  41. Pretty, J. 2005. The pesticide detox: Towards a more sustainable agriculture. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  42. Radosevich, S., J. Holt, and C. Ghersa. 1997. Weed ecology: Implications for management. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Rice, R.A. 1999. A place unbecoming: the coffee farm of northern Latin America. Geographical Review 89(4): 554–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rice, R.A., and J.R. Ward. 1996. Coffee, conservation and commerce in the western hemisphere. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and Natural Resources Defense Council.Google Scholar
  45. Rosset, P. 1999. The multiple benefits and functions of small farm agriculture. Policy Brief No. 4. Oakland: Food First.Google Scholar
  46. Schwartz, L. A. 1994. The role of the private sector, in agricultural extension: economic analysis and case studies. Agricultural research and extension network, No. 48. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Segura, B., and J. Reynolds. 1993. Environmental impact of coffee production and processing in El Salvador and Costa Rica. In Paper prepared for UN conference on trade and environment, Geneva.Google Scholar
  48. Sick, D. 1999. Farmers of the golden bean: Costa Rican households and the global coffee economy. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Syngenta. 2005. Gramaxone herbicide. http://www.syngenta.ca/en/prod/gramoxone/ index.asp?nav=OVERVIEW. Accessed 9 April 2008.
  50. Taiz, L., and E. Zeiger. 2002. Plant physiology, 3rd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Tilman, D., J. Fargione, B. Wolff, C. D’Antonio, A. Dobson, et al. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292: 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. USEPA. 1997. R.E.D. facts: Paraquat dichloride. EPA-738-F-96–018. Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  53. Waggoner, P.E. 1997. How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? In Technological trajectories, the human environment, ed. J. Ausubel and H.D. Langford. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ward, N. 1995. Technological change and the regulation of pollution from agricultural pesticides. Geoforum 26(1): 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Systems EcologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations