Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Agro-Biodiversity Conservation and Pesticide

Impact Assessment Project

“Harnessing Local Partnerships and Strengthening Environmental Education
through Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Utilization”

September 2010

Prepared by

Egmedio E. Samillano, Senior Agriculturist, Provincial Agriculture Office, Davao del Norte
Marilou N. Runas, Provincial IPM Coordinator,
Provincial Agriculture Office, Davao del Norte
Mario E. Corado, Project Coordinator/IPM Training Specialist
Agro-Biodiversity Conservation and
Pesticides Impact Assessment Project

I. Introduction

The FAO Regional IPM Programme and the Thai Education Foundation supported
the pilot implementation of Schools and Community Agro-Biodiversity Conservation
and Assessment of Pesticide Hazards activities in selected elementary and high
schools and FFS groups in Davao del Norte, Philippines. These initial project
activities were implemented in collaboration with the Provincial Government and the
Department of Education (DepEd) and the Provincial Agriculturist Office (PAGRO)
of Davao del Norte. The Provincial Davao government and the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) under projects GCP/RAS/209/NOR and GCP/RAS/229/SWE
provided funding and technical support for the project for the period September
2007 to April 2010.

The project generally aimed at building the capacity of local trainers, farmers,
teachers, and school children in conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-
biodiversity and assessment of pesticide hazards to community health and
environment through school and FFS educational activities.

Agro-biodiversity projects such as conservation and sustainable utilization of local

species of frogs, snail, catfish, and indigenous trees were established in
participating schools and communities since its inception in September 2007. The
conservation projects served as entry points for integrating biodiversity conservation
and pesticides hazards concepts in schools’ and FFS curricula.

The widespread use of chemical pesticides on commercial croplands, most notably

aerial fungicide sprays on banana plantations adjacent to the project communities,
continue to be a major threat not only to the conservation projects but also to rural
community health and the environment. These observations and concerns are also
shared by many organic farmers and NGOs in Davao del Norte. Hence, there is a
need to address pesticide risk reduction by empowering communities and other
stakeholders on the negative impacts of pesticides on human health and the
environment and utilize survey results for advocacy work at local and national level.
This can partly be done through the development of skills among school children,
teachers and farmers to monitor health and farming ecosystems.

II. Project Objectives

General To build the capacity of local trainers, farmers, teachers, and school
children in conservation and sustainable utilization of Agro-BD and
assessment of pesticide impacts in the community through school and
Farmer’s Field School (FFS) educational activities.

Specific At the end of the project, stakeholders (IPM trainers, farmers,

teachers, and school children) are expected to have:

1. Developed awareness on the importance of species diversity,

ecological functions and habitats in farm ecosystems;

2. Enhanced knowledge and skills on conservation and sustainable
utilization of agro-biodiversity;
3. Developed skills to monitor and assess hazardous effects of
pesticides on community health and farm ecosystems;
4. Integrated Agro-BD conservation and pesticides hazards concepts in
the core curriculum subjects in elementary and high schools and in
ongoing farmer’s education programmes;
5. Developed Agro-BD conservation and PIA learning materials such
scope and sequence charts, lesson plans, and portfolio assessment

III. Participating Schools and Farmer’s Groups

The project was implemented in 12 selected sites

in Davao del Norte (Fig. 1). The project covers
eight schools (four elementary and four high
schools) and four farmer’s groups or FFS.
Activities of two FFS groups, in Panabo and
IGACOS, were supported with local government

A total of 620 students/pupils and 100 farmers

from the 12 sites in Davao del Norte province
participated in the Agro-BD conservation and PIA
activities during the first and second phase of
project implementation. Table 1 provides a list of
participating schools and farmer groups. Figure 1. Map of Davao del Norte and project

Table 1. List of sites and number of participants

No. of Participants
Site First Phase (Sept. ’07- April ’08) Second Phase (Jul ’08 – April ’09)
Secondary Schools Grade Student Farmers Grade Student Farmers
Level s/Pupils Level s/Pupils
1. Asuncion NHS 3rd Year 43 3rd Year 45
2. Dujali NHS 1 Year 42 1st Year 46
3. Carmen NHS 1st Year 35 1st Year 25
4. Sto. Tomas NHS 3 Year 55 3rd Year 55
Elementary Schools
1. Concepcion ES Grade 5 44 Grade 6 50
2. Marcos P. Estoque ES Grade 5 37 Grade 5 43
3. Camiling ES Grade 5 39 no activity
4. Jesus Lumain ES Grade 5 33 Grade 5 28
FFS Group
1. Brgy. Pagsabangan, 28 Trainers
Tagum worked with
2. Brgy. Masaoy, New 33 the same
number of
3. Brgy. Kiotoy, Panabo* 24 during the
4. Island Garden City of 25 subsequent
Samal* crop
Total 328 100 292
*Locally funded activities

IV. Capacity-Building Activities

As shown in Table 2, a series of capacity-building activities through trainings and

workshops were conducted as part of the project implementation strategy. In
addition, learning materials development also served as one of the capacity-building
activities. Materials such as lesson plans, session guides, and evaluation
approaches were developed to support the integration of Agro-BD and pesticide
hazards concepts in core subjects of high school and elementary curricula. A draft
Agro-BD manual was prepared which include learning competencies, learning
objectives, suggested learning activities, lesson plans/session guides; performance-
based tests (portfolio and rubrics), and scope and sequence chart.

Table 2. Capacity-building activities organized by the project

Training/Workshop Date, Location, Participants

1. Facilitators Training Course on Agro-BD • 24-26 September 2007; Provincial
Conservation and PIA Cooperative Union (PCU), Tagum
2. Planning Workshop and Portfolio Assessment • 29 Nov to 01 Dec. '07; PCU, Tagum
City, Davao del Norte
3. Training Materials Development • 16-18 January 2008; PCU Bldg.,
Seminar/Workshop Tagum City,
4. Instructional Materials Development Meeting • 15 Feb. ’08, PAGRO Conference
Room, DA, Tagum City
5. Feed backing Meetings • 4 and 18 April 2008, PAGRO
Conference Room, DA, Tagum City
6. Planning and Evaluation Workshops • 23-24 April 2008, IGACOS, Davao del
• 30-31 July 2008 (Planning for 2nd
Phase) , Tagum City
• 7-8 November 2008 (mid-season),
Manaklay, Comval Province
• 21 and 22 April 2009, Tagum City
7. Technical Sessions with inputs on local snails, • 21- 22 April 2009, Tagum City
frogs, Basic Production Techniques for Raising
Catfish, and Tree Nursery Management
8. Pesticide Hazards and Community Health • 24 - 25 April 2009, Tagum City
Monitoring Trainings in cooperation with PAN AP • 10-12 September 2009, Tagum City
and Local NGOs
9. Training Materials Development Workshop • 28-30 December 2009, IGACOS
10. Pesticide Hazards and Community Health • 12-14 January 2010, IGACOS
Monitoring Training in cooperation with PAN AP and
Local NGOs

V. The Steps in Establishing an Agro-biodiversity Conservation Project

Schools and farmer groups follow a process in deciding which species to select for
their conservation project. These steps are briefly discussed below:

Step 1. Meeting (Ground-working). The first
step in the process is the conduct of a
preliminary visit to the sites. Consultations are
made with stakeholders as to the project goal
and viability of implementing the project in their
school/community. During the groundworking
activity, a date is set inviting stakeholders to
attend the formal introduction of the project.

Step 2. Briefing and formation of Agro-BD Conservation Task Group (e.g., PTCA
and Teachers, Farmers). Concepts of agro-biodiversity, agro-ecosystems,
ecosystem services, and rationale for agro-conservation are discussed during this
phase. Conservation task force is elected by stakeholders to ensure the continuity
of the process.

Step 3. Mapping. Activities include identification

of ecosystems and agro-biodiversity in
community farming systems and visualization of
the field data. The output is an inventory of agro-
biodiversity and the different ecosystems in the
community such as forest area, pond, crop
areas, road sides, homestead, and so on.

Step 4. Survey and collection of organisms in a

farm ecosystem. Agro-biodiversity surveys are
done and different species (flora and fauna) are
collected in different ecosystems in the
community. Species diversity changes over
seasons. It is important for the group to collect
data at different times in the year. The preliminary
data is important as benchmark data that could be
used for conducting monitoring and impact
Step 5. Analysis and summary. Organisms collected in different ecosystems are
classified and species are ranked according to their importance in terms of
ecological services. Threats to these organisms are identified and strategies to
address these threats are incorporated in the biodiversity conservation plans.

Step 6. Develop a conservation and sustainable utilization plan. Once the species
of interest is selected, the group develops the conservation plan specifying goals,
expected results, activities, materials, persons responsible, and timetable.
Strategies to address issues that are important in ensuring the success of the
planned activity are discussed. Protocols and community regulations for sustainable
utilization of biodiversity species are also drawn up and agreed upon by

Step 7. Implement the plan. After the comprehensive review of plan, the school/
community establishes the conservation project.

Step 8. Document the entire
process. The entire activity is
documented in the form of
periodic reports, portfolios,
and school records.

Step 9. Share results. Experiences and outputs from the activities are shared in
community meetings, congresses, field days, and other advocacy meetings to
generate support for the conservation activities.

VI. The Agro-biodiversity Conservation Projects in Davao del Norte

A list of agro-biodiversity conservation projects established in schools and FFS

groups in different sites in Davao del Norte is presented in Table 3. These projects
served as entry points for introducing innovative learning processes and developing
a robust curriculum through discovery-based learning, environmental education,
thematic teaching, and portfolio assessment. Conservation and pesticide hazards
assessment activities with farmer groups served as FFS follow-up activities and/or
to enrich its farmers’ education curriculum.

Table 3. Biodiversity conservation project by site

Site Biodiversity Conservation Project

Secondary School
1. Asuncion National High Revival of Native Species of Philippine Hito or walking catfish
School (NHS) (Clarias macrocephalus) in rice-fish system
2. Dujali NHS Conservation of endemic forest tree species (e.g.
Dracontomelon dao, Samanea saman, Pterocarpus indicus,
Cassia fistula L.….)
3. Carmen NHS Conservation of Indigenous Wetland Frogs (Discoglossidae
family) and local Eel species (Anguilidae family)
4. Sto. Tomas NHS Conservation of Indigenous Hito, walking catfish (Clarias
macrocephalus) population as a component of “Gulayan sa
Paaralan” (School Vegetable Production Program)
Elementary School
1. Concepcion Elementary Conservation of endemic forest tree species (e.g.
School (ES) Dracontomelon dao, Samanea saman, Pterocarpus indicus,
Cassia fistula L…..)
2. Marcos P. Estoque ES Conservation of endemic forest tree species (e.g.
Dracontomelon dao, Samanea saman, Pterocarpus indicus,
Cassia fistula L.)
3. Camiling ES Conservation of endemic forest tree species (e.g.
Dracontomelon dao, Samanea saman, Pterocarpus indicus,
Cassia fistula L ….).as Habitat for Birds
4. Jesus Lumain ES Conservation of paddy snail species, Asian Apple Snail
(Cipangopaludina chinensis), Vivipariidae family, popularly
known as “Iggi” in the local dialect.
FFS Group
1. Brgy. Pagsabangan, Tagum Conservation of Indigenous catfish (Clarias macrocephalus)
population in paddy
2. Brgy. Mesaoy, Municipality Conservation of Common Philippine Frogs (Discoglossidae
of New Corella Family)

Site Biodiversity Conservation Project
3. Brgy. Kiotoy, Municipality of Conservation of local earwig species
4. Island Garden City of Conservation of local fodder crop species
*Provincial Government and LGU funded activities.

Narra (Pterocarpus inducus) and Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) were initially

planted in schools with agro-forestry conservation projects. Seedlings were
provided by the provincial office of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). During the second phase of the project, other forest tree seeds
were raised by school children in their respected schools and were later planted in
the school campus and other areas in the community. The endemic tree species
include “malapapaya” (Polyscias nodosa Blume) Seem); “dao” (Dracontomelon
dao); rain tree (Samanea saman); hog plum (Prunus umbellate); golden shower
(Cassia fistula L.); smooth narra (Pterocarpus indicus); “kamagong” (Disopyros
discolor Willd.); “ïlang-ilang” , and “Lamio”.

Catfish (Clarias macrocephalus) Eel species (Anguilidae family) Wetland Frogs (Discoglossidae family)

Species under conservation in Davao del

Norte Province, Philippines.

Paddy snail Vivipariidae family Endemic Forest Tree Species

VII. Assessment of Pesticide Usage and Hazards to Community and


Pesticides from aerial sprays in banana plantations were considered by

stakeholders as the biggest threat to biodiversity conservation projects in Davao del
Norte. Pesticides are not only harmful to farmers but also toxic to non-target
organisms in the environment. Thus, exercises to determine the types of pesticides
used by farmers, amount of pesticides applied in a given area/season/crop, storage
and disposal practices, and spraying behavior were also included as integral
component of the project implementation. Based on the data collected by students
and farmers, most farmers use class WHO II to IV pesticides. The farmers were not
aware about the negative effects of the pesticides. The farmers also use minimal
protective clothing when spraying the pesticides. It was also observed that there
was an intensive use of pesticides in banana plantations that are adjacent to the

schools or communities and farmers seemed not observant on the proper disposal
of empty pesticide containers. (Annex 1).

VIII. Stakeholders’ Contribution in Sustaining Agro-BD Conservation Project

Strengthening collaboration among stakeholders is one of the important

components of Agro-BD conservation and PIA project. Strong collaboration was
encouraged to generate local support and ensure project’s sustainability. These
organizations or groups at the local level come from those who are either mandated
or committed to the advocacy of educational reforms, biodiversity conservation, and
environmental health. Local stakeholders’ contributions to the capacity-building
activities and conservation projects are included in Table 4.

Table 4. Stakeholders’ contributions

Stakeholder Contribution
1.ProvincialGovernment/Provinci • Counterpart Funding
al • Technical Assistance
Agriculturist Office • Monitoring
• Staff availability to support documentation and
logistics during workshops and meetings
• Logistics (venue for conferences)
• Transport
2. Department of Education • Monitoring
• Transportation
• Training time for teachers participation in workshops
and meetings
3. NGO (NoCHEM) • Technical Assistance
4.Municipal LGU/Agriculture • Technical Assistance
Office • Traveling expenses for Agriculture Technicians
• Cost for transportation of materials
• Materials and supplies (office supplies, PVC pipes,
• Snacks for participants
5. Parents Teachers Community • Labor (construction of ponds and nurseries, fence
Association (PTCA) materials, tree guards)
• Materials (wire nails, lumber)
• Snacks
6. Provincial Environment and • Technical assistance
Natural Resources Office • Billboards
7. Community/Farmer • Provide security against intruders
Cooperator • Transportation of tree seedlings
• Snacks for participants
• Resolutions to support the project, i.e., the
prohibition of collection of spiders, regulate
pesticide use among farmers in a given village
8. PAGRO, Fisheries Division • Nylon net for pond enclosure
• Technical assistance
9 Regional Facility Unit, • Logistics, monitoring, and technical backstopping
Department of Agriculture,
Region II

IX. Advocacy and Planning for Locally-Supported Agro-BD and PIA Activities

The following are the strategies undertaken to promote awareness on the

importance of agro-biodiversity conservation and up scaling of the project activities.

1. Provincial IPM Congresses. Biodiversity conservation was chosen as themes of

the 14th and 15th Annual Provincial IPM Congresses in Davao del Norte in 2008 and
2009. Congresses are organized with the objective of promoting awareness,
advocacy, and recognition of the milestones of Community IPM Program
implementation in Davao del Norte province. Participants to this annual activities
include farmers and students from different municipalities of the province; LGUs
officials and DA staff; NGOs (NOCHEM farmers associations, Talaingod Farmer’s
Cooperative Organization, NOCHEM, and TEAM-CARE Mindoro Occidental);
KASAKALIKASAN (The National IPM Program); FAO Philippines and FAO-ICP; the
Department of Education; The Thai Education Foundation; and, IPM Coordinators
from provinces of La Union, Tarlac, Aklan, Iloilo, Southern Leyte, Mountain
Province, South and North Cotabato.

2. Advocacy Seminar. The project organized an advocacy seminar in Tagum City

in April 2010 to update stakeholders on achievements of the project and harness
local support to sustain its integration in the school curriculum. Participants to the
seminar were students, teachers, NGOs, parents, school and LGU officials, and
representatives from the FAO-ICP, the National IPM/DA Program, central DepEd,
and provincial government representatives. Important recommendations for
sustaining schools biodiversity conservation activities are: a) strengthen functional
linkages among stakeholders in planning, designing, implementation, and
evaluation of project activities; b) inclusion in conservation plans mechanisms for
sustainable utilization of biodiversity and for the creating space for the transition of
project ownership from school to community; c) conduct of regular pesticide
hazards surveys and studies on impact of pesticides to health and environment and
present data to concerned officials and the community; and d) sustain and scale up
locally-supported agro-biodiversity conservation activities.

3. Workshop on Locally-Supported Agro-Biodiversity Conservation and PIA

activities. The project organized a workshop in Tagum City on 24-25 September
2010 to address the issue of sustaining and up-scaling of project activities by local
stakeholders. Four additional schools attended the workshop and developed the
outlines for an agro-biodiversity conservation project. Similarly, the pilot schools
reviewed implementation plans for the school year 2010-2011. Support for
implementation of such plans will be locally-sourced.

X. Insights and Lessons Learned

The pilot implementation of the Agro-BD Conservation and PIA Project in Davao del
Norte from September 2007 to April 2010 provided the following important lessons
and insights.

1. Strong local government support ensures successful implementation of the

project. The Provincial Government through its Provincial Agriculture Office has
over the years developed and nurtured strong partnerships with DepED, LGUs, DA,

PTCAs, farmers, and NGOs in the sustained implementation of its Provincial IPM
program. Local DENR staff also participated in advocacy meeting and expressed
interest in supporting and helping upscale the efforts. The presence of such a
structure provided the institutional network and this support facilitated the
implementation of a community development initiative like the Agro-BD
conservation and PIA project.

2. Agro-BD conservation and pesticides impact assessment strengthens

environmental education curriculum. The main objective of the pilot implementation
of the Agro-BD Conservation and PIA Project is to strengthen the environment
education with the intention to have this integrated in the core subjects of the
school’s curriculum. With its experiential and discovery-based learning
methodology, the project introduced teachers and facilitators to more effective
teaching and learning strategies.

3. Agro-Biodiversity conservation projects require full community involvement in

planning and implementation and a minimal of three years before tangible results
are realized. Planning for agro-biodiversity community conservation and sustainable
utilization require involvement of the wider community right from the start and
implementation requires a longer-term intervention and investment. This is
specifically the case of the “hito” (catfish project) in three project sites. Setbacks
were encountered when the projects were affected by floods in January 2009.
Production of enough fingerlings for distribution to the community members involved
in the project was not realized and will need further efforts.

4. Species focus important at project start but expansion to involve more species
important. Identification of one single species for community conservation and
sustainable utilization important for focused process implementation and sustained
intervention planning. However, once the schools and community at large have
started to appreciate and benefit from a single species conservation and
sustainable utilization plan and/or have run into implementation problems, it is
important to diversify the intervention to involve more species. This will help to
institutionalize the process and assist in drawing in more community stakeholders
for sustainability of the intervention.

5. Linking biodiversity conservation efforts to community livelihood activities will

make sustained results more likely and facilitate participation of rural communities.
For example, PTCA members in Concepcion Elementary School in Asuncion
included organic vegetable farming in forest conservation activities. Vegetables are
grown between rows of trees allowing regular weeding and maintenance of the
forest area. On the other hand, farmers in New Corella are studying predatory
behavior and impact of frogs on the population of rice stemborers in rice
ecosystems. With frequent use of toxic pesticides and reported outbreaks of rice
stemborers in rice paddies in nearby communities, such re-education and use of
natural biological control for rice paddy pest control remains of vital importance.


Sincere appreciation is extended to the following:

Mr. Jan Willem Ketelaar, CTA of the FAO ICP for providing funding and technical backstopping
support to the Agro-BD and PIA activities in Davao del Norte. The authors are also grateful for the
comments and suggestions he provided in finalizing the report;

Mr. Marut Jatiket, Executive Director,Thai Education foundation for the technical support;

The Provincial Government of Davao del Norte, for the various assistance extended to the project;

Mr. Dominador Encarnacion Jr, Provincial Agriculturist, Department of Agriculture, Davao del Norte,
for providing logistic support to the project;

Ms.Aurora B. Cubero (PhD), Superintendent, DepEd Division, Davao del Norte, for allowing
teachers to participate in the schools and community bioidiversity conservation initiative;

Mr.Jessie S. Binamira, Program Officer, National IPM Program (KASAKALIKASAN), for the
numerous technical assistance visits and support provided to the project;

Messrs. Alberto Dumo and Rogelio Doñes, Education Specialists at central DepEd, for their inputs
in facilitating integration of Agro-BD and PIA concepts in the school curriculum;

The teachers, extension workers, and farmers from the project sites, for their hard work and

Mr. Kazuyuki Tsurumi, FAOR-Philippines and his staff at the FAO Representation in Manila, most
notably Susan Castro, Glenda Aquino, and Auralyn Barcarse, for efficiently providing project’s
logistic requirements.

Annex 1 – Data on Pesticide Use in Rice and Banana

I. Rice

A. Chemicals used by farmers

Trade Name Common Name Chemical Family Type

1. Porsnail Methaldehyde IV Pyrethroid Molluscicide

2. Grass Edge Thiobencarb+2,4D III Hiobencarb+Phenoxy Herbicide
3. Magnum IBE IV Pyrethroid Insecticide
4. Parapest Cypermethrin II Organo phosphate Insecticide
1. Byluscide Niclosamide IV Salicylanilide: Molluscicide
2. Rogue Butachlor+2,4D IBE III Nitrocompound Herbicide
3. Cymbush Cypermethrin IV Chloroacetanilide+phenoxy Insecticide
1. Parakuhol Niclosamide IV Pyrethroid Molluscicide
2. Butanil Butachlor III Chloroacetanilide Herbicide
3. Gemtrak Cartaphydrochloride III Carbamate Insecticide
4. Sherpa Cypermethrin IV Pyrethroid Insecticide
5. Boxer Cypermethrin IV Pyrethroid Insecticide

B. Amount of chemicals used by farmers

Farmer/ Pesticide Tank No. of Spray / Cropping Total Liter/ Kilogram

Crops Size Tanks Cropping Season / Used per year
Season yr.

1. Rice Molluscicide 16 liters 10 1 2 750 kg.

Herbicide 16 liters 10 1 2 2 liters
Insecticide 16 liters 10 3 2 1.5 liters
Insecticide 16 liters 10 2 2 2 liters
2. Rice Molluscicide 16 liters 15 1 2 2 liters
Herbicide 16 liters 15 1 2 2 liters
Insecticide 16 liters 15 1 2 2 liters
3. Rice Molluscicide 16 liters 12 1 2 2 liters
Herbicide 16 liters 12 1 2 2 liters
Insecticide 16 liters 12 1 2 2 liters

II. Banana

A. Types and amount of chemicals used in banana plantations, Kapalong


1. Aerial Spray

Common Type Active Ingredient WHO Hazard Spray Cycle Used/Cyc
Name Level le/
Opal 7.5 EC Fungicide Epoxiconazole II Depends on 1.46 L
Calixin 86 OL Fungicide Tridemorph II disease 615 L
Manzate WP80 Fungicide Mancozeb IV monitoring & 1.18 kg
Daconil 720 SC Fungicide Chlorothalonil IV research 1.55 L
Twist 125 EC Fungicide Trifloxystrobin IV recommendati .68 L
Sico 250 EC Fungicide Difenoconazole IV on 1.0 L
Folicur 430 SC Fungicide Tebuconazole IV Usually 10-15 .27 L
Tilt 250 EC Fungicide Propiconazole III days interval .47 L
Vondozeb 42 Fungicide Mancozeb IV 1.18 L
SC Fungicide Bitertanol; IV .59 L
Baycor 300 EC Fungicide Mancozeb IV 2.93 L
Dithane 600 OS Fungicide Benomyl IV .33 Kg
Benlaki 50 WP Fungicide * .755 L
Impulse Fungicide Pyrimethanil IV .59 L
Siganex 60 SC Sticker Paraffin Oil IV 5.9 L
Sunspray Oil Emulsifier Alkyl Polyethylene IV .06 L
Lutensol Glysol Ether .06 L
Triton X Emulsifier *

2. Fruit Care (Bud injection & Bunch Spray)

Confidor 100 SL Insecticide Imidacloprid IV Every 2 weeks 1.1/bud/appl
Decis 2.5 EC Insecticide Deltamethrin IV Year round ct.
Romectin 1.8 EC Insecticide Avermectin II .05/bud/appl
Kotetsu Insecticide Chlorphenapyr III Every 2 weeks ct.
Climax Insecticide Imidacloprid IV
Agrimek 1.8 EC Insecticide Avermectin II Every 2 weeks
Tamaron Insecticide Methamidaphos I Banned
Micposhield Fungicide *
Fungitox 70 WP Fungicide Thiophanatemethyl IV .
Topsin Fungicide Thiophanatemethyl IV Every 2 weeks

3. Weed Control
Round-up Herbicide Glyphosate as IV Year round or 2 – 3 L
Basta Herbicide Potasium IV as need arises 2 – 3 L