Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Herbicides, like in many other regions, are a critical aspect of modern agriculture. They are essential tools for weed control, which is very important for crop health and yield optimization. However, their use must be carefully managed to minimize environmental impact and ensure the safety of both farmers and consumers. The primary aim of this study was to assess the utilization of herbicides in the agricultural regions of the central Gulf of Mexico. The research employed a survey-based methodology, utilizing a structured questionnaire as the primary tool for gathering insights into the application and management of herbicides within the region. The surveyed producers displayed an average age of 61 years, and their educational background averaged 4.4 years of schooling. The research uncovered the utilization of 14 different active ingredients spanning 18 commercial brands, all readily available in the municipalities within the study area. One prominent observation emerging from this analysis is the notable absence of technical training among the producers in herbicide use and management. Their approach to pesticide application, particularly herbicides, relies heavily on empirical knowledge. This analysis highlights the need for improved technical training and the promotion of best practices in herbicide management within this agricultural community.
National Technological Institute of Mexico/Technological Institute of Boca del Rio, Boca del Rio, Mexico
María del Refugio Castañeda-Chávez*
National Technological Institute of Mexico/Technological Institute of Boca del Rio, Boca del Rio, Mexico
Fabiola Lango-Reynoso
National Technological Institute of Mexico/Technological Institute of Boca del Rio, Boca del Rio, Mexico
David Gil-Díaz
National Technological Institute of Mexico/Technological Institute of Boca del Rio, Boca del Rio, Mexico
*Address all correspondence to: mariacastaneda@bdelrio.tecnm.mx
1. Introduction
The extensive use of pesticides in agriculture has raised concerns due to the presence of residual levels in food products, posing inherent risks to both public health and the environment [1, 2, 3]. While pesticide research has predominantly focused on the detection and dispersion of residues, particularly organochlorine compounds like dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) and its metabolites stemming from historical health campaigns [4, 5] relatively limited attention has been given to a broader range of compounds. This includes organophosphates, fungicides, and herbicides, which are widely employed in the global agricultural sector, suggesting that these compounds may be readily accessible to the general population through various routes.
These findings align with international reports on pesticide residues, such as chlorpyrifos, diazinon, ethyl parathion, methamidophos, mancozeb, methomyl, and metribuzin, detected in freshly harvested strawberries (Fragraria ananassa) in the state of Mérida, Venezuela [2]. Additionally, research has indicated a higher concentration of pesticides in the peel of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) compared to the internal part, with eight compounds detected at concentrations expressed in mg kg−1: chlorpyrifos (7.3), diazinon (11.8), dimetoato (0.56), metamidofos (5.0), carbofuran (1.4), mancozeb (11.4), metomilo (0.030), and metribuzin (0.10) [6].
In the Latin American and the Caribbean region, data collected by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for the year 2010 reported a total pesticide usage of 222,367.59 tons. Among these, herbicides constituted the largest group, accounting for 11,788.14 tons, followed by insecticides with 46,994.62 tons, and finally fungicides and bactericides with 61,584.83 tons [7]. However, it is important to note that the statistical data from FAOSTAT incorporates data from various sources, including official and semi-official, estimated or calculated data [8, 9], introducing some uncertainty into the information. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that according to Goméz-Arroyo et al. [7], approximately 46% of the region lacks comprehensive information on pesticide consumption, in contrast to organizations like FAO [6].
This situation underscores the potential for either underestimation or overestimation of pesticide usage patterns, complicating our understanding of their real impact on specific regions, as well as their long-term consequences for public health and the environment.
The available data on pesticide usage in Mexico are limited, rendering them inadequate for comprehensive analysis. Specific figures detailing the volume of usage for distinct pesticide groups such as insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides are notably absent. This paucity extends to information pertaining to the patterns of pesticide utilization, and application frequencies throughout crop cycles and annual cycles. In addition, data concerning contamination levels of these compounds in aquatic ecosystems are practically non-existent, despite the knowledge of the toxicological effects associated with many of these substances [5, 10, 11, 12]. Consequently, understanding the use of pesticides in Mexican agricultural practices remains constrained, with a dearth of detailed information regarding, which substances are employed across various sectors, seasons, and geographical regions [10, 13, 14, 15].
According to Silviera-Gramont et al. [16], the absence of updated figures relating to application quantities and frequencies, coupled with the lack of official statistical data specifying the usage of individual active ingredients for particular crops, recommended application practices, and dosages, can be attributed to the lack of robust regulatory oversight and monitoring in Mexico [15]. Albert [17] and Silviera-Gramont et al. [16] similarly underscore the dearth of information concerning the utilization and consumption of pesticides within the agricultural sector, save for data compiled during censuses or surveys, where quantities of agricultural fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides are recorded.
The detection of pesticides from various chemical groups in water sources has been associated with their inappropriate and excessive usage. This not only imperils the quality of other agricultural activities conducted within the same regions but also jeopardizes the well-being of agricultural workers and the food security of consumers of these products [2, 6, 7, 10, 18, 19, 20]. A deeper understanding of the specific usage patterns of different chemical groups is imperative to address this issue effectively. Therefore, there is an urgent need to generate comprehensive information concerning the utilization, management, and impact of compounds like herbicides, backed by scientific rigor. In line with this objective, this research endeavors to elucidate the use and management practices employed by agricultural producers in the central Gulf of Mexico with regard to the herbicide paraquat, an area renowned for its pivotal role in the production of commercially significant crops.
The study encompassed various locations within the municipalities of Medellín, Cotlaxtla, and Tlalixcoyan, situated in the central region of the state of Veracruz. These municipalities are characterized by the cultivation of key fruit crops, including pineapple, papaya, lemon, and sugar cane (see Figure 1). Notably, the study area is in close proximity to significant bodies of water, adding to its ecological importance. These water bodies include the Cotaxtla river in the municipality of Cotaxtla, the Blanco river in Tlalixcoyan, and the Mandinga Lagoon in the municipality of Medellín de Bravo.
Figure 1.
Study area of herbicide use in the central zone of Veracruz, Mexico.
2.2 Study design for herbicide use diagnosis
A survey-based technique was used, utilizing a well-structured questionnaire for conducting interviews with agricultural producers. This questionnaire served as the primary tool for comprehensively assessing and characterizing the application, use, and management of herbicides [4, 14, 21, 22]. The questionnaire was thoughtfully designed in three sections:
The first section aimed to gather information about the producers, encompassing details such as age, education, gender, municipality, and locality.
The second section focused on elucidating the characteristics of the cultivated areas. This involved factors like the available land area per producer, the time of year, cultivated crop varieties, concentrations, planting density, application methods, and herbicide management practices.
The third section was developed to establish associations between the quantity of herbicides used per active ingredient, chemical group, and the associated toxicological risks inherent to their application and management. This section facilitated the calculation of the total pesticide usage, planting surfaces, dosages, and active ingredient concentrations [4, 14, 21]. All data from these interviews were consolidated into a database, enabling the evaluation of herbicide use and management patterns across the region.
2.3 Data analysis
To analyze the acquired data, the TIBCO Statistica 14.0.0.15 software (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was employed. An exploratory analysis was conducted, including descriptive statistics such as means and frequencies, to discern insights into both the producers and the characteristics of the cultivation areas. To further identify techniques employed for herbicide use and management in the primary agricultural zones of the central Veracruz region, the principal component analysis (PCA) was used as a statistical tool.
A total of 12 variables were selected from the sociodemographic and herbicide use data obtained from the survey. The principal components that could explain the greatest possible variability were found, as well as the correlation between variables and components.
The population of farmers who participated in the interviews had an average age of 61 years, with the oldest being 83 years old and the youngest being 37. The maximum age recorded aligns with the findings of Polanco-Rodríguez et al. [22] who reported a maximum age of 85 years among farmers in the Yucatán agricultural area, although the minimum age was 17 years. The highest level of education attained by the participants was 12 years, but the average education level was 4.4 years, representing incomplete basic education. Furthermore, a percentage of the producers had no formal education, as illustrated in Table 1.
Variable
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Age (years)
61
37
83
Gender (%)
88% men 12% women
2
6
Schooling (years)
4.4
1
12
Time dedicated to agriculture (years)
38
1
73
Table 1.
Characteristics of the target population interview in agricultural areas of the central Gulf of Mexico.
The duration of agricultural activity varied from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 73 years. It is worth noting that 40% of the population in their research had incomplete basic education, followed by a group with no formal education at 32%, while 10% had completed secondary education, and only 2% reported having attended preparatory education [22].
In contrast, Tabares and López [23] reported findings in the Marinilla municipality of the Antioquia district in Colombia, where farmers’ ages ranged from 18 to 50 years, with the majority falling between 31 and 50 years old. This suggests a younger population without necessarily higher education levels. These findings are consistent with Tabares and López [23], where 83.4% of respondents had completed primary or incomplete studies, while only four people had acquired higher, technical, or university education.
Similar to findings by Polanco-Rodríguez et al. [22], who reported a predominantly male presence in agricultural activities, accounting for 92% of the population, this investigation also observed a notable proportion of males within the target population, comprising 83% of those interviewed [19]. However, it is important to recognize that the characterization of the target population specifically pesticide users, has often been overlooked in previous research. Studies such as those conducted by González-Arias et al. [21] and Hernández-Antonio and Hansen [4], have primarily focused on evaluating pesticide use in terms of crop types, dosages, and usage frequency. These studies tended to disregard the individuals who are the main users of these pesticides, individuals whose practices significantly influence the application of these compounds.
Within the context of Mexico, only a limited number of studies have delved into the issue of pesticide use and its correlation with population characteristics such as age, education, and the duration of engagement in agricultural activities. This scarcity of research makes it challenging to compare these results with existing literature. Notably, the state of Yucatán, for instance, has reported that individuals with low levels of education tend to have a reduced perception of health and environmental risks associated with pesticide usage [22]. The level of education, particularly when it is basic or incomplete, significantly impacts the ability to comprehend instructions for the proper use of pesticides. Difficulties in reading and understanding such instructions can potentially increase the risks associated with pesticide handling [23].
In this study, the maximum cultivated area reached 84 hectares, while the minimum was 1 hectare. This contrasts with the findings of Hernández-Antonio and Hansen [4] who reported a cultivated area of 108,865 in the Irrigation District (DR) 063 of Guasave Sinaloa, a cultivated area of 202,065 ha in a reference agricultural area (ZAR). The variation in cultivated areas between regions is closely related to agricultural activity management and the volumes of herbicides applied. Moreover, this investigation highlighted that the individuals interviewed in the study area predominantly consist of small-scale producers who rely on groundwater sources for irrigation. The availability and accessibility of water sources vary considerably, with an average water mirror of 3 m and a maximum of 30 m (Table 2). In contrast, Hernandez-Antonio and Hansen [4] reported significantly larger irrigation areas of 106,518 hectares in DR 063 and 400 hectares in ZAR in Sinaloa. This underscores the substantial differences in the scale and scope of agricultural practices between regions in Mexico.
Variable
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Cultivated area (ha)
8.95
1
84
Main crop (%)
—
4.08% (Banana)
44.86 (pineapple)
Secondary crop (%)
—
2.04 (pumpkin, cassava, rice, watermelon, lemon)
14.28 (corn)
Third crop (%)
—
2.04 (chili, grass)
12% (corn)
Water mirror depth well (m)
3.08
1
30
Total well depth (m)
13.75
1
130
Table 2.
Characteristics of agricultural areas in the central zone of the Gulf of Mexico.
3.2 Herbicide use
The characteristics of the different crops in the region generate the use of a wide variety of herbicides. The farmers interviewed with indicators used up to three different chemical groups of herbicides, which were used in different concentrations (Figure 2). It was identified that the third chemical group of herbicides was used in a lower concentration (Figure 3) compared to the main group but the herbicide concentration of the third group was higher than the second group (Figure 4). The results indicated the use of 14 active ingredients from 18 trademarks in the municipalities of the study area in this investigation. Farmers reported the use of active ingredients of glyphosate and paraquat Polanco-Rodríguez et al. [22] indicated the use of these herbicides classified in the toxicological category as highly toxic and probable causes of cancer in the population according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) [18, 24]. Likewise, in the municipalities of Yucatán, a total of ten herbicides belonging to different chemical groups were reported, of which they indicated the use of at least two active ingredients such as glyphosate, paraquat, and paraquat dichloride classified as highly toxic [22].
Figure 2.
Main chemical groups of herbicides used in the central zone of Veracruz, Mexico.
Figure 3.
Second chemical group of herbicides used in the central zone of Veracruz, Mexico.
Figure 4.
Third chemical group of herbicides used in the central zone of Veracruz, Mexico.
The herbicides of group 1 (principal) The herbicides of the group with maximum application doses were picloram, propanil, and dichloropropioanilide with 20,000.00 (mg L−1 ha), the second group of herbicide was 2,4-D with 15,625.00, glyphosate, ametrine clomazone with 10,000.00 (mg L−1 ha) (Table 3). Finally, the third type of herbicide was picloram with 6250.000 and diuron with 5000.000 (mg L−1 ha). Regarding paraquat, this was used by 26.53% of those interviewed with the commercial names of gramoxone, paraquat, and lumbrequat. The maximum concentration reported was 20,000.00 and the average concentration used of 2683.673 mg L−1 ha.
Active ingredient (a.i.) herbicide 1
Dose of a.i. (mg L−1 ha)
Active ingredient (a.i.) herbicide 2
Dose of a.i. (mg L−1 ha)
Active ingredient (a.i.) herbicide 3
Dose of a.i. (mg L−1 ha)
Diuron
3660.71
Haloxifop
1750.00
Bromacil
1500.000
Picloram
20,000.00
Bromacil
2023.71
Fluazifop-butyl
1250.000
Glyphosate
7500.00
Fluazifop-butyl
1250.00
Haloxifop
1350.000
Bromacil
1166.67
Glyphosate
10,000.00
Picloram
6250.000
Ametrine/Atrazine/D
10,000.00
2,4-D
15,625.00
Diuron
5000.000
Propanil
20,000.00
Ametrine
10,000.00
Glyphosate
101.000
Dichloropropyanilide
20,000.00
Diuron
2000.00
2,4-D
2500.000
Glyphosate 36
10,000
Ametrine/Atrazine/Diuron
3500.00
Adherent
5000.000
Saflufenacil
1500.00
Clomazone
10,000.00
Glufosinate ammonium
10,000
Butyl Acid Ester/2,4-D
2500.00
[1-[3-chloroalkyloxyimino]propyl-5] (Clethodim)
2000.00
Table 3.
Use of active ingredient of the three main groups of herbicides in the agricultural areas of the center of the Gulf of Mexico.
The evaluation of the use of herbicides through the survey technique allows identifying patterns of use of this compound in certain regions of Mexico. Coincides with the above, Silveira-Gramont et al. [16] and Pérez-Olvera et al. [18] indicated that in order to assess the danger posed to the health of the inhabitants of the passive compound exposure, reliable and up-to-date information is required on crops planted and pests, doses, volumes, forms of application of the pesticides used and particularly in the case of that represent a potential health risk. However, the information available in official statistics in Mexico on the use of agrochemicals is very general, without differentiation between annual and perennial crops, extensive and intensive crops, fruit trees, and other categories of agricultural production, because all the previous characteristics influence variations on the way these compounds are applied and therefore their potential effect on the environment [17].
3.3 Use herbicide paraquat
A total of 77% of the interviewees indicated knowing the herbicide name paraquat under the common names of paraquat, gramoxone, and lumbrequat, while the rest do not know these names. Of the total number of people interviewed who indicated that they knew about the paraquat herbicide, only 37% currently use it, of which 85% affirm that its use is efficient for weed control, 7% mention only using it in areas independent of their crops, and the remaining 7% do not know enough about its efficiency. Coinciding with the above, Ramírez-Mora et al. [25] reported through a survey that identified the use of different types of pesticides in the irrigation district of La Antigua in Veracruz; reporting that paraquat represented a lower percentage of minor use with 7.4% of the total number of pesticides used; the above was related to the type of cultivation carried out in the region and the potential damage that this herbicide can represent for it.
Differences in the use of paraquat have been reported according to the type of crop, the frequency of use, and the concentrations used. Likewise, Medina-Meléndez et al. [26] indicated that coffee producers in the state of Chiapas mentioned that paraquat was the most used product; however, they reported that it was used in lower average concentrations and frequency of use with 1 L/200 L tank (5000 μL L−1) and an application frequency of only 1 time per year. The average concentration of paraquat used by the producers was 2.02 L of herbicide per 200 L tank of water, that is, a concentration of 10,100 μL of paraquat per liter of water. The range of concentrations reported by the producers presented a range of 1 L per 200 L tank (5000 μL/L) up to 4 L per 200 L tank (20,000 μL/L). Producers report using an average of 2.2 tanks for each hectare of crops, which means an average concentration of 22,220 μL/L of paraquat per hectare (Table 4). The highest concentration of paraquat used by farmers in the central area of Veracruz was reported in the municipality of Tlalixcoyan (Figure 5).
Concentration
Municipalities
Cotaxtla
Tlalixcoyan
Medellín
General
Average paraquat (μL/L)
10,900
10,000
5000
10,100
Range (μL/L)
7500–10,000
10,000
5000
5000–20,000
Average per hectare (μL/L ha−1)
18,639
24,200
20,000
22,200
Table 4.
Paraquat herbicide concentrations used by the producers interviewed in the central zone of Veracruz, Mexico.
Figure 5.
Paraquat concentration used in the central zone of Veracruz, Mexico.
Among the main reasons indicated by the interviewees who claim to know about the herbicide paraquat, but report not using it, included that it damages their main crops (62.5%), there is little efficiency to control weeds (16.6%), they do not currently cultivate (12.5%), and they do not know its proper use (8.3%). Paraquat is freely marketed in Mexico under different commercial brands. However, the use of paraquat is restricted in some regions of the world [27] and it can only be purchased from marketers without the need to submit a written recommendation from an official or private technician [25].
According to INECC [28], there is no exact information on the list of active ingredients registered in Mexico, since the information compiled in the Official Catalog of Pesticides from 1991 to 2004 does not include information on the compounds produced, but not those that were produced, imported, sold and applied, much less their amounts of use. Therefore, the lack of data on the types, doses of pesticides, and where they were used has been a consistent historical trend in Mexico [5, 18, 28]. This demonstrates the difficulty in comparing the use of herbicides such as paraquat in different types of crops and regions of Mexico. Due to the different methodologies used and the type of data collected in the various investigations, it is difficult for the average, maximum, and minimum values of the amounts used for each pesticide used in Mexico [28]. Likewise, the need to understand the problem of the intensive use of herbicides is highlighted, since the doses used exceed the recommended doses for this use and to establish the risk and impact of the use of this type of pesticide.
3.4 Toxicological risk due to its mode of application and management of herbicides
The use of six herbicidal types was identified in which active ingredient is within the highly toxic toxicity classification (II), such as paraquat and glyphosate (Table 5). In studies conducted in the municipalities of Yucatán, a total of ten herbicides belonging to different chemical groups and toxicity levels were reported, of which they expressed the use of at least two active ingredients such as glyphosate, paraquat, dichloride classified as highly toxic [22, 25].
Contains 49.64% of product (equivalent to 400 g of a.i/L) 30.34%
Herbipol
III
Glufosinate ammonium
150 g of a.i. L, concentration 13.45%
Tarang 150
II
Dicloruro paraquat
Concentration of 27,6%
Gramoxone, lumbrequat, paraquat
II
Table 5.
Toxicological classification and persistence of herbicides used in agricultural areas of the center of the Gulf of Mexico. Abbreviations: I: Extremely toxic; II: Highly toxic; III: Moderately toxic; IV: Slightly toxic.
The frequency of application of herbicides only in the study area was lower than reported by Polanco-Rodríguez et al. [22] reported a frequency in the use and application of all pesticides by men in a 41% semi-annual use, followed by 31% quarterly and 25% with a monthly use. While Sivó-Agulló et al. [29] indicated that 47.6% of agricultural workers in towns of Albacete Spain revealed to have a management or relationship with pesticides throughout the year, this reflects that they have a greater period of contact and risk for the use of pesticides.
In this study, 83.67% of the interviewed individuals testified that they had not received training in the use of herbicides, and the decision in their management was empirically carried out through the experience of the farmer (91.83%). A percentage lower than 4.08% proved that the management of herbicides by the suggestion of the sellers of agrochemicals, and a similar percentage was obtained for the combination of experience and help from the seller. A total of 69.29% of the interviewees indicated that they apply the herbicides themselves and the remaining 36.75% hire personnel for their application. The main application method was with a backpack pump with 93.87%, while the remaining 6.12% used a tractor. According to Tabares and López et al. [23] they mention that 83% of the farmers have not received training regarding the safe handling of pesticides and approximately 80% of them do not use adequate protective equipment to carry out the work.
The principal component analysis identified different degrees of significant association (p < 0.05) between certain groups of variables; this was positively high between the variable x3 named as experience working in the field and the frequency of application of herbicide per year (variable x9); as well as the variable x6 that corresponded to the number of tanks per Hectare and the concentration of herbicides used per hectare (Figure 6). Meanwhile, a moderate positive correlation was obtained between the cultivated extension variable and the herbicide concentration per hectare. In contrast, a high negative correlation was obtained between the variables of pH regulator use and knowledge of damage caused to the environment.
Figure 6.
Correlation of sociodemographic variables with the use and management of herbicides in the municipalities of Veracruz, Mexico.
The importance of sociodemographic variables such as age and schooling of the producers with productive variables such as cultivated area and use of herbicides was also identified (Figure 6). Therefore, by having a larger area for cultivation, larger producers choose to increase the concentrations of herbicides such as paraquat and the concentration per hectare. It was identified that the relationships between the variables and the axes that represent the components F1 and F2 together represent 46.13% of the initial information contained (Figure 6). The presence of three vector groups was identified: the green circle indicates the existing correlation between the variables x4, x6, x7, and x10; the yellow circle indicates the existing correlation between the variables x1, x2, and x12; Likewise, these groups of variables are closer to the axis of the principal component F1, which better explains the variables. The last group of vectors indicated in the blue circle is closer to the principal component F2 in its positive part.
The frequency of the use of protective equipment was related to the age of the people interviewed, where the group responded that they always wear protective equipment with higher frequencies in the younger intervals, while the respondents who used it were sometimes the oldest groups between the range of 65–74 years and over 75 years [29]. Likewise, the protective equipment for the application of agrochemicals consists mainly of the use of long-sleeved shirts with 51% and does not have protective suits for this activity, followed by the use of lenses with 10%, masks 6%, gloves 5%, and 12% do not use any protective equipment during the application of pesticides [22].
The results in this study area showed that 65.30% of the interviewed individuals did not use any protective equipment when applying herbicides, 14.28% wore a mask, 8.16% wore gloves, and 6.12% wore boots, it should be noted that the use of this protective equipment was used separately and therefore no one wore full protective equipment. Sivó-Agulló et al. [29] indicated the same trend when reporting in their investigation that only 12.6% of workers used all personal protective equipment to carry out pesticide application.
The source of information for many farmers can have two main origins. They indicated that 25.3% of the farmers interviewed in their research always rely on the explanation of the seller, so they depend on the information they provide for the use of the pesticide and consider it unnecessary to read the product label [29]. The previous approach contrasts with another response given by the same respondents since 85.7% of them said they always read the label of all products before using it. Training plays a central role in reducing the risk of exposure and inappropriate use of pesticides by farmers, indicated the questionable quality of the safety measures used by the workers, indicated that if 52.3% of the interviewees said they always ignore the product they are working with, it will be difficult for them to use the appropriate protective equipment to perform this work [22, 29].
The use and management of herbicides in the study area of this research indicated the lack of ethical-technical knowledge of farmers on the effect on their health by not using protection equipment or receiving training in the management of these substances. As well as their limited knowledge about the effect of these substances on the environment. Coinciding with the foregoing, farmers of corn and soybean in Missouri identified that industrialization of agricultural production generates pressure on farmers on decisions between doing what they believe is right and doing what they feel they must in order to survive [30]. Decision-making identified in this research allowed the localization as primary source of information in the implementation of herbicides to knowledge empirical transmitted between farmers of the region, the use of these compounds management through the trial and error in the doses herbicide.
Cardoso and James [31] identified through a survey applied to producers crops like corn, sorgo, and livestock, that the ethical framework of farmers affects their decision to participate in these practices. In the case of the corn and sorgo culture producers, identified an ethical framework combination, the characteristics of the farm and the farmers correlated with the decisions on the use of agrochemicals. Therefore, the level of education of farmers and training on the use of highly toxic compounds as some of the herbicides used could influence a lower negative effect by the use of these compounds. In Missouri, farmers identified that the ethical challenges of agriculture in the region focused on terms of farmers behavior on crop management [30].
The reduction of toxicological risk due to improper use of herbicides requires the integration of knowledge of how it is used, and the management and implementation of strategies to reduce its use. In accordance with Polanco-Rodríguez et al. [22] it is necessary to apply international regulations, as well as the implementation of educational programs fundamentals on agroecology on sustainable agriculture to avoid the application of pesticides with carcinogenic potential.
Applying a structured survey to herbicide users in this study area allowed us to assess the composition of their population, and to explain how they use and manage these compounds. An unfinished basic education academic level was identified in the highest percentage of the population. Frequent use of herbicides such as glyphosate and paraquat identified, which are classified as highly toxic, as well as the importance of making a selection of these compounds according to each crop, and knowing what is the necessary dose of application. The lack of a greater number of researches in Mexico is highlighted, especially in the study area that includes the problem of herbicide use and its long-term effect on ecosystem health.
The ethical responsibility of farmers would be associated with the lack of access to training by government and scientific institutions that offer farmers training for the proper management of herbicides and monitoring the integral use of pesticides. It is necessary to implement continuous monitoring of the use of agrochemicals with high toxicological potential in the region, and it is essential to implement technical training programs by trained personnel where protection measures are explained for those responsible for the activity, to avoid health risks due to misuse and management of pesticides.
To the Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Boca del Río (TecnM/ITBOCA); As well as the Division of Postgraduate Studies and Research (DEPI).
The objective of this questionnaire is to identify the techniques of use and management of herbicides carried out by farmers in the main agricultural areas of the central zone of the state of Veracruz. The information provided will be handled confidentially and will be used for the development of this research.
11. What are the herbicides used to control weeds (trade names)?
Herbicide #1
Herbicide #2
Herbicide #3
11.1 Concentration
11.1 Concentration
11.1 Concentration
Applied area (ha)
Applied area (ha)
Applied area (ha)
Other:
12. Do you know what the active ingredient paraquat is? ()Yes () No.
12.1. Do you currently apply the herbicide paraquat? () Yes () No 12.2 Why?
13. What is the concentration per area used of the herbicide paraquat on your crops (L/ha)?.
B.1 Use of herbicides
14. Do you apply herbicides to your crops? () Yes () No () Other.
15. What is the way to apply herbicides? () Backpack pump () Scrubbers () Tractor () Other.
16. How many times do you apply it during the crop cycle? ()Daily () Weekly () Fortnightly () Monthly () 3 Months () Other.
17. What concentration of the most used herbicide do you use (L/ha)?
18. What is your knowledge about the application of herbicides based on? () Own experience () Suggestion from other farmers () Suggestion from the seller of agrochemicals () Label indication () Other.
21. Have you felt any discomfort after applying only herbicides? () None () Headache () Dizziness () Vomiting Fever () Allergy () Other.
21.1 Have you felt any discomfort after applying any other chemical?
Insecticide
Fungicide
Fertilizers
Type of discomfort
Type of discomfort
Type of discomfort
Other:
22 How many times have you felt discomfort? () Once () Every time you apply a product () Never () Other.
23. Are you aware of the environmental damage caused by the use of herbicides?
() Yes () No
Control data.
Interviewer Name
Application date
Start time
End time
References
1.Silveira-Gramont MI, Amarillas-Cardoza VT, Rodríguez-Olibarria G, Aldana Madrid ML, Zuno Floriano FG. Exposición a insecticidas organofosforados en adultos del sexo masculino en Sonora, México. Ciencia. 2011;4(2):70-81
2.Benítez-Díaz P, Miranda-Contreras L, Balza-Quintero A, Sánchez-Gil B, Molina-Morales Y. Residuos de plaguicidas en fresa (Fragraria x ananassa) cosechada en una región agrícola del estado Mérida, Venezuela. Bioagro. 2015;27(3):181-188
3.Benítez-Díaz P, Miranda-Contreras L. Contaminación de aguas superficiales por residuos de plaguicidas en Venezuela y otros países de Latinoamérica. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2013;29:7-23
4.Hernández-Antonio A, Hansen AM. Uso de plaguicidas en dos zonas agrícolas de México y evaluación de la contaminación de agua y sedimentos. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2011;27(2):115-127
5.Albert LA. Uso de plaguicidas en las zonas costeras del Golfo de México e investigaciones sobre su impacto. In: Botello AV, Rendón von Osten J, Benítez JA, Gold-Bouchot G, editors. Golfo de México. Contaminación e impacto ambiental: diagnóstico y tendencias. México, D.F: UAC, UNAM-ICMYL, CINVESTAV-Unidad Mérida; 2014. pp. 265-284
6.Benítez-Díaz P, Miranda-Contreras L, Molina-Morales Y, Sánchez-Gil B, Balza-Quintero A. Residuos de plaguicidas en la cáscara e interior de la papa (Solanum tuberosum l.) proveniente de una región agrícola del estado Mérida, Venezuela. Bioagro. 2015;27(1):27-36
7.Gómez-Arroyo S, Martínez-Valenzuela C, Carbajal-López Y, Martínez-Arroyo A, Calderón-Segura ME, Villalobos-Pietrini R, et al. Riesgo genotóxico por la exposición ocupacional a plaguicidas en América Latina. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2013;29:159-180
8.FAO. Pesticides Use. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2016. Available from: https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog/dataset/pesticides-use-rp/resource/7e330314-8680-4641-b5da-3fbe3b3a88ad
9.FAOSTAT. Pesticides-Use per area of cropland (kg/ha). Average 1990–2016. 2019. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP
10.García-Gutiérrez C, Rodríguez-Meza GD. Problemática y riesgo ambiental por el uso de plaguicidas en Sinaloa. Ra Ximhai. 2012;8(3):1-10
11.Garza-González BI, Cervantes-Hernández P. Tendencia histórica del uso de plaguicidas en la producción agrícola de México. Ciencia y Mar. 2015;19(57):67-74
12.Arellano-Aguilar O, Rendón von Osten J. La huella de los plaguicidas en México. Greenpeace; 2016. Available from: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-mexico-stateless/2018/11/30b49459-30b49459-plaguicidas_en_agua_ok_em.pdf
13.García-Hernández J, Leyva-Morales JB, Martínez-Rodríguez IE, Hernández-Ochoa MI, Aldana-Madrid ML, Rojas-García AE, et al. Estado actual de la investigación sobre plaguicidas en México. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2018;34:29-60. DOI: 10.20937/RICA.2018.34.esp01.03
14.Megchún-García JV, Rodríguez-Lagunes DA, Castañeda-Chávez MR, Murguía-González J, Lango-Reynoso F, Leyva-Ovalle OR. Thiamethoxam in papaya (Carica papaya Linnaeus) agroecosystems. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology. 2017;2(2):874-880. DOI: 10.22161/ijeab/2.2.40
15.Benítez-Trinidad AB, Herrera-Moreno JF, Xotlanihua-Gervacio MC, Bernal-Hernández YY, Medina-Díaz IM, Barrón-Vivanco BS, et al. Patrón de uso de plaguicidas y biomarcadores bioquímicos en una población de fumigadores urbanos. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2018;34:61-71. DOI: 10.20937/RICA.2018.34.esp01.04
16.Silveira-Gramont MI, Aldana-Madrid ML, Piri-Santana J, Valenzuela-Quintanar AI, Jasa-Silveira G, Rodríguez-Olibarria G. Plaguicidas agricolas: un marco de referencia para evaluar riesgos a la salud en comunidades rurales en el estado de sonora, México. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2018;34(1):7-21. DOI: 10.20937/RICA.2018.34.01.01
17.Albert LA. Panorama de los plaguicidas en México. 2015. Available from: http://alef.mx/el-jarocho-cuantico-49-los-plaguicidas-en-mexico/17/04/2017
18.Pérez-Olvera MA, Navarro-Garza H, Miranda-Cruz E. Use of pesticides for vegetable crops in Mexico. In: Pesticides in the Modern World-Pesticides Use and Management. Dr. Margarita Stoytcheva, ed. 2011. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/21981
19.Flores-García ME, Molina-Morales Y, Balza-Quintero A, Benítez-Díaz PR, Miranda-Contreras L. Residuos de plaguicidas en aguas para consumo humano en una comunidad agrícola del estado Mérida, Venezuela. Investigación Clínica. 2011;52(4):295-311
20.Molina-Morales Y, Flores-García M, Balza-Quintero A, Benítez-Díaz P, Miranda-Contreras L. Niveles de plaguicidas en aguas superficiales de una región agrícola del estado Mérida, Venezuela, entre 2008 Y 2010. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2012;28(4):289-301
21.González-Arias CA, Robledo-Marenco ML, Medina-Díaz IM, Velázquez-Fernández JB, Girón-Pérez MI, Quintanilla-Vega B, et al. Patrón de uso y venta de plaguicidas en Nayarit, México. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental. 2010;26(3):221-228
22.Polanco-Rodríguez AG, Magaña-Castro TV, Cetz-Iuit J, Quintal-López R. Uso de agroquímicos cancerígenos en la región agrícola e Yucatán, México. Centro Agrícola. 2019;46(2):73-83
23.Tabares LJC, López AYL. Salud y riesgos ocupacionales por el manejo de plaguicidas en campesinos agricultores, municipio de Marinilla, Antioquia, 2009. Revista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública. 2011;29(4):432-444
24.ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). Glyphosate. Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences. 2020. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/es/toxfaqs/es_tfacts214.html
25.Ramírez-Mora E, Pérez-Vázquez A, Landeros-Sánchez C, Martínez-Dávila JP, Villanueva-Jiménez JA, Lagunes-Espinoza LC. Uso histórico de plaguicidas en caña de azúcar del DR035 La Antigua, Veracruz. Acta Universitaria. 2018;28(4):42-49. DOI: 10.15174/au.2018.1644
26.Medina-Meléndez JA, Ruiz-Nájera RE, Gómez-Castañeda JC, Sánchez-Yáñez JM, Gómez-Alfaro G, Pinto-Molina O. Estudio del sistema de producción de café (Coffea arabica L.) en la región Frailesca, Chiapas. CienciaUAT. 2016;10(2):33-43
27.CICOPLAFEST. Comisión Intersecretarial para el Control del Proceso y Uso de Plaguicidas, Fertilizantes y Sustancias Tóxicas Catálogo de plaguicidas México. 2004. Available from: https://biblioteca.semarnat.gob.mx/janium/Documentos/Ciga/agenda/PP03/catalogo.pdf
28.INECC. Estudios sobre el uso de plaguicidas en México compilación 1980–2018. INECC. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/728079/141_2022_Estudios_plaguicidas_Mexico_1980-2018.pdf; [Accesed July 18, 2023]
29.Sivó-Agulló R, Sivó Agulló A, Bañón-Gutiérrez S, Gilaberte-Martínez A, Vila-Candel R. Evaluación del nivel de conocimientos que tienen los trabajadores que tratan con plaguicidas sobre los efectos nocivos para la salud y su equipo de protección. Enfermería Integral. 2017;117:66-71
30.James HSJ. The ethical challenges in farming: A report on conversations with Missouri corn and soybean producers. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health. 2005;11(2):239-248
31.Cardoso SP, James HSJ. Ethical frameworks and farmer participation in controversial farming practices. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2012;25(3):377-404. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-011-9306-6
Written By
Gabycarmen Navarrete-Rodríguez, María del Refugio Castañeda-Chávez, Fabiola Lango-Reynoso and David Gil-Díaz
Submitted: 31 July 2023Reviewed: 01 August 2023Published: 31 October 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
