**3. Results and discussion**

#### **3.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondents**

As depicted in item 1 of **Table 1** below regarding male to female ratio, about 91.8% of the participants were males, while only 8.2% were females. The dominance of males over females in this study might be due to the nature of work as men usually are more involved in pesticide handling than women [22]. The sex ratio presented in this study is in line with the finding of [23].

Regarding the age of the respondents, about 50.7% had their ages between 36–45 years, while 20.5% and 16.4% were within the range of 46–55 and 25–35, respectively. The average age of the farmers was 44.42 years. The obvious decrease in the proportion of farmers on the both sides of the age spectrum might be due to youths' lack of interest in farming, in addition to their tendency to shift to urban areas for better employment and higher income [24]. The decrease may also be due to the health deterioration of aged farmers, as this limits their abilities to put up with more physical-consuming tasks that might add more health burdens to the bunch they already have.

Concerning the education status of the participants, the majority 65.75% had a formal education, mainly primary education 10.96%, secondary education 49.32%,

**97**

safe practices [23, 27].

Working Hours Per Day on the

*Demographic characteristics of sample respondents (N = 73).*

Farm

**Table 1.**

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity...*

**Variables Category Freq. Percentage** Gender Female 6 8.2%

Age of the Respondent 25.00–35.00 12 16.4%

Educational Level No formal education 25 34.25%

Years of Experience Less than 5 years 12 16.4%

Average Monthly Income <1000 birr 46 63.0%

Residential Area Living on the farm 48 65.8%

Is Farming Your only source of income 32 43.8%

Male 67 91.8%

36.00–45.00 37 50.7% 46.00–55.00 15 20.5% 56.00–70.00 9 12.3%

5–10 years 25 34.2% 10–20 years 20 27.4% 20 years and above 16 21.9%

1001–1500 birr 14 19.2% 1500 birr and above 13 17.8%

Within 5 km distance from the farm 18 24.7% 5–12 km away from the farm 7 9.6%

You have another source (other job) 41 56.2%

Part-timer <8 hours 41 56.2% Full-timer >8 hours 32 43.8%

First cycle primary (Grade 1–4) 8 10.96% Second cycle primary (Grade 5–8) 22 30.14% Secondary (Grade 9–10) 14 19.18% Preparatory and above level 4 5.48%

preparatory and above level 5.48%, while 34.25% of the participants were illiterates. Therefore, there is a considerable proportion of educated farmers in both kebeles and, the highest observations were categorized in the secondary education level. In comparison with similar studies that were previously conducted, there is a leap of improvement in the achievements of the educational sector in Ethiopia. A study done by [25] reported that only 24.3% of the sample participants completed their secondary level of education. Accordingly, the investment of the Ethiopian government in education through a sustainable increase in national expenditure and aids to the educational sector [26] is well translated in this study. Yet, more efforts are still needed to eradicate illiteracy completely, especially in the country sides.

With respect to farmers' work experience, most of the respondents 34.2% had 5–10 years of farming experience, followed by 27.4% and 21.9% of the same with 10–20 years and over 20 years of experience, in that order. Conversely, only 16.4% of the study participants had less than 5 years of experience. This clearly shows that most of the farmers in the study area had quite adequate experience which, in other studies, proved to have a significant contribution to good pesticide knowledge and

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*


*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

#### **Table 1.**

*Emerging Contaminants*

**2.6 Pilot testing**

reliability.

**3. Results and discussion**

bunch they already have.

**3.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondents**

presented in this study is in line with the finding of [23].

Tula sub-city was purposively selected as it is relatively accessible by scientists. In the second stage, the Finchawa and Tullo rural kebeles were also purposively selected because of the considerable number of farmlands available in both kebeles, the extensive usage of pesticides in their farmlands, and their strategic location around Lake Hawassa. Both rural kebeles are considered the catchment area of Lake Hawassa. In the third stage, the study applied a simple random sampling to select farmers from both rural kebeles. All participants agreed to participate in the research study by signing informed consent forms. In the fourth stage, a convenience sampling was employed to select one official from the extension office in Finchawa, one official from the extension office in Tullo, one physician from the Bushullo Health Institution and one physician from the Referral Hospital.

The farmers' representative of both Finchawa and Tullo rural Kebeles estimated the number of farmers that use pesticides in their farmland as 100 farmers distributed as follows: Finchawa 49% and Tullo 51%. The sample size was determined by using the formula of Kothari [20]; at 95% level of confidence. Accordingly, the total

The questionnaire was piloted with 20 farmers (10 participants from Finchawa and 10 participants from Tullo) who did not participate in the study. Hence, all the forwarded comments regarding the wording of sentences, vague sentences and unclear scientific ideas were amended to ensure the validity of the items. The research was also expected to be reliable on its findings. Reliability of binary items were tested using Kuder–Richardson 20. The KR-20 can be applied to any test item responses that are dichotomously scored [21]. The value of internal consistency tests suggested a good level of reliability. Further, the internal consistency of the Likert scale items, was also tested using Chronbach's alpha. Cronbach's (1951) alpha was developed based on the necessity to evaluate items scored in multiple answer categories [21]. The value of internal consistency tests indicated a good level of

As depicted in item 1 of **Table 1** below regarding male to female ratio, about 91.8% of the participants were males, while only 8.2% were females. The dominance of males over females in this study might be due to the nature of work as men usually are more involved in pesticide handling than women [22]. The sex ratio

Regarding the age of the respondents, about 50.7% had their ages between 36–45 years, while 20.5% and 16.4% were within the range of 46–55 and 25–35, respectively. The average age of the farmers was 44.42 years. The obvious decrease in the proportion of farmers on the both sides of the age spectrum might be due to youths' lack of interest in farming, in addition to their tendency to shift to urban areas for better employment and higher income [24]. The decrease may also be due to the health deterioration of aged farmers, as this limits their abilities to put up with more physical-consuming tasks that might add more health burdens to the

Concerning the education status of the participants, the majority 65.75% had a formal education, mainly primary education 10.96%, secondary education 49.32%,

sample including 10% of the contingency is 73.

**96**

*Demographic characteristics of sample respondents (N = 73).*

preparatory and above level 5.48%, while 34.25% of the participants were illiterates. Therefore, there is a considerable proportion of educated farmers in both kebeles and, the highest observations were categorized in the secondary education level. In comparison with similar studies that were previously conducted, there is a leap of improvement in the achievements of the educational sector in Ethiopia. A study done by [25] reported that only 24.3% of the sample participants completed their secondary level of education. Accordingly, the investment of the Ethiopian government in education through a sustainable increase in national expenditure and aids to the educational sector [26] is well translated in this study. Yet, more efforts are still needed to eradicate illiteracy completely, especially in the country sides.

With respect to farmers' work experience, most of the respondents 34.2% had 5–10 years of farming experience, followed by 27.4% and 21.9% of the same with 10–20 years and over 20 years of experience, in that order. Conversely, only 16.4% of the study participants had less than 5 years of experience. This clearly shows that most of the farmers in the study area had quite adequate experience which, in other studies, proved to have a significant contribution to good pesticide knowledge and safe practices [23, 27].

#### *Emerging Contaminants*

Majority of the respondents 63% earned less than 1000 Ethiopian birr, followed by 19.2% who earned 1001–1500 birr, while 17.8% of the respondents were found to earn 1500 birr and above. The low monthly income was also reflected by the study of [16] in Ethiopia.

About 65.8% of the respondents reported to be living on the farm, while 24.7% of the same replied that they are living within 5 km distance from the farm. On the contrary, 9.6% of the participants were living 5–12 km away from the farm. However, residing in or close to agricultural lands might increase the potential risk of pesticide exposure on farmers and their families through non-occupational pathways via spray drift and volatilization of pesticides beyond the treated area [28].

Majority 56.2% of the sample farmer respondents indicated that they have additional sources of income other than farming, while 43.8% of the same mentioned that farming is their only source of income.

Concerning the working hours per day, the majority of the respondents 56.2% indicated that they work as part-timers and they spend less than 8 hours per day on the farm, while 43.8% of the participants made known that they work as full-timers and they spend more than 8 hours on the farm. The low income of the majority of the respondents justifies the steep decrease in the proportion of youth in farming lands found in this study, and shows the modern-day slavery lifestyle which is portrayed in cheap wages beside the long working hours.

Accordingly, the socio-economic profile of the participants in both kebeles in this study indicated a kind of harsh lifestyle that swings in a range of difficult circumstances, including poverty, modern life slavery and illiteracy.

#### **3.2 Farmers' knowledge regarding pesticides handling and toxicity**

Participants were presented with eight questions that they could answer either "Yes or No″. For the purpose of analysis, data was coded as (Yes = 1 and No = 0). The result showed that the total sum of the knowledge score was 288 with the mean and SD of knowledge score of 3.95 ± 1.07. The range of the knowledge score was 0 to 8 where: <4 = poor knowledge while ≥4 = good knowledge [23].

The sample farmer respondents were asked whether pesticides make people feel sick or not. Accordingly, the majority 56.2% of the farmers had a lack of awareness about pesticide use posing some potential risk to human health, while 43.8% of the respondents perceived that pesticides make people feel ill or sick. Similarly, the lack of awareness regarding the adverse health effects of highly toxic pesticides among farmers in the study area was also assured by the emergency physician in the Referral Hospital, who indicated during the interview that farmers would not store highly toxic pesticide in their homes if they were well aware about pesticide's fate in the environment and the negative health effects that pesticides might pose on humans. This finding is in line with the study of [29] which reported that 71% of the farmers had limited knowledge about pesticides posing a health problem in their community.

When inquired as to whether water gets polluted from pesticide runoff or not, about 35.61% of the respondents believed that the pesticides could pollute the aquatic environment, while the majority 64.39% of the respondents did not consider that the pesticide may affect the water bodies. The limited knowledge of farmers about the end fate of pesticides in the environment justifies the finding of [30] regarding the high concentration of DDT found in the *Barbus intermedius* fish, which represents the highest trophic level of the food chain in Lake Hawassa. However, the majority 67.12% of the farmers reported that contaminated water makes people sick or ill. This finding is in line with a previous study reported by [29] which stated that 91% of the farmers knew that water might get polluted

**99**

**Table 2.**

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity...*

from pesticide runoff, and people can get sick from water contaminated by

In item 4 of **Table 2**, participants were asked about the routes of which pesticides can enter their body. According to the data in **Table 2**, Inhalation 56.16%, followed by Oral 36.99%, Ocular 32.88%, and Dermal 12.76%. Conversely, considerable fraction 42.47% of the respondents did not know about the exposure route by which the pesticide could enter the body. However, despite the fact that dermal absorption is the main exposure route for pesticide appliers [31], it was the least route reported by respondents 24.66%. This rationalizes the high proportion of participants who reported to clean the contaminated area of skin after finishing their shift, rather than cleaning it immediately. The depiction of this action is illustrated in **Figure 1**. Moreover, this study noted that the majority of farmers were aware of the important entry routes of pesticide exposure, including inhalation and ingestion. These findings are in line with similar studies carried out by [32, 33]. Regarding farmers' knowledge of the effect of pesticides on food quality and quantity, about 71.2% of the respondents replied that pesticide application affects

**Items Category Freq. %** Do pesticides make people feel ill or sick? No 41 56.2%

Does the water get polluted from pesticide runoff? No 47 64.39%

Does contaminated water make people sick? No 24 32.9%

Will the food be of the same quality without using pesticides? No 52 71.2%

Do you know about biological and natural control? No 18 24.66%

Knowledge status Poor 24 32.12%

Routes of which pesticides can enter your body? [Multiple

Can a farmer obtain the same yields without pesticides?

Would people get sick if they entered the farm after a few

*Farmers' knowledge of pesticide handling and toxicity (n = 73).*

responses possible]

(Quantity)

hours of spraying (2–3 hours)

What kind of pesticides do you use? [Multiple responses possible]

Yes 32 43.8%

Yes 26 35.61%

Yes 49 67.1%

Skin 18 24.66% inhalation 41 56.16% oral 27 36.99% Eye 24 32.88% Do not know 31 42.47%

Yes 21 28.8%

No 31 42.5% Yes 42 57.5%

No 52 71.2% Yes 21 28.8%

Yes 55 75.34%

Insecticide 43 58.90% Herbicide 57 78.08% Fungicide 14 19.18% Rodenticides 3 4.11%

Good 49 67.12%

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

pesticide runoff.

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

from pesticide runoff, and people can get sick from water contaminated by pesticide runoff.

In item 4 of **Table 2**, participants were asked about the routes of which pesticides can enter their body. According to the data in **Table 2**, Inhalation 56.16%, followed by Oral 36.99%, Ocular 32.88%, and Dermal 12.76%. Conversely, considerable fraction 42.47% of the respondents did not know about the exposure route by which the pesticide could enter the body. However, despite the fact that dermal absorption is the main exposure route for pesticide appliers [31], it was the least route reported by respondents 24.66%. This rationalizes the high proportion of participants who reported to clean the contaminated area of skin after finishing their shift, rather than cleaning it immediately. The depiction of this action is illustrated in **Figure 1**. Moreover, this study noted that the majority of farmers were aware of the important entry routes of pesticide exposure, including inhalation and ingestion. These findings are in line with similar studies carried out by [32, 33].

Regarding farmers' knowledge of the effect of pesticides on food quality and quantity, about 71.2% of the respondents replied that pesticide application affects


#### **Table 2.**

*Farmers' knowledge of pesticide handling and toxicity (n = 73).*

*Emerging Contaminants*

of [16] in Ethiopia.

that farming is their only source of income.

portrayed in cheap wages beside the long working hours.

circumstances, including poverty, modern life slavery and illiteracy.

**3.2 Farmers' knowledge regarding pesticides handling and toxicity**

where: <4 = poor knowledge while ≥4 = good knowledge [23].

Majority of the respondents 63% earned less than 1000 Ethiopian birr, followed by 19.2% who earned 1001–1500 birr, while 17.8% of the respondents were found to earn 1500 birr and above. The low monthly income was also reflected by the study

About 65.8% of the respondents reported to be living on the farm, while 24.7% of the same replied that they are living within 5 km distance from the farm. On the contrary, 9.6% of the participants were living 5–12 km away from the farm. However, residing in or close to agricultural lands might increase the potential risk of pesticide exposure on farmers and their families through non-occupational pathways via spray drift and volatilization of pesticides beyond the treated area [28]. Majority 56.2% of the sample farmer respondents indicated that they have additional sources of income other than farming, while 43.8% of the same mentioned

Concerning the working hours per day, the majority of the respondents 56.2% indicated that they work as part-timers and they spend less than 8 hours per day on the farm, while 43.8% of the participants made known that they work as full-timers and they spend more than 8 hours on the farm. The low income of the majority of the respondents justifies the steep decrease in the proportion of youth in farming lands found in this study, and shows the modern-day slavery lifestyle which is

Accordingly, the socio-economic profile of the participants in both kebeles in this study indicated a kind of harsh lifestyle that swings in a range of difficult

Participants were presented with eight questions that they could answer either "Yes or No″. For the purpose of analysis, data was coded as (Yes = 1 and No = 0). The result showed that the total sum of the knowledge score was 288 with the mean and SD of knowledge score of 3.95 ± 1.07. The range of the knowledge score was 0 to 8

The sample farmer respondents were asked whether pesticides make people feel sick or not. Accordingly, the majority 56.2% of the farmers had a lack of awareness about pesticide use posing some potential risk to human health, while 43.8% of the respondents perceived that pesticides make people feel ill or sick. Similarly, the lack of awareness regarding the adverse health effects of highly toxic pesticides among farmers in the study area was also assured by the emergency physician in the Referral Hospital, who indicated during the interview that farmers would not store highly toxic pesticide in their homes if they were well aware about pesticide's fate in the environment and the negative health effects that pesticides might pose on humans. This finding is in line with the study of [29] which reported that 71% of the farmers had limited knowledge about pesticides posing a health problem in

When inquired as to whether water gets polluted from pesticide runoff or not, about 35.61% of the respondents believed that the pesticides could pollute the aquatic environment, while the majority 64.39% of the respondents did not consider that the pesticide may affect the water bodies. The limited knowledge of farmers about the end fate of pesticides in the environment justifies the finding of [30] regarding the high concentration of DDT found in the *Barbus intermedius* fish, which represents the highest trophic level of the food chain in Lake Hawassa. However, the majority 67.12% of the farmers reported that contaminated water makes people sick or ill. This finding is in line with a previous study reported by [29] which stated that 91% of the farmers knew that water might get polluted

**98**

their community.

**Figure 1.**

*Actions farmers usually take when their skin gets in contact with pesticides.*

food quality. In contrast, 28.8% of the study participants disagreed with the stated statement. However, studies proved that pesticide application brings a primary benefit of better quality on crops, and this quality brings a benefit that outweighs the potential risk of human's exposure to very low residues of pesticides, especially in a diet containing fresh fruits and vegetables [3].

Regarding the effect of pesticides on crop quantity, about 42.5% of the farmers indicated that pesticides application is essential for high crop yield and productivity, while the majority 57.5% contradicted the correlation between pesticide application and crop quantity.

Farmers' tendency to rely on pesticides application to speed up the eradication of pest infestation is evident in this study. This reflects the high influence of the government on their officials perception, as the Ethiopian government extension program encourages the use of pesticides in agriculture and supports the widelyaccepted perception that there is no other alternatives to pesticides [13].

Concerning whether people get sick if they entered the farm after a few hours of spraying (2–3 hours) or not, about 28.8% of the respondents perceived that pesticides make people feel ill or sick if they entered the farm after a few hours of spraying (2–3 hours), while 71.2% of the respondents did not relate any significant health effect to the exposure of pesticides. Farmers who re-enter treated fields soon after pesticide application might be in serious risk of exposure, especially when safety measures are poorly adopted [4].

Participants were also asked whether they know about biological and natural control or not. Majority 75.34% of the farmers indicated that they know about biological and natural control of pesticides, while only 24.66% of the participants did not know about natural pest control. In similar vein, officials in the agricultural extension office mentioned during the interview that farmers had used tobacco leaves as pest repellant and added healthy soil to the infested one when they are confronted with a shortage of pesticide availability. The aforementioned findings concerning farmers' knowledge about biological and natural control correlate with similar statements made by their authorities.

Insecticides 58.90% and herbicides 78.08% are the most common types of pesticides utilized in this study, while fungicides 19.18% and rodenticides 4.11% were the least pesticides used. Authorities from the agricultural office also indicated that the three main pesticides used in both kebeles are endosulfan to eradicate aphids, diazinone to combat American bollworm, and flazasulfuron to control the growth of the unwanted weeds. These responses strongly suggest that farmers and local authorities are in agreement on the use of the above-mentioned agents.

Regarding the training that is regularly given for the participants in both Kebeles, the experts in the extension offices reported during the interview that:

**101**

**Table 3.**

*toxicity.*

*Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity...*

*we keep on giving them professional training and instructions regularly.'*

*'We visit farmers in their farmlands about three times per week, and in addition,* 

Despite the efforts excreted by the experts in the extension offices in both Kebeles regarding the proper communication and the regular training they give to farmers in their farmlands, there is a limited knowledge among the participants about the effects of pesticides on humans' health and the environment, in addition to the lack of awareness regarding the dermal route of exposure. Accordingly, the training given to the sample participants in the study area is in insufficient, and different strategies should be taken to improve the process of learning and further mitigate their risk of exposure.

**3.3 Factors that influence farmers' knowledge regarding pesticide handling and** 

The study also Investigated the factors that influenced farmers' good knowledge regarding pesticide handling and toxicity. Accordingly, item 2 of **Table 3** revealed that the odds of the knowledge are positively influenced by the age factor; therefore, older farmers are 1.377 times more likely to have a good knowledge regarding pesticide handling and toxicity, than those who are younger. The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant since (p = 0.002) which indicates that (p < 0.05) is within a 95% confidence interval (OR = 1.377, CI = 1.125–1.685). Therefore, acquiring domain knowledge through aging might be due to daily observations and interaction with people who are knowledgeable and very well experienced in farming work.

Age of the respondent 0.320 0.103 0.002 1.377 1.125 1.685

0.176

0.071

5–10 years 3.455 1.434 0.016 31.649 1.903 526.455 10–20 years 2.726 1.333 0.041 15.278 1.121 208.284 Above 20 years 5.015 2.059 0.015 150.681 2.666 516.792

*The multiple logistic regression analysis of factors that influence farmers' knowledge of pesticide handling and* 

Constant −18.148 5.348 0.001 0.000

**B S.E. Sig. OR 95% C.I.**

0.584 1.342 0.664 1.792 0.129 24.864

1.207 1.330 0.364 3.344 0.246 45.377

2.503 1.203 0.037 12.222 1.157 129.162

2.799 1.230 0.023 16.436 1.476 183.046

3.677 3.117 0.238 39.522 0.088 17769.305

2.549 1.241 0.040 12.799 1.124 145.789

**Lower Upper**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

**toxicity**

*Dependent variable: Good knowledge* **Independent Variables**

Gender (1 = Male), Ref. = Female

Reference = no formal

First cycle primary (Grade 1–4))

Second cycle primary (Grade 5–8)

Secondary level (Grade

Preparatory and above

Training in pesticides/ safety (1 = yes)

education

9–10)

level (11+)

Experience (Ref. = > 5 years) *Limited Knowledge and Unsafe Practices in Usage of Pesticides and The Associated Toxicity... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96093*

*'We visit farmers in their farmlands about three times per week, and in addition, we keep on giving them professional training and instructions regularly.'*

Despite the efforts excreted by the experts in the extension offices in both Kebeles regarding the proper communication and the regular training they give to farmers in their farmlands, there is a limited knowledge among the participants about the effects of pesticides on humans' health and the environment, in addition to the lack of awareness regarding the dermal route of exposure. Accordingly, the training given to the sample participants in the study area is in insufficient, and different strategies should be taken to improve the process of learning and further mitigate their risk of exposure.

#### **3.3 Factors that influence farmers' knowledge regarding pesticide handling and toxicity**

The study also Investigated the factors that influenced farmers' good knowledge regarding pesticide handling and toxicity. Accordingly, item 2 of **Table 3** revealed that the odds of the knowledge are positively influenced by the age factor; therefore, older farmers are 1.377 times more likely to have a good knowledge regarding pesticide handling and toxicity, than those who are younger. The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant since (p = 0.002) which indicates that (p < 0.05) is within a 95% confidence interval (OR = 1.377, CI = 1.125–1.685). Therefore, acquiring domain knowledge through aging might be due to daily observations and interaction with people who are knowledgeable and very well experienced in farming work.


#### **Table 3.**

*Emerging Contaminants*

tion and crop quantity.

**Figure 1.**

food quality. In contrast, 28.8% of the study participants disagreed with the stated statement. However, studies proved that pesticide application brings a primary benefit of better quality on crops, and this quality brings a benefit that outweighs the potential risk of human's exposure to very low residues of pesticides, especially

Regarding the effect of pesticides on crop quantity, about 42.5% of the farmers indicated that pesticides application is essential for high crop yield and productivity, while the majority 57.5% contradicted the correlation between pesticide applica-

Farmers' tendency to rely on pesticides application to speed up the eradication of pest infestation is evident in this study. This reflects the high influence of the government on their officials perception, as the Ethiopian government extension program encourages the use of pesticides in agriculture and supports the widely-

Concerning whether people get sick if they entered the farm after a few hours of spraying (2–3 hours) or not, about 28.8% of the respondents perceived that pesticides make people feel ill or sick if they entered the farm after a few hours of spraying (2–3 hours), while 71.2% of the respondents did not relate any significant health effect to the exposure of pesticides. Farmers who re-enter treated fields soon after pesticide application might be in serious risk of exposure, especially when

Participants were also asked whether they know about biological and natural control or not. Majority 75.34% of the farmers indicated that they know about biological and natural control of pesticides, while only 24.66% of the participants did not know about natural pest control. In similar vein, officials in the agricultural extension office mentioned during the interview that farmers had used tobacco leaves as pest repellant and added healthy soil to the infested one when they are confronted with a shortage of pesticide availability. The aforementioned findings concerning farmers' knowledge about biological and natural control correlate with

Insecticides 58.90% and herbicides 78.08% are the most common types of pesticides utilized in this study, while fungicides 19.18% and rodenticides 4.11% were the least pesticides used. Authorities from the agricultural office also indicated that the three main pesticides used in both kebeles are endosulfan to eradicate aphids, diazinone to combat American bollworm, and flazasulfuron to control the growth of the unwanted weeds. These responses strongly suggest that farmers and local

authorities are in agreement on the use of the above-mentioned agents.

Regarding the training that is regularly given for the participants in both Kebeles, the experts in the extension offices reported during the interview that:

accepted perception that there is no other alternatives to pesticides [13].

in a diet containing fresh fruits and vegetables [3].

*Actions farmers usually take when their skin gets in contact with pesticides.*

safety measures are poorly adopted [4].

similar statements made by their authorities.

**100**

*The multiple logistic regression analysis of factors that influence farmers' knowledge of pesticide handling and toxicity.*

According to item 3, **Table 3**, the odds of knowledge is also positively influenced by farmers' educational level, especially with the second cycle primary (grade 5–8) and secondary level (grade 9–10) of education. Hence, farmers who achieved second cycle primary (grade 5–8) education level are (12.222) times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity, than those who did not achieve this level of education since (p = 0.037) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within a 95% confidence interval (OR = 12.222, CI = 1.157–129.162). A similar analysis showed that farmers who attended secondary level (grade 9–10) of formal education are 16.436 times more likely to have good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who did not achieve this level of education since (p = 0.023) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within a 95% confidence interval (OR = 16.436, CI = 1.476–183.046).

Regarding farmers' access to training which is presented in item 4 of **Table 3**, the odds of knowledge status is positively influenced by the training factor since (p = 0.040) which indicates that (p < 0.05). Thus, farmers who attended field training are 12.799 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who did not take any training. The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within 95% confidence interval (OR = 12.799, CI = 1.124–145.789).

Item 5 of **Table 3** also showed that the odds of the knowledge were positively influenced by the experience factor, Accordingly, farmers who had 5–10 years of work experience are 31.64 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who had less years of work experience since (p = 0.016) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant with 95% confidence interval (OR = 31.64, CI = 1.903–526.455). In addition, farmers who had 10–20 years of work experience are 15.278 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity than those who had less years of work experience since (p = 0.041) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant with 95% confidence interval (OR = 15.278, CI = 1.121–208.284). The result also indicated that farmers who have 20 years of work experience and above are 150.681 times more likely to have a good knowledge in pesticide handling and toxicity, compared with the reference category (Ref. < 5 years) since (P = 0.015) which indicates (p < 0.05). The estimated odds ratio is statistically significant within 95% confidence interval (OR = 150.681, CI = 2.666–516.792), while gender and first cycle primary (grade 1–4) failed to be significant predictors under the given conditions.
