The apple snail website

http://www.applesnail.net

Golden Apple Snail Pomacea spp. in

the Philippines1
A. G. Cagauana/ and R. C. Joshib/
a/

Freshwater Aquaculture Center, Central Luzon State University,

Science City of Muoz, Nueva Ecija 3120, Philippines
E-mail: p-fishgn@mozcom.com
Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya,
Science City of Muoz, Nueva Ecija 3119, Philippines
E-mail: joshiraviph@yahoo.com;joshiravi@hotmail.com
b/

1 Presented at the 7th ICMAM Special Working Group on Golden Apple Snail, 22 October, 2002.

Introduction
The golden apple snail (GAS), Pomacea spp. is a freshwater gastropod native to South America. This
snail had three routes of introduction into Philippines, namely: from Taiwan to Lemery, Batangas in 1982;
from Florida, U.S.A. to Makati, Metro Manila in 1983; and from Argentina to Asturias, Cebu in 1984
(Mochida, 1987). Private entrepreneurs and government agencies introduced GAS (also referred to as
Golden Kuhol) in the Philippines as a means of livelihood and to enrich the protein source in the human
diet (Mochida, 1987; Madamba and Camaya, 1987; Rejesus et al. 1988). However, a few years after its
introduction, GAS became an aquaculture species in confined environment. Eventually, GAS became
feral when it escaped to creeks, rivers, streams, irrigation systems and rice fields. It is now considered a
major pest in all rice ecosystems of the Philippines including UNESCO Ifugao Rice Terraces (Dancel and
Joshi, 2000; Joshi et al, 2000; Joshi et al, 2001). Besides being a serious rice pest, GAS has been
implicated in the drastic decline of edible native apple snail (NAS), Pila conica (Gray) [often erroneously
quoted as Pila luzonica Reeve] in the Philippine rice fields and natural waterways (Acosta & Pullian, 1991;

Halwart, 1994; Joshi, R. C. unpublished data & personal observations). GAS infestation poses several
problems in rice farming systems. They damage young rice seedlings, causes poor crop stand, yield
losses, additional expenses, and lethal effects of synthetic commercial molluscicides including the
unaccounted environmental costs where bodies of water are the main recipients of the runoff of various
formulations of nonspecific molluscicides (Dancel and Joshi, 2000). Filipino farmers became aware of
GAS as pest of rice in 1986, when it was first reported damaging 300 ha of rice crops in Region 2 (Manila
Bulletin, August 25, 1988). Six years after its introduction in the Philippines, GAS invaded about 3.6% of
the total area planted to rice (Rejesus et al., 1988).
Reports on GAS were numerous from 1988 to 1990 and surprisingly declined after that year based from
compilation of references found in Cariaso et al., (1993), Acosta and Pullin (1991) and Cagauan and
Joshi (2001). The workshop on the Management of Golden Snail in the Philippines by the Rice IPM
Network and supported by the Swiss Development Corporation was held at PhilRice, in 1991. This
workshop report contains significant information such as GAS infestation levels in the different regions of
the Philippines from 1987 to 1990, perceptions of rice farmers about GAS as a pest, and GAS
management practices. Since then updated review on GAS in the Philippines does not exist. Our paper
will attempt to review information from the past, more than a decade since the introduction of GAS in the
Philippines, particularly new researches that evolved in the recent years, on level of infestation, food
preferences, control methods and utilization of GAS.

How many Pomacea species are in the Philippines?

Records suggest that there are more than one species of Pomacea present in the Philippines (Table 1).
GAS specimens from rice fields of Central Luzon State University (CLSU) sent to the Department of
Malacology, Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, U. S. A. were identified as Pomacea insularis.
Likewise, FAO and the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau-International Institute of Biological Control
(CAB-IIBC) identified the GAS asPomacea insularis (Acosta and Pullin, 1991). Based on the
morphological characteristics, GAS was identified as Pomacea canaliculata at the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) (Saxena et al., 1987). According to Mochida (1987), P. canaliculata was
introduced to Batangas from Taiwan in 1982. P. gigas from Florida were introduced to Makati Metro
Manila in 1983. Another Pomacea species was directly introduced from Argentina to Cebu in 1984. Pila
leopordivillensis, an African snail, was introduced from Taiwan. Pomacea cuprina is also found in the
Philippines (Mochida, 1987). Most of the published reports refer GAS in the Philippines to as P.
canaliculata.

Level of infestation
Most of the available information on the GAS infestation levels in the Philippines was until 1990. After six
years of GAS introduction into the country, was its peak infestation. In 1988, surveillance efforts of
different government agencies estimated its infestation in over 400,000 ha of rice farms (Rice IPM
Network, PhilRice, 1991). After 1988, reports of area infested by GAS varied. In 1989 to 1990, PhilRice

reported GAS infested rice farms per year were about 200,000 ha (Rice IPM Network, 1991). By 1999, it
infested over 800,000 ha (Schnorbach, 1995). Estimated rice yield losses due to GAS infestation from
1985 to 1991 in the Philippines increased along with expanding infestation (Figure 1). In 1990, all thirteen
regions of the Philippines reported GAS infestation (Rice IPM Network. 1991) and after that no additional
new information on its infestation existed. The 1999 survey made by PhilRice indicated that about 35% of
71 provinces in various regions of the Philippines identified GAS as pest in rice farms (Provincial Rice
Profiles, DA-PhilRice, 2000) but failed to provide data on GAS infested areas. Areas devoted to rice in the
Philippines totals to 2,733,292 ha; 57% of which is irrigated, 37% rainfed and 6% upland (Figure 2).
There are claims that GAS infestation seemed to decrease because of control efforts involving the use of
chemicals and other integrated management approaches. In addition, guidelines on the management of
GAS and other rice pests are being taught to extension workers as well as farmers in relation to integrated
pest management (IPM) program of the Department of Agriculture. There was an FAO-DA strategic
extension campaign in 1990 for GAS in the Philippines (Adhikarya 1994; Escalada, 1991; Escalada and
Heong, 1993). However, farmers still considered molluscicides like insecticides and herbicides---as one of
the major agricultural inputs that they purchased (Tanzo et al 2000).
GAS infestation in the country brought about an increase in the use of molluscicides, thus, an increase in
importation (Table 2). From 1984 to 1987, volume of molluscicides importation was less than 10 kg ha-1
and rose to 64 kg ha-1 in 1988 (FPA in Dancel and Joshi, 2000). In 1996, there was a remarkable
increase of molluscicide importation to 130,000 kg ha-1 and almost doubled (241,683 kg ha-1 in 1997).
Surprisingly, FPA record showed a remarkable decrease in 1998 to 67,340 kg ha-1, which is possibly
attributed to the economic condition of the country during that year. The amount spent from 1980-1998 for
molluscicides alone amounted to US$ 23 M. These statistics fails to partition how much molluscicide was
used for the control of GAS, snails in brackishwater ponds, vector-snails against schistosomiasis and
terrestrial snails.

Control Methods
Several control methods exists which are grouped as chemical, botanical, biological, cultural, mechanical,
and manual. The PhilRice survey indicated that handpicking is widely practiced by farmers followed by
chemicals and use of older seedlings (Rice IPM Network, 1991). Farmers observed that to control GAS,
no single tactic was sufficient, but a combination of control methods was the best approach.
A.Agrochemicals
The quick knockdown effect of the pesticides on GAS that are directly hit makes this method popular
among the farmers (Alba et al, 1993; Palis et al, 1993; DelaCruz et al, 2000; DelaCruz and Joshi, 2001).
The efficacy of commercial molluscicides only lasted for 2-3 days against GAS, but unfortunately such
compounds were more lethal to non-destructive native snail species, Vivipara costata (Quoy and
Gaimard) (DelaCruz et al, 2000). The important side effect of increased pesticide usage is its negative
impact on IPM strategy emphasizing use of cultural, biological, mechanical control measures and minimal
use of pesticides. IPM is successfully being promoted in Asian rice production by the FAO Global IPM
facility. Unfortunately farmers did not consider health or environmental effects in the choice of pesticides.
Triphenyltin compounds (e.g. Brestan, Aquatin, Torque, Telustan) were the first group of pesticide used by

farmers to kill GAS (Table 3). This practice stemmed from the use of the same compounds to kill the snail
(Cerithide angulata) in milkfish ponds. Snail infestation greatly affects milkfish pond production because
they compete with milkfish for algal food (Borlongan and Coloso, 1996). These compounds have been
banned in September 1993 (FPA Board Resolution No. 1) (Lacierda et al., 2000) because of their adverse
effects on human health (Adalla and Rejesus, 1989) and the environment (Acosta and Pullin, 1991).
Endosulfan, an organochlorine, registered as insecticide and proven very effective to control GAS, is also
banned by FPA. Table 3 shows other pesticides banned by the FPA.
Presently, there are four registered chemicals as molluscicide in the list of FPA, namely: niclosamide,
metaldehyde, izazophos and copper hydrosulfate (Table 4). Farmers perceive that the most effective
molluscicide available in the market today is niclosamide and metaldehyde. Niclosamide is effective
against GAS but relatively non-toxic to humans (Amin, 1983). Niclosamide is also recommended by the
Philippines Department of Health for schistosomiasis vector control (Palis et al., 1996). The effect of
niclosamide on non-target organisms such as fish have been studied by Calumpang (1994) and
Calumpang (et al., 1995) in relation to integrated rice-fish farming system. The researchers found that
niclosamide at the rate of 0.250-0.0375 kg active ingredients (a.i.) ha-1 was toxic to carp causing 100%
mortality at the time of application and 20-30% mortality in Nile tilapia. Residues of niclosamide in Nile
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), ten pounder (Elops hawaiiensis) and goby (Amblygobius phalaena) were
detected, but below the acceptable daily intake level of 3 mg kg-1 body weight. There were no residues
found in milkfish (Chanos chanos) and tarpon (Megalops cyprinoides). Calumpang (1994) found that the
niclosamide residue retention in fish depends on the method of processing. In cooked Nile tilapia,
niclosamide residues amounted to 0.67 mg/kg and 0.60 mg/kg in the broth compared to 0.46 mg/kg in the
uncooked fish. Washed fish had a remarkable decrease in niclosamide residues amounting to 0.46 mg/kg
compared to 2.13 mg/kg in the unwashed fish. Recently, ovicidal properties of niclosamide to GAS eggs
were discovered (Joshi et al 2002, in press).
Metaldehyde is relatively non-toxic to fish but effective against GAS and the brackishwater snail
Cerithidea angulata. Borlongan and Coloso (1996) found that metaldehyde had no detrimental effect to
milkfish. Metaldehyde is toxic on the GAS nervous system and possesses anaesthetic properties (Mills et
al., 1989).
A number of alternative chemicals have been tested against GAS and most of them are insecticides and
some are fungicides (Table 5). Farmers practice showed that whatever available insecticides they could
have, they also tried against GAS. Cagauan et al. (1993) demonstrated that combination product
(insecticides having two groups of a.i.) (e.g. monocrotophos+cypermethrin, chlorpyrifos+Cypermethrin,
and chlorpyrifos+BPMC), were more toxic to GAS than those insecticides that had only one group of a.i.
(e.g. BPMC, monocrotophos and cypermethrin except endosulfan) based on the 96-hr LC50 of formulated
product (F.P.) (Table 6). Endosulfan was extremely toxic (<1 mg/l 96-hr LC50 of FP) similar to the
metaldehyde molluscicide. Niclosamide was highly toxic to GAS, while the botanical tannin-glycosidesterol was moderately toxic.
B. Botanicals
The only commercial botanical molluscicide registered for use against GAS by the FPA is tanninglycoside-sterol-flavanoid (Protek?). Protek was developed from natural toxins with specific properties

against Pomacea spp., low mammalian toxicity and high biodegradability because of low toxicity
(Cyanamid Pro Green).
Table 7 lists 16 plants tested against GAS, of which some have been tested in different forms. Some of
these plants were Azadirachta indica, Calotrophis gigantean, Citris mitis, Conyza balsamifera, Croton
tiglium, Derris elliptica (philippinenses), Dioscorea hispida, Entada phaseoloides, Glericidia sepium,
Jatropha curcas, Menispermum cocculus, Mikania cordata and Nicotiana tabacum. Botanical
molluscicides are believed to be more environment-friendly compared to synthetic chemicals because
they are easily biodegradable and leave no residues in the environment. Derris plant in the Philippines
(Derris elliptica (philippinensis)) is a rich source of rotenone, which is effective against GAS but toxic to
fishes. In the U.S., rotenone is one of two registered fish toxicant/piscicide under the Environmental
Protection Agency (Federal Joint Subcommittee on Aqua. 1994). Derris plants in the Philippines have a
potential botanical that can be explored as a source of rotenone for use against GAS.
C. Biological control
Biological predators of GAS are ducks, fish, birds, fire ants, spiders, rats, mites, snakes and other reptiles.
Fire ant predation on GAS eggs was well quantified in field studies by Way et al (1998) and Yusa (2001).
Recently Joshi et al (2001) reported long horned grasshopper as predator of golden apple snail
eggmasses based on field and greenhouse evaluations. Predation by ducks and fishes are the most
studied because they have economic values in the farming system aside and important roles in the
environment. The use of ducks and fish as biological control agents against GAS should be viewed in the
context of the total farming systems.
Ducks have been reported to control rice pests like weeds and insects (Furuno, 2000; Manda, 1992), GAS
(Rosales and Sagun, 1997; Vega, 1991; Pantua et al., 1992; Cagauan et al., 2000) (Table 8). Ducks are
effective biological control for GAS. Rosales and Sagun (1997) noted a decrease in the GAS abundance
from 4.6 snails m-2 in the first year of cropping to 0.8-1.6 snails m-2 in the second year as a result of
continuous duck herding in the rice fields after rice harvest. Using 900 ducks ha-1, Vega (1991) observed
a 74-84% decrease of GAS in rice fields, hence, less rice missing hills. Pantua et al. (1992) observed also
a significant GAS reduction consequently rice damage using 200 ducks ha-1.
In 1996, an FAO project at CLSU obtained a significant GAS density reduction from 8-17 snails m-2
before herding down to 1-2 snails m-2 after duck herding for a period of at least 30 days using 400 ducks
ha-1 (Cagauan, 1999). Ducks were found to decrease the abundance of GAS with <4 cm shell height, the
dominant size of GAS considered a threat to newly transplanted rice depending on its density. The duck
herding employed before rice transplanting was a better control measure against GAS than the herding
done for a period of 14-19 days at one month after rice transplanting. Duck control was more effective
against the GAS than the chemical molluscicide. The molluscicide become ineffective either because of
poor drainage in the plots or when GAS are still buried in the soil or GAS avoid exposure to molluscicide
by simply crawling out of treated water on clay clumps or emergent vegetation (Van Dinther, 1973;
DelaCruz and Joshi, 2001).
The adoption of ducks as biocontrol for GAS will depend on the availability of itinerant duck herders or on
the farmers financial capability to own ducks (Cagauan, 1999). In the Philippines, it is common practice to

herd ducks after rice harvest from one field to another depending on food availability but few farmers own
ducks due to their high cost. Another reason for some farmers rejection of this practice is because it
causes itchiness to farm workers.
Fish has been suggested as biological control for snails (Morallo-Rejesus et al., 1990; Rondon and
Sumangil, 1991) but very little quantified research exists (Slootweg et al., 1993; Slootweg et al., 1994;
Halwart, 1994; Nguyen Quang Dieu et al., 1998; Cagauan, 1999). Several laboratory and field
researchers on the use of freshwater fishes with edible and economic value to control snail are found in
Table 9. Very few researches exist on the assessment of fish on GAS in the Philippines such as in
ricefields (Halwart, 1994; Cagauan, 1999) and in plots with rice in screenhouse (Cagauan and Joshi,
2002) and in Vietnam (Nguyen Quang Dieu et al., 1998). Some of the potential fish predators found in the
Philippines are common carp Cyprinus carpio and red-bellied pacu Piaractus brachypomus. Commonly,
carp is widely distributed in Asia and it is one of the recommended fish species for culture in integrated
rice-fish culture. Red-bellied pacu is presently an aquarium fish species but it is a food fish in South
America where it is indigenous. Cagauan and Joshi (2002) found both fishes (Table 10) to predate on
GAS but it depends on their mouth size, as a function of body size, that is suitable to the size of GAS.
However, large sized of pacu (42-49 g) and densities 2-3 fish m-2 caused damage (i.e. 2-3 hills plot-1) to
20-day old rice plants from transplanting. The damage caused by this fish mimics that of the damage
caused by rats. Pacu with size: <10 g with densities 1-3 fish m-2 did not damage the rice plants. Asian
catfish Clarias macrocephalus was not found to predate on GAS.
The effectivity of fish as biological control of GAS would depend on their feeding habit, size, density,
culture system and duration of culture. A developed pharyngeal jaw apparatus have the capability to crush
the shells of GAS. For short culture period such as in rice-fish culture with high yielding rice varieties,
initial fish size and density are important in order to have an impact on GAS (Cagauan, 1999). Cagauan
suggested that a polyculture system of fish species with different feeding habits may be better than the
monoculture system in terms of GAS control because such system can put some pressures on the food
availability of GAS. Vietnamese observed that there is a significant reduction of GAS in integrated rice-fish
farms employed primarily with polyculture of common carp, black carp and catfish (FAO, 1998).
Caution must be taken on the use of fish, which are not native to ones country in order to avoid threat to
indigenous species. In the U.S., black carp, a molluscivorous fish, was introduced as a biological control
for the parasite in trout. However, it was found later on that native populations of freshwater molluscs were
diminishing due to the black carp. Presently, black carp is banned in the U.S.
D. Cultural and Manual
Some of the cultural methods employed by farmers are the use of metal screens, older seedlings, using
higher seedling density per area, handpicking and intermittent draining of fields. Hand picking is the most
widely practiced method followed by chemicals and the use of older seedlings (Rice IPM Network, 1991).
Providing alternative feeds for the GAS and at the same time to serve as attractant such as leaves of
papaya, kangkong, sweet potato, cassava, taro and other succulent plants during the first five days after
transplanting can reduce damage to rice seedlings by 75% (Guzman and Enriquez, 1991). However, this
measure does not reduce the GAS population unless they are collected and destroyed. Joshi and

DelaCruz (2001) identified newspaper as a new attractant for GAS management. It can be used in rice
fields prior to crop establishment (direct seeding / transplanted) to attract GAS and thus facilitate easy and
rapid GAS collection manually.
Plant preferences of GAS can be explored as an alternative feed or plant attractant to divert away the
GAS from feeding the rice seedlings or these plants may be used to collect the snails to facilitate hand
picking. Basilio and Litsinger (1988) found 9 plants that are preferred by GAS (Table 11). Azolla
filiculoides was the most preferred by GAS compared with other species, possibly due to the adaptation of
GAS to that particular azolla species before the test (Cagauan and Van Hove. 1995). DelaCruz et al
(2002) found that GAS has preferences for different rice varieties. They found more damage in IR64 and
PSBRc82 than other varieties like PSBRc40, PSBRc36, PSBRc38, and PSBRc68.

E. Integrated control
Farmers observed that to control the GAS, no single tactic is superior that a combination of control
methods is the best approach. Overall, the existing control measures such as the use of chemicals,
handpicking, ducks, draining and screens were considered by farmers as effective, although each control
has some constraints (Rice IPM Network, 1991). Figure 3 shows an integrated management scheme for
the GAS pooled from different farmers practices and strategies and expert advice and the management
options to undertake a different stages of the rice crop.

Utilization of GAS
GAS can be used as human food and animal feed. As feed, it could possibly replace meat meal or
fishmeal in animal diet. The nutrient composition of GAS in different forms: meal (cooked), meat
(uncooked), meat meal and shell meal is shown in Table 12. The protein content of 62.5% is comparable
to the CP value of Peruvian fish meal (61.2%) but a little bit lower than and the meat meal (66%)
(Gerpacio and Castillo, 1979). GAS is also a good source of mineral as indicated by the contents of
calcium (35%) and phosphorous (1.22%) and high source of energy (3,336 kcal kg-1). We have compiled
results of feeding trials using GAS in its different forms (Table 13). Uncooked but fresh GAS meal in swine
diets can be used up to 15% (Catalma et al., 1991) while up to 10% in the diet of native chicks (Catalma
et al., 1991).
GAS in ricefields is good food for mallard ducks. Actually, it is a common practice by duck farmers to herd
their flocks in the fields after rice harvest, in this way they can economize on feeds. Duck herding and with
little feed supplementation during confinement can yield up to 60-70% egg production (Tacio, 1987). In
integrated rice-fish-duck-azolla farming system, duck laying percentage was at an average of 60%
(Cagauan, 2000). Ducks in the system were herded in the ricefield after rice harvest where they ate GAS,
fallen rice grains, insects and azolla. During confinement just after the rice booting stage, ducks were fed
with commercial duck layer pellet.
Feeding trials on Nile tilapia in aquaria showed that GAS meat meal at 75-100% of the diet mixed with
rice bran is beneficial (Cagauan and Doria, 1989). In cage culture of Nile tilapia, fish grown in snail-meal
based diet was superior to that obtained with fish fed with fishmeal based diet (Reazo, 1988). For

freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) larvae, 60% GAS meat meal in dried form mixed with rice
bran, shrimp meal and fish meal gave good growth (Lansangan, et al., 2002).
As food for humans, GAS can be cooked with coconut milk, pickled as an appetizer, and made into
kropeck. One of the major obstacles to their popularization is their short shelf life. PhilRice researchers
in partnership with a rice farmer developed a new recipe chicharon (cracker) from GAS. This recipe is
unique compared with other GAS recipes, in that it is devoid of water, has no offensive odor, with longer
shelf life, and can be readily used as ingredient in other recipes (DelaCruz and Joshi, 2001). The
Department of Agriculture-Cordillera Administrative Region (DA-CAR) is currently promoted this recipe in
the FFS and farmers field days in the highlands of Cordilleras. In a related activity, a PCARRD study at
CLSU showed that endosulfan (an organochlorine insecticide) could accumulate in the tissues of GAS
and may get biomagnified when taken by humans (PCARRD Monitor, 2000). This insecticide has been
banned for use in the rice fields of the Philippines for several years now.

Future Research Directions on GAS Research and Extension

Molecular mapping should be done to clarify the Pomacea species complex. This should be the first step
before conducting detailed ecological and management studies on GAS.
The Department of Agriculture and related agencies should develop easily accessible information
database and map out the distribution of Pomacea spp. complex, their infestation levels as well as other
rice pests in the country at the regional, provincial and village levels.
Search for chemical rice seed coating should be explored to identify chemicals that will either
inhibit/repel/or change the behavior of GAS in direct-seeded rice culture. The aim of this strategy is not to
kill the GAS directly but to reduce GAS feeding to newly sprouted rice.
In case of hybrid rice planted as transplanted culture, GAS management should encourage GAS to feed
on weeds rather than rice plants. This can be done by manipulation of certain cultural practices.
More basic research is needed in the following areas:
- Identify biopesticides (botanicals) that may have ovicidal action on GAS eggmasses.
- Basic population ecology of GAS and the NAS.
- Continue the search and evaluation of potential biocontrol agents against GAS.
Farmers and extension workers in the Philippines need to be exposed to new information sources on GAS
management. This is of paramount importance as the proportion of wet-rice area infested with GAS is
increasing (DA-FAO, 1989), and GAS continues to threaten the promotion of hybrid rice and direct-seeded
rice cultures. Therefore there is a need to develop environment-friendly GAS management options for the
above two rice cultures since all of the management strategies utilized in transplanted rice are not suitable
for hybrid and direct-seeded rice systems.

References

Acosta, B. O. and R. S. V. Pullin (eds.).1991. Environmental Impact of the Golden Snail

(Pomacea sp.) on Rice Farming Systems in the Philippines: Summary Report of the Workshop
held at the Freshwater Aquaculture Center, Central Luzon State University, Muoz, Nueva Ecija,
Philippines, 9-10 November 1989, ICLARM Conf. Proc. 28, Manila, Philippines. 34 pp.

Adhikarya, R. 1994. Strategic extension campaign: A participatory-oriented method of agriculture

extension. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Agaceta, L. M., P. U. Dumag, J. A. Batolos, N. B. Ascandor and F. C. Bandiola. 1981. Study on

the control of vectors of Fascioliasis; molluscicidal activity of some indigenous plants. Philipp. J.
Anim. Indus. 36 (1-4):101-111.

Agarrado, M. T. S. 2000. Beware of golden snails in rice fields. PCARRD Monitor 28(1):10.

Alba, M. C. E. Vertosio, F. V. Palis and R. F. Macatula. 1993. The effect of botanical and chemical
pesticides against golden apple snail (Pomacea sp.) in rice. 24. Pest. Mgt. Council of the
Philippines, Cebu City, Philippines. 4-7 May 1993.

Amin, A. 1983. Control of snail intermediate hosts of schistomiasis. p. 318 - 326. In: A. Youdeowei
and M. W. Service (eds.). Pests and vector management in the tropics with particular reference to
insects, ticks, mites and snails. Longman Group Ltd. 398 pp.

Ancheta, D. A. 1990. Preliminary study on crushed fresh golden snail (Pomacea spp.) as feed
supplement for laying hens. Undergraduate Thesis. Central Luzon State University, Philippines.
(unpublished)

Anonymous. 1998. Fishfarming in Vietnamese rice fields fights golden apple snail pest. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available: http://www.fao.org.news. 12 November
1998.

Aquino. R. R. 1990. Golden snail, a major pest in the Philippines is potential feed for laying ducks.
In: Proc. of the 5th Asian-Australasian Asso. of Animal Prodn. Soc. Meeting. Taipei, Taiwan.

Banoc, L. M. and L. M. Noriel. 1991. Utilization of weed extracts for the control of golden snail
(Pomacea canaliculata Lamarck). Philipp. J. Weed Sci. 18:90-99.

Barcelo, P. M. and J. R. Barcelo. 1991. The potential of snail (Pila leopoldvillensis) meal as
protein supplement in broiler diet. Tropicultura, 9:11-13.

Berges, J. M. C. A. Baniqued and R. C. Perez. 1991. Extracted nami (Diocorea hispida Dennst)
against golden kuhol (Pomacea canaliculata Lamarck). In-House Annual Review, Mla.,
Philippines. May 16-17, 1991. 19 p.

Berjes, J. M., C. A. Baniqued and R. C. Perez. 1991. Extracted neem (Dioscorea hispida Dennst)
against golden kuhol (Pomacea canaliculata Lam.). Paper presented at the In-House Annual
Review, May 16-17, 1991, Bureau of Plant Industry, San Andres, Malate, Manila, Philippines. 19
pp. (unpublished)

Borlongan, I. G. and R. M. Coloso. 1996. Use of metaldehyde as molluscicide in milkfish ponds.

p. 205-212. In: I. Henderson (ed.). BCPC Sympo. Proc. No. 66: Slugs and Snail Pests in
Agriculture. Proc. of a Sympo. held at the University of Kent, Canterbury, U.K., 2426 September
1996. British Crop Protection Council. 450 pp.

Cagauan, A. G. 1995. Studies on the aquatic gastropod (Pomacea canaliculata) and the aquatic
fern azolla. Report of research experiment. Laboratory of Plant Biology, Catholic University of
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. 42 pp. (with French abstract). (unpublished)

Cagauan, A. G. and L. S. Doria. 1989. Golden snail Pomacea insularis (?) canaliculata (?) meal
as feed for Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus fingerlings in aquaria. CLSU Scientific Journal.
9(3):24-29.

Cagauan, A. G. 1999. Golden apple snail control. Chapter 5. p. 185-219. In: Production,
economics and ecological effects of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.), a hybrid aquatic fern
azolla (Azolla microphylla Kaulf. x A. filiculoides Lam.) and mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos L.)
in integrated lowland irrigated rice-based farming systems in the Philippines. Ph.D dissertation.
Institut des Sciences Naturelles Appliquees, Universit Catholique de Louvain. Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium. 404 pp.

Cagauan, A. G. and R. C. Joshi. 2002. Predatory effect of freshwater fishes on golden apple
snail Pomacea canaliculata Lam. in screenhouse conditions. Intl. Rice Res. Notes. International
Rice Research Institute, Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines. (in press)

Cagauan, A. G. C. Van Hove and R. D. Branckaert. 2000. Integrating fish and azolla in rice-duck
farming in Asia. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 23(1):4-10.

Cagauan, A. G., C. Van Hove, E. Orden, N. Ramilo and R. D. Branckaert. 1996. Preliminary
results of a case study on integrated rice-fish-azolla-ducks farming system in the Philippines. p.
35-61. In: H. Hayakawa, M. Sasaki and K. Kimura (editors). Integrated Systems of Animal
Production in the Asian Region. Proc. of a Sympo. held in conjunction with the 8th AAAP Animal
Science Congress, Chiba, Japan, 13-18 October 1996. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
111 pp.

Cagauan, A. G., E. C. Ferrer and W. Muangman. 1993. Acute toxicities of insecticides with single
and two groups of active ingredients and molluscicides on golden snails (Pomacea sp.). p. 47-50.
In: Final Report: Rice-Fish Ecology (July 1992-December 1993). Prepared by Arsenia G.

Cagauan. Freshwater Aquaculture Center, Central Luzon State University, Nueva Ecija,
Philippines. 50 pp.

Cagauan, A. G. R. C. Joshi and M. S. dela Cruz. 2001. Bibliography on golden apple

snail Pomacea spp. Crop Protection Division, Department of Agriculture, Philippine Rice
Research Institute, Maligaya, Muoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.

Calumpang, S. M. F. 1994. Fate of niclosamide in various components of a fish and prawn pond
ecosystem. Philippine Agriculturist. 77(3):393-401.

Calumpang, S. M. F., M. J. B. Medina, A. W. Tejada and J. R. Medina. 1995. Environmental

impact of two molluscicides: niclosamide and metaldehyde in a rice paddy ecosystem. Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 55:494-501.

Cariaso, M. R., A. V. De Lara, B. F. Cayabyab and M. D. Ebuenga (eds.). 1993. Abstract

Bibliography on Apple Snail. National Crop Protection Center, College of Agriculture, University of
the Philippines, Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines. 93 pp.

Catalma, M. T., A. B. Serra, E. A. Orden, A. S. de Guia, E. A. Martin, M. S. Laureta, E. J. Rafael,

R. A. Antalan and A. J. Barroga. 1991. Feeding value of golden snail (Pomacea sp.) meal for
poultry and swine. In Proc. of the 28th Phil. So. Of Animal Sc. Annual Meeting, manila. p. 33-34.

Catalma, M. T., D. T. Capili, R. A. Antalan, A. B. Serra, A. J. Barroga and E. Orden. 1991. Golden
snail (Pomacea sp.) use in animal feeds. Int. Rice Res. Newsletter. 16(6):26-27.

Cruz-Lacierda, E. R., L. D. dela Pea and S. C. Lumanlan-Mayo. 2000. Use of chemicals in

aquaculture in Asia. P. 155-184. In: J. A. Arthur, C.R. Lavilla-Pitogo and R. P. Subasinghe (eds.).
Proc. of the Meeting on the Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia, 20-22 May 1996, Tigbauan,
Iloilo, Philippines. SEAFDEC. 235 pp.

Dancel, K. T. and R. C. Joshi. 2000. Golden menace in Ifugao rice terraces. SEAFDEC Asian
Aquaculture. 22(1):11-12, 31-33.

Darby, P. C., P. L. Valentine-Darby, R. E. Bennetts, J. D. Croop, H. F. Percival and W. M. Kitchens.

1998. Ecological studies of apple snails. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
University of Florida. Special Publication SJ98-SP6. Available:http://www.Flo.apple.snail. 12
November 1998.

Datuin, J. M., J. T. Aquino and R. A. Tucay and R. C. Cayabyab. 1990. Utilization of golden kuhol
on the egg production performance of mallard duck. Phil. J. Vet Anim. Sci. 17:65. (abstract)

DelaCruz M. S., R. C. Joshi and E. C. Martin. 2000. Potential effects of commercial molluscicides
used in controlling golden apple snails on the native snail, Vivipara costata (Quoy and Gaimard).
Philippine Entomologist. 14(2):149-157.

DelaCruz, M. S. and R. C. Joshi. 2001. Efficacy of commercial molluscicide formulations against

golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck). The Philippine Agricultural Scientist, 84 (1):
51-55.

DelaCruz, M. S. and R. C. Joshi. 2001. New recipe: golden kuhol chicharon. SEAFDEC Asian
Aquaculture, 22 (4): 12.

DelaCruz, M. S., R. C. Joshi. and A. R. Martin. 2000. Basal application of fertilizer reduces
golden apple snail population. International Rice Research Newsletter, 26 (1); 20-21.

Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Agricultural Research (DA-BAR). 1996. New weapon against

golden apple snail found. Farming Update. 8(2):3-4.

Department of Agriculture-Philippine Rice Research Institute (DA-PhilRice). 2000. Provincial Rice

Profiles. DA-PhilRice Socioeconomics Division. Philippines.

Dupo, H. C., S. P. Ferido and H. Sambuichi. 1989. Control of snail damage on rice with demotrin
(cartap hydrochloride). p. 16. In: Acosta, B. O. and R. S. V. Pullin (eds.).1991. Environmental
Impact of the Golden Snail (Pomacea sp.) on Rice Farming Systems in the Philippines: Summary
Report of the Workshop held at the Freshwater Aquaculture Center, Central Luzon State
University, Muoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 9-10 November 1989, ICLARM Conf. Proc. 28,
Manila, Philippines. 34 pp.

Edar, E., R. Yabuki, K. Takayama, Y. Nakanishi, M. Manda, S. Watanabe, S, Matsumoto and A.

Nakagama. 1996. Comparative studies on behavior, weeding and pest control of ducks (mallard,
cherry valley and their crossbred) free-ranged in paddy fields. Japanese Poultry Science. Vol. 33.
No. 4. 261-267.

Escalada, M. M. 1991. Strategic extension Campaign on golden snail control. pp. 17-18. In: B. O.
Acosta and R. S. V. Pullin (eds.) Environmental Impact of the golden apple snail (Pomacea sp.)
on rice farming systems in the Philippines, ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.

Escalada, M. M. and K. L. Heong. 1993. Communication and implementation of change in crop

protection. pp.191-207. In: Chadwick, D. J. and J. Marsh (ed.) Crop Protection and Sustainable
Agriculture. CIBA Foundation Symposium 177. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons.

Furuno, T. 1996. Significance and practice of integrated rice cultivation and duck farming sustainable agriculture. Kyushu International Center, Japan International Cooperation Agency and
Kitakyushu Forum on Asian Women. 12 pp.

Gerpacio, A. L. and L. S. Castillo. 1979. Nutrient composition of some Philippine feedstuffs.

University of the Philippines at Los Baos Tech. Bull. No. 21.

Guzman, E. D. and F. B. Enriquez. 1991. Non-chemical strategies to reduce golden snail damage
to rice. Paper presented at the Workshop on Environmental Impact of the Golden Snail
(Pomacea sp.) on Rice Farming Systems in the Philippines held at the Freshwater Aquaculture
Center, Central Luzon State University, Philippines on 9-10 November 1989 sponsored by the
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), Makati, Philippines. 15
pp.

Halwart, M. 1994. Fish as biocontrol agents in rice. Tropical Agroecology 8. Margraf Verlag.
Germany. 169 pp.

Joshi, R. C. and M. S. DelaCruz. 2001. Newspaper: a new attractant for golden apple snail
management. International Rice Research Newsletter, 26 (2): 49-50.

Joshi, R. C., M. S. DelaCruz and A. V. Duca. 2001. Long-horned grasshopper: a predator of

golden apple snail eggmasses in the Philippines. International Rice Research Newsletter, 26 (2):
83.

Joshi, R. C., M. S. DelaCruz, A. R. Martin, J. C. Cabigat, R. F. Bahatan, A. D. Bahatan, J. Choyawon, N. P. Chilagan, and A. B. Cayong. 2001. Current status of the golden apple snail, Pomacea
canaliculata in the Ifugao rice terraces. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, USA. 18 (2/3): 71-90.

June, L., L. Ulep and M. M. Buenafe. 1991. Performance of broilers fed with snail (Pomacea
canaliculata) meal as substitute to fish meal or meat and bone meal. Tropicultura. 9:58-60.

Lansangan, V. A., A. G. Cagauan and M. Tayamen. 2002. Golden apple snail Pomacea
canaliculata Lam. As feed for freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii de Man. Poster paper
7th ICMAM, Los Baos, Laguna. Philippines.

Lobo, P.P.G., M. A. Llgas and F. D. Laysa. 1992. Evaluation of starflower Calotropis gicantea)
against golden aplle snail (Pomacea canaliculata) in lowland transplanted rice. Trans. Nat. Acad.
Sci. Technol. 14:477-489.

Madamba C. P. and E. Camaya. 1987. The golden apple snail: boon and bane? In. Proc. 18th
Anniv. And Ann. Conv., Davao City, Philippines.

Maini, P. M. and B. M. Rejesus. 1993. Antifeedant activity of the crude and formulated product of
Azadirachta indica to golden snail (Pomacea spp.). 24 Pest Mgt. Council of the Philipp., Cebu Cit,
Philipp. 4-7 May 1993.

Maini, P. N. and B. Morallo-Rejesus. 1993. Molluscicidal activity of Derris elliptica (Fam.

Leguminosae). Philippine Journal of Science. 122(1):61-69.

Manda, M., H. Uchida, A. Nakagama, S. Matsumoto, K. Shimoshikiryo and S. Watanabe. 1993.

Effects of aigamo ducks (crossbred of wild and domestic ducks) herding on weeding and pest
control in the paddy fields. Japan Poultry Science. 30:365 - 370. (Japanese with English abstract)

Mills, J. D., S. E. R. Bailey and C. R. McCrohan. 1989. Effects of molluscicides on feeding

behavior and neuronal activity. BCPC Mono. 41. Slugs and Snails in World Agriculture. 77-83.

Mochida, O. 1987. Pomacea snails in the Philippines. International Rice Research Newsletter. 12
(4):48-49.

Nguyen Quang Dieu, Nguyen Due Hoi, Nguyen Puong Pung, Le Thi Hung and Do Thi
Quyet.1998. Results of the use of fish on golden apple snail control in Nghe An, Can Tho and
Quang Binh, Vietnam. Fish breeding, rearing and stocking programme. Paper presented at the
International Workshop on the Integrated Management of the Golden Apple Snail in Rice
Production in Vietnam, 4-6 August 1998, Nghe An Province, Vietnam sponsored by the Plant
Protection Department (PPD), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) in
cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 15 pp.
(unpublished)

Noriel, L. M., J. Margraf and F. M. Y. Duatin and M. P. Guzman. 2000. Botanical control of golden
kuhol (Pomacea canaliculata Lamarck) using asyang (Mikania cordata) (Bum. F.) B-L. Robinson).
Annals of Tropical Research. 22(142):41-51.

Pablico, P. P. and K. Moody. 1988. Effect of fentin acetate on wet-seeded rice, Pistia stratiotes
and Azolla pinnata. 19. Pest Control Council of the Philippines. Cebu City, Philippines. 3-7 May
1988. 2 pp.

Pantua, P. C., S. V. Mercado, F. O. Lanting, and E. B. Nuevo. 1992. Use of ducks to control
golden apple snail Ampullarius (Pomacea) canaliculata in irrigated rice. International Rice
Research Newsletter, 17, 27.
PhilRice (2001). Management Options for the Golden Apple Snail. Rice Technology Bulletin No.
33, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya, Science City of Muoz, Philippines: 12pp.

Rejesus, B. M. and P. N. Maini. 1991. Sapogenic plant materials for golden apple snail (Pomacea
spp.) control. PhilRice Terminal Report. Jan. 1990 Dec. 1991). 47 pp.

Rejesus, B. M., A. S. Sayaboc, and R. C. Joshi 1988. The distribution and control of the
introduced golden snail (Pomacea spp.) in the Philippines. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Introduction of Germplasm and Plant Quarantine Procedures, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), 14-15
December, 1988. pp. 213-223.

Rice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Network. 1991. Report of a Workshop on the
Management of Golden Snail in the Philippines. Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice),
Nueva Ecija, . 74 pp.

Rodriguez, C. D. and O. J. Lorenzana. 1989. Evaluation of molluscicides for the control of golden
snail Pomacea canaliculata). Workshop on Rice Farming System in the Philippines, Muoz,
Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 9-10 November 1989. 11 p.
Rondon, M. B. 1989. Field testing of copper sulfate against golden kuhol. A Report of research
conducted by the National Integrated Pest Management Secretariat, Bureau of Plant Industry,
Department of Agriculture, Philippines. 4 pp. (unpublished)

Rondon, M. B., C. A. Baniqued and M. S. dela Cruz. 1992. Filed evaluation of alternative
pesticides against golden snail Pomacea canaliculata Lamarck in lowland rice. In: Report of the

Workshop on the Integ. Pest Mgt. Network Prog. Rep., Los Baos, Laguna. August 1991-August
1992. p. 73-82.

Rosales, N. M. and C.M. Sagun. 1997. Rice-rice cropping pattern using a combination of
inorganic fertilizer and Azolla+ducks. Paper presented at the in-house review of on-going projects
sponsored by the Bureau of Agricultural Research, Quezon City, Philippines. 13 pp.
Saxena, R. C., A. V. de Lara and H. D. Justo. 1987. Golden apple snail: a pest of rice. Int. Rice
Res. Newsl. 12 (1):24-25.

Schnorbach, H. J. 1995. The golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata Lamarck), an

increasingly important pest in rice, and methods of control with Bayluscid?. PflanzenschutzNachrichten Bayer. 48(2):313-346.

Serrano, R. C. 1988. Besting the golden apple snail. Philippine Council for Agriculture and
Resource Research and Development Monitor. 16(5): 6, 11.

Slootweg, R., E. A. Malek and F. S. McCullough. 1994. The biological control of snail intermediate
hosts of schistosomiasis by fish. Review in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 4:67-90.

Slootweg, R., P. A. Vroeg and S. J. Wierma. 1993. Effects of molluscivorous fish, water quality
and pond management on the development of schistosomiasis vector snails in aquaculture
ponds. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management. 24:123-128.

Tacio, H. D. 1987. Raise snails for your ducks. Agribusiness Weekly, Philippines. 6-12 November.
p. 16-17.

Tanzo, I. R., R. C. Joshi and G. H. Baker. 2000. Farmers assessment of the golden apple
snail Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck) (Mollusca: Ampullariidae) management options promoted
in the strategic extension campaign in the Philippines: lessons learnt and future implications.
Poster presented at the Molluscs 2000 Conf., 4-8 December, Sydney, Australia. 49.

Van Dinther, J. B. M. 1973. Molluscs in Agriculture and their Control. World Crops 11/12: 282-286.

Vega, R. S. A. 1991. Agro-economic evaluation of non-chemical methods against golden snail

(Pomacea canaliculata Lam.) in irrigated lowland rice. Univ. of the Philippines at Los Banos,
Philippines. Master Thesis in Agronomy. 65 pp.

Way, M. J., Z. Islam, K. L. Heong and R. C. Joshi. 1998. Ants in tropical irrigated rice: distribution
and abundance especially of Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Bulletin of
Entomological Research 88: 467-476.

Yusa, Y. 2001. Predation of eggs of the apple snail Pomacea canaliculata (Gastropoda:
Ampullariidae) by the fire ant Solenopsis geminata. J. Moll. Stud. 67: 275-279.

http://www.applesnail.net