IPM in Cotton - Kurnool

8/20/2019 IPM in Cotton - Kurnool

1/17

IPM in Cotton – A success story

D.Balaraju, SMS-PP, KVK, Banaganapalle

Chapter - I

Introduction

Cotton scenario of the district: Among the various crops grown in Kurnool district, Cotton is one of

the commercial crops grown in the district for the past 15 to 20 years.

Total cultivable area (Ha) : A total of 33571 ha area is under cotton cultivation in the district. Of

this, about 25% area is under mungari cotton, 15% area is under cotton seed production and the

remaining 60% occupy commercial cotton cultivation. The major hybrids grown in the district are

NHH 44, Bunny B.t. and Mallika B.t.

Major crops grown : Among the Oil seeds, Groundnut, Sunflower and Castor occupy the major part,

in Cereals, Paddy, Jowar and Maize are the important crops, among pulses, Bengalgram and

Redgram, among commercial crops Cotton , Chillis and Onion are the major crops.

Agro ecological situation of cotton : There are 13 farming situations in the district. Cotton is mainly

grown under 3 situations namely – Rainfed-red soils, Rainfed-black soils and Black soils with

irrigation facilities. Only 15% area of cotton is under irrigation, the remaining is under rainfed.

Cropping systems of cotton : Cotton is mainly grown as pure crop, but in some pockets of the

district it is intercropped with redgram without proper row proportion.

Soil types under cotton : Cotton is grown in variety of soils ranging from redsoils to medium blacksoils in the district. Arboreum cotton is confined to red soils and Hybrid cotton is mainly grown in

Medium black to Heavy Black soils.

Average annual Rain fall (mm) : The average rainfall of Kurnool district is 630.0 mm. The actual

rainfall of past 5 years is as under :

S.

No.

Year Rainfall

received

(mm)

1 2004-05 683.0

2 2005-06 787.03 2006-07 760.9

4 2007-08

5 2008-09

Cotton varieties grown in the district : The varieties of cotton grown in Kurnool district are as

under:

1. Desi cotton: Y1, Aravinda, Jayadhar, NDLA-2463, Pandaripuram mungari, and NS seed

from Jalgaon of Maharashtra


2/17

2. American Cotton:

a.

Hirsutum varities: Narasimha, MCU-5

b.

Hybrids: NHH-44, NCS-145 B.t., Mallika B.t. etc.

Area and productivity for last 5 years :

S.

No

Year Area (ha) Productivity

(Kg Lint/Ha)

1 2004-05 74000 147

2 2005-06 23306 133

3 2006-07 17009 158

4 2007-08 28240

5 2008-09

Village profile – PRA survey

Resource mapping

S.No

Year Village Soil types Major Crops Grown

Crop Irrigated

(ha)

Rain fed

(ha)

Total

2007-08 Jalakanuru BC Soil 1.Paddy 965

Red soil 2.Cotton 335

3.Chillis 4844.Jowar 824

5.Redgram 175

6.Sunflower 155

7.Bengalgram 382

8.Others 126 240

2008-09 Jalakanuru BC soil 1.Paddy 1226

Red soil 2.Cotton 318

3.Chillis 315

4.Jowar 752

5.Redgram 285

6.Bengalgram 272

7.Sunflower 238

8.Others 87 170


3/17

Social mapping

S.

No

Year Village Population No. of farmers No. of non-

farm

families

Male Female

SC ST Others Total1 2007-08 Jalakanuru 1115 1235 72 - 503 575 38

Seasonality

Parameter Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rain fall

Sowing

time

Incidence

of Sucking

Pest

Incidence

of Boll

worms

Diseases

incidence

Harvesting

period

Note – Use where it is applicable

Pest incidence

Name of the

pest

January February March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jassids

Thrips

Whiteflies Aphids

Mealybug

Helicoverpa

Spodoptera

Pinkbollworm

Note – Use where it is applicable


4/17

Chapter - II

PIIN Analysis

Sr.

No

Problem Intervention Issues Needs

1 Sucking pests Stem application Tedious and

impracticable when

plant population is

high, unavailability

of stem applicators

Method demonstration

and supply of stem

application bottles

2 Spodoptera Trap crop Use not felt Training & field visits

3 Pink Boll worm Pheromone traps Lack of awareness

and availability

Trainings,

demonstrations & supply

of traps & lures through

dept. of agriculture.

4 Indescriminate

use of fertilizers

Soil Test Based

fertilizer usage

Soil testing not

done.

Result demonstrations

and farmer interactions.

5 Not maintaining

intrarow spacing

Recommended spacing Do not use markers

and feel extra

operation

Result demonstration

followed by farmer

interactions.

6 Boll worms Spray of NSKE 5% Collection & drying

of neem is

cumbersome, result

unknown

Training, Method

demonstration on NSKE

preparation, Result

demonstration.

7 Border Jowar Use not felt Training, field visit to

show predator activity

and its feeding behavior.

Chapter - III

Input (Activities)

FLD Programme implemented

Year No.of

villages

No. of

blocks

Total No.

of

Farmers

Category of farmers Women

farmers

Area (ha)

others SC ST

2006-07

2007-08 1 2 39 31 8 9 50

2008-09 1 1 48 39 9 7 50

Note- Give any other relevant information in addition to the above


5/17

Extension Activities (2006-07 to 2008-09)

Extension

Activity

No. of

Programmes

No.of participants

Male Female Total

Trainings 6 216 36 252

Field Days 2 162 15 177

Kisan mela

TV programmes

Literature

provided

Group formation

Any other -

Newspaper

coverage, Radio

talk, expo. Visit

etc. -(give

activity-wise)



6/17

Critical inputs provided under demonstration by KVK

Sr.

No

Year Critical inputs Purpose

1 2006-07

2 2007-08 Seed for border Jowar

Seed of castor

Stem applicators

Imidacloprid

Pheromone traps & lures for

PBW & Spodoptera

NSK Powder

S-NPV

To conserve natural enemies.

For mechanical destruction of egg

masses and early instar larvae.

To apply on plant stem.

For stem application

against sucking pests

Monitoring Spodoptera

and Pink Boll Worm

For spray against early instar

larvae and sucking pests

For managing Spodoptera.

3 2008-09 Soil testing

Trichoderma viride

Border –

Jowar

Trap crop – Castor

Stem applicators

Imidacloprid

Pheromone traps & lures for

Spodoptera and PBW.

Neem Seed Kernal Powder

Balancing nutrition

Soil borne diseases

Conserve natural enemies

For mechanical destruction of egg

masses and early instar larvae.

To apply on plant stem.

For stem application

against sucking pests

Monitoring Spodoptera

and Pink Boll Worm

For spray against early instar

larvae and sucking pests



7/17

Chapter – IV

Output

Results of FLD

Year Area

(ha)

Farming

situation

(Rainfed/

Irrig.)

Type of

Variety

(Bt/ Non Bt)

Total No. of

Farmers

Cotton yield (Q/ha)

IPM NON IPM

2006-07

2007-08 50 Irrigated Dry Bt (Bunny B.t.) 39 26.38 25.27

2008-09 50 Irrigated Dry Bt (Bunny B.t.) 48 26.70 25.51

Status of insect pests

Sucking Pests Incidence:

Year

Leaf hopper(No./leaf)

Thrips

(No. /leaf)

White flies

(No./leaf)

Aphids

(% infested plants)

MealyBug(% infestation)

IPM NON

IPMIPM NON

IPMIPM

Non

IPMIPM NON

IPMIPM NON

IPM

2006-07

Non Bt

Bt

2007-08 6.3 8.0 4.2 4.8 4.3 8.4 7.2 7.4

2008-09 8.1 9.5 3.8 4.3 3.8 9.6 8.9 10.8

Note – Give the data of the peak incidence of pests separately for Bt & non Bt


8/17

Bollworm Incidence (No. larvae/plant):

Year

Spotted

Bollworms

(No./plant)

Helicoverpa

(No./plant)

Pink Bollworm

(No./plant)

Bollworm damage (%) Spodoptera (No./plant)

IPMNon

IPMIPM

Non

IPMIPM

Non

IPMIPM Non IPM IPM

Non IPM

2006-07

Non-Bt

Bt

2007-08 - - - - 4.2 5.6 - - 3.2 4.4

2008-09 - - - - 5.1 9.3 - - 11.3 14.0

Note – Give the data of the peak incidence of pests separately for Bt & non Bt


9/17

Number of sprays

Details of IPM and Non-IPM measures: (Only Pesticide)

Year

IPM Non-IPM

No. of

sprays

Name of Pesticides

used

Qty

(gram

a.i. /ha)

No. of

spraysName of Pesticides used

Qty

(gram

a.i. /ha)

2006-07

2007-08 5 Imidacloprid 17.8% SL

Monocrotophos 36 SC

Neemoil 0.03%

Quinalphos 25 EC

S-NPV

Profenophos 40 EC

22.25

270

150

312.5

-

500

8 Imidacloprid 17.8% SL

Monocrotophos 36 SC

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

Quinal 25 EC

Acephate 75 WP

Profenophos 40 EC

Indoxacarb 14.5 EC

44.5

540

250

1000

1687.5

500

72.5

1254.75 4094.50

2008-09 4 Imidacloprid 17.8% SL

Monocrotophos 36 SC

NSKE 5%

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

Quinalphos 25 EC +

COC 50 WP

Profenophos 40 EC

22.25

223.2

-

250

312.5

750

600

6 Imidacloprid 17.8% SL

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

Quinal 25 EC +

COC 50 WP

Profenophos 40 EC

Novaluron 10 EC

44.50

250

625

750

600

50

2157.95 2319.5


10/17

Economic Analysis

Sl.No. Particulars

IPM Non-IPM

2006-

07 2007-08 2008-09

2006-

07 2007-08 2008-09

1 Seed 2500-00 2500-00 2500-00 2500-00

2 Organic Manure - - - -

3 Fertiliser(Chemical) 3040-00 2940-00 4600-00 4515-00

4 Bio-fertilizer - - - -

5 Insecticide 1270-00 2139-00 4670-00 4045-00

6 Bio-Pesticide 1550-00 300-00 - -

7 Others costs (Soil testing,

Trap & Border cropseeds, Pheromone

trap,Yellow sticky traps

etc.,)

930-00 1255-00 - -

8 Other costs (Human

Labour/Animal/Tractor

Charges)

7475-00 14100-00 7775-00 14100-00

9 Total Cost 16765-00 23234-00 19545-00 25160-00

10 Yield(Q/ha) 26.38 26.70 25.27 25.51

11 Market rate (Rs./quintal) 2150-00 2550-00 2150-00 2550-00

12 Gross returns 56717-00 68085-00 54330-50 65050-50

13 Net returns 39952-00 44851-00 34785-50 39890-50

14 BC ratio 3.38 2.93 2.78 2.59

15 Additional cost Rs/ha (-) 2780-00 (-) 1926-00

16 Additional returns Rs/ha 5166-50 4960-50


11/17

Chapter – V

Outcome (2008-09)

Status of pest and disease incidencePests Incidence:

Sr.

No

Village Pest Observation

(Low/medium/high)

Remarks (give the status of

the specific pest incidence in

other crops)

Low Medium High

1 Jalakanuru Jassids Incidence of GLH in paddy is also

low.

Aphids

Thrips Chillis – Thrips incidence is

medium.

Whiteflies

Helicoverpa Very low incidence onBengalgram and even on Redgram

Spodoptera On chillis, the incidence ismedium.

Pink bollworm

Status of beneficial insects (2008-09)

S.

No

VillageName of the

predator/parasite

Increased/

decreased

Remark (Give the

reasons for increase/

decrease)

1 Jalakanuru Coccinellids Increased More farmers in cotton

and chillis adopot

border cropping with

jowar.

Spiders increased Pesticide free period

upto 50-60 days.

Chrysopids Increased Due to ecofeast crop

and reduced pesticide

spray during early

stages.


12/17

Percent reduction in pesticide consumption 2008-09

Sr.

No

Village No.of sprays Pesticides consumption in

village (kg-a.i.)

Cost of pest mgt (Rs/ha)

Before

IPM

After

IPM

Before IPM After IPM Before IPM After IPM

1 Jalakanuru 7-8 4-5 4046.1 2361.4 4935-00 2160-00

Note-Give the summary of the above observations

Status of Cotton Production ( 2008-09)

S.

No.

Village Area (ha) Avg. yield qtl./ha

Before

IPM

After

IPM

Before

IPM

After

IPM

1 Jalakanuru 130 210 18.75 23.50

Preference ranking of different components of IPM

S.

No.

Component Ranking

1 Soil test based fertilizer application 9

2 Seed treatment with T.viride 8

3 Border crop of Jowar 5

4 Trap crop of Castor 1

5 Stem application 7

6 Bird Perches 4

7 Pheromone traps 6

8 Neem Seed Kernal Extract 3

9 Neem oil 2

10 NPV/Bt 10

Parameters used: willingness, availability, affordability, efficacy & adoptability.


13/17

Chapter VI

IMPACT

1.

Impact of technical interventions:

S.

No.

Technological

intervention

Impact

No. of

farmers

adopting

No. of

Villages

Qty.

pesticide

reduced

(kg ai)

Change in

beneficial

population

(% change)

1 Seed treatment 850 3 3500 40%

2 Border crop 450 3

3 Trap crop 370 3

4 Intercrop 250 3

5 Stem application 120 36 Pheromone traps 400 3

7 Bird perches 350 3

8 Botanicals 600 3

9 Biopesticides 500 3

2.

Horizontal spread of IPM technology :

S.

No.

Village No. of

farmers

adopting

Area (ha)

1 Cherakucherla 60 130

2 Sunkesula 40 75

3 Gani 80 150


14/17

3.

Linkages developed :

S.

No.

Name of

institution

Purpose of linkage

1 SHGs Preparation of botanical

extracts, supply of ph.traps

etc.

2 Mandal Mahila

Samakhya

Wider publicity of success

stories, model projects on

IPM in other partner villages

3 Dept. of

Agriculture

Supply of bio pesticides and

pheromone traps & lures on

subsidy. For arranging

exposure visit of other

village farmers

4 Local NGOs To continue the concept in

the villages as integral part

of their developmental

activities.

4. Institutional mechanisms evolved to increase the outreach of IPM

S.

No.

Mechanism Number of

units

Activity taken up Outreach

(No. of farmers

covered)

1 Master trainer 4 1.

Training to other farmers.

2. Conducting FFS

200

2 SHGs groups 3 Involved in FFS, built capacities

to identify pests & beneficial,

taught preparation of various

botanical extracts.

80

3 Farmer clubs - - -

4 Commodity

groups

- - -

5 Enterpreneurs 3 Sale of botanical extracts, NSK

powder and Pheromone traps,

lures etc.

150

6 Any other


15/17

5. Socio-economic change :

Social change :

S.No.

Socio-Psychologicalcharacter

Change in the character(1-4 scale)

Activity responsiblefor change

Before IPM After IPM

1 Aspiration 1 3 Field visits, FFS,

2 Attutude 1 3 FFS, farmer

interactions

3 Reading behavior 1 2 FFS

4 Risk bearing capacity 1 3 Demonstration of

components

5 Knowledge level 2 3 Demos, training and

field visits.

6 Social participation 1 2 FFS, farmer

interactions

7 Gender involvement 1 2 Involvement of

SHGs in FFS

8 Decision making 1 3 Demos,FFS,farmer

interactions.

Economic change :

S.

No.

Village Parameter Status Net

change

Area

(ha)

Total

monetary

return

Before

IPM

After IPM

1 JALAKANURU Total

Expenditure

on crop

production

Rs. 1.85

crores

Rs.1.62

crores

Rs. 23.00

lakhs

880 Rs.2614-00

saving/ha

on cost in

the village

Gross

Incomethrough

agriculture

Rs.

Net income

Cost of

Fertilizers

consumption

Cost of Plant

Protection


16/17

Chapter VII

Feed back

Farmers-

Trap crop of castor is highly useful, as we could trace eggs in masses on leaves, and

can be destroyed well before it spreads to cotton.

Spraying Neem oil and NSKE 5% solution, immediately after observing moth

emergence and catches in pheromone traps, reduced the incidence of pest.

Pheromone traps are useful means which shows the arrival of pest in the crop, well

in advance to crop damage.Installing bird perches as many as possible in the crop after the showers recede,

attract bird flights to field, which are preying on larvae of boll worms.

Stem application gives longer protection to crop from sucking pests than normal

spraying and even number of coccinellids on these plants are high compared to

chemical sprayed fields. But, the procedure involves skill and the activity needs

patience.

Almost all the components of IPM are affordable but the availability of some inputs

like pheromone traps, lures, NPV etc. in the vicinity is not there.

For development department-

In the changed crop-pest scenario, the successful outcome of these demonstrations

should be widely popularized in all cotton growing areas of the district, through

model demonstrations in each village and trainings and literature, by department of

agriculture.

Though, many components of IPM proved their efficiency, due to unavailability of

inputs like pheromone traps, lures and biopesticides, farmers are not adopting it.

Hence, dept. of agriculture should take initiative to see that these IPM inputs are

placed with all field officers of agriculture to supply to farmers on subsidized price.

For policy makers

The demonstration of the successful technology and provision of subsidy on inputs

should be continued for considerably longer period like 3-5 years, to establish clear

impact in cotton cropping system.


17/17

For researchers-

The successful Bt technology may be incorporated in popular hybrids and varities of

cotton, so that the market dependency will be reduced to farmers.

Outstanding bt hybrids should be evolved with sucking pest resistance in them.

Chapter VIII

Constraints

Stem application is not widely adopted, mainly due to shortage of labour and high

density of plants in bt fields and due to lack of patience.

Non availability of certain inputs like pheromone traps, bio pesticides and stem

applicators.

High cost of microbial pesticides, uncertainity of its availability, shorter shelf life etc.

The adoption rate of microbial and botanical pesticides is slow, because of its slower

action against target pest.

Chapter IX

Suggestions

IPM programmes to be continued in a village atleast for 3 years continuously,

covering majority area under cotton in that village.

Demonstrations may be taken up in the same villages where dept. of agriculture

conducts Farmer Field Schools, so as to arrive at maximum outcome from the

programme.

Restrictions on size of demonstration blocks may be waived off, duly considering

the extent of crop and cropping patter followed in the village of demonstration. In

cases of doubt, the effecting IPM inputs like Pheromone traps, Tricho cards etc.

should be provided to entire area of the crop in the village.

Exposure visits to demonstration farmers may be arranged to successful model

villages in the district or outside the district, to enable them to interact with those

farmers, who claim success.

Documents

IPM in Cotton - Kurnool