Paradigm shift in non-pesticidal management: a case study of POD borer management in Deccan Plateau.

Reddy, B. Suresh

Redgram is the major pulse crop grown in Zaheerabad region of Deccan Plateau to an extent of 50,000 ha. The productivity is 137 kg/ha. This low productivity is mainly due to the major pest attack by Gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera). The extent of crop loss due to this pest ranges from 20-80 per cent. There were no effective control measures to manage the pest so far. The chemical sprays for control of this key pest has resulted in resistance buildup in pest, total vanish of natural enemies/predators, besides high residual toxicity in the end product To control pod borer farmers of the Deccan plateau followed a series of eco-friendly measures like deep summer ploughing, use of resistant varieties, inter-cropping and mixed cropping, crop rotation, trap cropping, erection of bird perches, spraying of jaggery solution, broadcasting of puffed and yellow rice, manual collections and destruction of larvae, shaking of plants, use of bio-pesticides by farmers at different stages of pest growth. Hence, this study was taken up by Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) run by voluntary organization Deccan Development Society (DDS) in Kalbemal village of Zaheerabad region to investigate the ecological, economic, social and livelihood significance of low external input pest management.

Introduction

Food legumes or grain legumes, commonly known as pulses, occupy particularly an important position in meeting protein needs of the people in India. The problem of malnutrition associated with the protein gap is closely related to the shortage of food grains. That is, if the food grains production and supply are increased and they are made available to the people, the problem of protein requirement can be solved to a large extent.

Legumes play an important role in the agricultural economy of the country. Out of total food grains coverage of 525.90 lakh ha. in 2009 pulses occupy an area of 137.07 lakh ha. with a productivity of 659 Kgs/ha. Major constraints in cultivation of pulses include poor genetic potential; inadequate availability of quality seed; marginalsoils with more than 85 per cent of it being grown under rainfed condition; inadequate nutrition; pests; minimum support price and trade. Despite these constraints and low yields (table 1), the pulse crops are extensively cultivated for various reasons. The deep root system of some of the pulse crops enables them to thrive with little moisture even in the dry season. Because of its drought tolerance, pulse crops find expression in crop mixtures. Pulses fix atmospheric nitrogen enhancing soil fertility. Crops such as pigeon pea are adopted to harsh environment and is particularly well suited to drought prone areas of semi-arid tropics. Relative to other pulse crops it performs well under marginal input conditions, a valuable asset to farmers with different cropping strategies and objectives. It sheds large amount of leaves adding organic matter to soil.

Pulse grains are used extensively for human consumption in a variety of forms. In most parts of India pulses form an essential item of the daily diet of the people. Protein being one of the important factors supplying the building material for the body, the importance of pulses in our diet can be easily appreciated. Redgram and Bengal gram are the two major pulse crops grown in the dry land areas of the country. In Andhra Pradesh too more than 78 per cent of the area is still rainfed and the productivity is very low. It is estimated that the country would need a minimum of 30.3 million tonnes of pulses by 2020 A.D. The per capita availability of pulses has been declined from 64g/capital/day (1955 to 1956) to less than 40g/capita/day as against WHO recommendation of 80 gm/ capita/day. Like else where, even in Zaheerabad region of Medak district in Deccan Plateau, Redgram and Bengal gram are the two major pulse crops grown to an extent of 50,000 ha. and 15,000 ha. respectively. The extent of crop loss due to this pest ranges from 20-80 per cent. Some times in serious cases it may be complete crop failure. To combat the pest, farmers are being encouraged to use pesticides by the private companies and till recently agricultural extension departments. The pesticide consumption in India has increased from 434 metric tones in 1954 to above 80,000 metric tonnes in 2006-07. The total demand for pesticide in India may rise to one lakh metric tones. The indiscriminate use of pesticide has created lot of environmental problem (Economic Survey, 2008). It is alarming to note that about 36.30 per cent of the total consumption of pesticides is concentrated only in Andhra Pradesh. The out break of Helicoverpa armigera in 1997 has lead to suicides of more than 250 farmers which is due to the huge amounts of money spent on pesticides and still were unable to control pest. The farmers entered into debt trap and found no way of coming out of it and hence committed suicide. The indiscriminate use of pesticides has lead to development of pesticide resistant strains in insects, resurgence of pest species, direct toxicity to the applicator, destruction of parasites, predators and other beneficial organisms, accumulation of pesticide residues in the agricultural commodities, poisoned food, water, air and soil (Sasi, 2000).

The kind of agriculture that was promoted in the last 50 years has increased the dependence of farmers on the market for their inputs, increased the cost of cultivation and more importantly created ecological crisis. Major costs are incurred on pesticides. Though the pesticides are being encouraged by the industry, public research and extension bodies, there are successful grass roots experiences emerging from farmers' innovations which call for a paradigm shift in pest management. Non-pesticidal management of insect pests is a 'System that maintains the insect populations at levels below those causing economic injury, by having healthy crop and managing the population dynamics in the crop eco-system'. It makes best use of natural resources locally available and takes advantage of natural processes. There are many alternatives available for managing pests (Kashyap, 1998 and Reddy, 1999). Even if a pest becomes hazard there are far safer alternatives than spreading poison. Traditionally, farmers have been using several practices to prevent the hazards of pests. Farmers of Zaheerabad region are in the forefront of following such eco-friendly practices without foregoing their good yields. Keeping this in view, the DDS-Krishi Vigyan Kendra in collaboration with Centre for World Solidarity (CWS) which is presently called as Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) has conducted a massive campaign on this pest management throughout Zaheerabad region from 1996 onwards through various means with a thrust on farmer's traditional knowledge systems. Many of the natural alternatives which are based on farmer's traditional knowledge system are getting wiped out with increasing modernisation. There is an urgent need to strengthen all such wisdom. Hence, in this context the present investigation focused to study the relationship between the pest, soil fertility, cropping pattern and climate, describe the strategies adopted by marginal and small farmers in the low external pest management of the redgram crop and Investigate the ecological, economic, social and livelihood significance of low external input pest management was taken up in the year 2002.

Materials and Methods

The area selected for the study is a part of the vast region of the Deccan Plateau in the South of India. But, agro-ecologically, the area covered is Kalbemal village (Nyalkal Mandal) of the Zaheerabad region in the Medak district of Andhra Pradesh. The Zaheerabad region is characterised by laterite red soils as well as alluvial black soils and because of their character host a wide variety of agricultural crops including sorghum, a range of millets, pulses and oilseeds, all of which grow under rainfed conditions. The diversity of this cropping system and its capacity to grow on highly infertile soils, without demanding water or external inputs, makes it uniquely significant for the survival of ecologically sustainable agricultural systems. The methodology adopted for the research was multifold and diverse according to the peculiarities of each of these objectives. Secondary and primary data were collected during the study. Primary data was collected through Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods and Focused Group Discussions (FGDs). Semi-structured interviews with farmers adopting low external input pest management (twenty) and conventional farmers (Five) those who are using pesticides were conducted for gaining in-depth cost benefit analysis. Secondary data was drawn from various sources like Chief Planning Office, Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government Policies dealing with pesticides in Andhra Pradesh and Agriculture Department. Personal interviews were held with other relevant stakeholders such as Local Agricultural Officers, Development Workers and leaders of women groups.

Results and Discussion

A close observation of the non-pesticidal management programme implemented by the DDS-Krishi Vigyan Kendra between the year 1997 and 2002 revealed that the farmers have laid emphasis on two fundamental aspects which are very critical in the pest management. The first one includes enhancing soil fertility for building stronger and richer soil which can be the first antidote to the pest attack and the second aspect has been enhancing the biodiversity in the farms as the first defense against insect pests. The study found that farmers had excellent understanding of relationship between pests, soil fertility and mixed cropping system. Along with biodiversity, soil fertility was the fundamental principle followed in pest management. A soil with good tilth and full range of balanced nutrients usually has the least amount of insect and disease problems. In a mixed cropping system adopted by farmers, an area of 1-2 acres houses on an average 15-20 varieties of different crops altogether. Farmers display an excellent knowledge on the relationship between their crops and the common pests and diseases (Pionetti and Reddy, 2002, Reddy, 2010). Some times farmers grow trap crops to protect or divert the pest and disease from the main crop. For example Castor in Turmeric and Ginger, Marigold in Pigeon Pea. In each crop he/she decides to grow, farmer adopts genetic mixture, with a view of getting minimum yield through one of these varieties even during extremely adverse climatic conditions. Farmers in dry lands have a big pool of seed varieties in each crop. Each variety has unique qualities like good grain yield, fodder yield, good taste, has medicinal value, varied cooking time and ease in cooking, early or late maturing, resistant to pest, resistant to disease, drought tolerant, easy threshing, can with stand excess rain, can yield well even during uneven lengths of monsoon, can do well even in marginal fertility levels. Depending upon their need and situation, most of the farmers try to select the varieties of each crop they grow by keeping in view most of the above parameters (Satheesh, 2000 and Pionetti, 2005).

A farmer with small acreage specifically chooses only those varieties, which are resistant to pests and diseases so that at least some minimum yield is assured even during extremely adverse pest/disease incidence. In the monocropping system, the movement of the pest or spread of disease is easy as there is a single crop spread uniformly. Whereas, the mixed cropping system itself acts as a physical barrier to the movement of pests and thereby reducing the damage. Moreover, it becomes difficult for the pest to locate its food in the mixed cropping system. Interestingly some of the crops in mixed cropping system, will be simultaneously source of food for natural enemies of crop pests. So the more the variety of crops in a field, high is the population of beneficial organisms which takes care of pest. This helps in avoiding the use of any pesticide. In addition to these above two key principles in pest management, the farmers of study village are following a series of eco-friendly non-pesticidal management options, most of which are based on farmer's traditional knowledge systems and locally available inputs. Diverse non-pesticidal management options adopted by the farmers include deep summer ploughing, mixed cropping, trap cropping, bird perches, manual collection & destruction of larvae, cow dung + urine extract, jaggery solution, chilli garlic extract, neem seed kernel extract (NSKE), nucleo polyhydro virus (NPV), shaking of plants. The results of the farmers who have adopted these series of ecological options were highly encouraging. Initially the non-pesticidal management programme started with 10 farmers in 1996 and in a span of few years more than 10,000 farmers in the region adopt these eco-friendly options. Several workshops covering aspects like quality neem seed collection, role of biodiversity in pest management, preparation of botanical pesticides, life cycle of pests, stages of occurrence and growth of insects and role of natural enemies and their identification etc. were organised every year before the pest attack. Extension activities like field days, exposure visits, field visits, wall paintings, cultural shows using local folk media and exchange of experience between farmers were also conducted. All these activities enabled us to learn about farmers' experiences on low external input pest management.

As mentioned earlier thousands of farmers of the region are directly involved in this movement covering a vast area. The consolidation of the results from 1997 to 2002 revealed that the average production of farmer adopting low external input pest management was in Redgram crop was 283 kg/ha whereas for conventional farmer who used pesticides was 208 Kg/ha. One has to remember that this crop was grown in highly marginalised soils by the marginalised sections of the society with whom DDS works. The average plant protection cost of farmers in external input pest management was Rs. 150/ha. and for conventional farmers it was Rs. 980/ha. The average net income of the farmers with low external input pest management was 1623/ha. and for conventional farmer it was Rs. 900/ha. In the years of severe pest outbreak, farmers with low external input pest management have harvested 125-200 kg/ ha. of yield. The study of table 2 gives us an overall idea about the results of the programme in the region.

In Kalbemal village, the programme was implemented in both red soil as well as black soil conditions. The yield of Redgram was much better in black soil as compared to red soil due to good soil fertility, depth and more moisture availability. The overall net income was also higher where crop is taken in black soil. The intercropping and mixed farming not only played an important role in increasing the net returns both in black and red soils but also controlling the pest.

The non-pesticidal management methods which involved low external inputs had great impact on the farmers. NPM has become a matter of faith with the communities, improved the knowledge of farmers regarding pests, natural enemies and expertise regarding botanical pesticides preparations increased in the farming community. Women, specially dalits became the leaders in the NPM of pests whom other village community is approaching for KNOW HOW. It created a large group of master trainers in the farming community who can play vital role in horizontal spread of the NPM concept. This programme has reduced the dependency of the farmers on the external inputs and mainly helped in systematising non-chemical management of pests which the resource poor farmers of Zaheerabad traditionally followed. Working with CWS has added a new technological dimension and helped to improve understanding on identification of beneficial and non beneficial insects, the stages of occurrence and growth of insects, the points of time in which they need to be controlled and some methods of control. It also brought some new knowledge to control mechanisms through the use of pheromone traps and such other novel methods and a right understanding of the stages and the manner in which botanical pesticides to be used.

By conducting adoptive trials and various extension works, yield gaps can be minimised in pulses (APARALU, 2005). Yield gaps in all pulse crops can be bridged with adoptive trials in farmer's fields on significance of sowing time, significance of spacing for better plant population, growing of trap crops around pulse crops, significance of crop rotation, inter cropping, multiple cropping, growing of resistant verities, keeping pheromone traps, erecting bird perches, usage of trichoderma to control writ. All these trials can demonstrate recent advances in environment friendly pest management practices which can maximise the crop yields. Through extensive training, exposure visits and using print and electronic media awareness should be enhanced among farmers about the importance of seed treatment with rhizobium culture which enhances the nitrogen fixation and also knowledge regarding varieties which are resistant to pests and diseases. Emphasising the maintenance of optimum plant population and encouraging the farmers to plough the land during summer to expose pests for hot sun rays are also very important aspects to be emphasised.

Conclusion

Crop protection is a complex process which requires an understanding of the interactions between the environment, methods of farming and the predominant system of cultivation. Hence, crop protection cannot consist of only one specific measure but requires a suitable combination of methods depending on crop, climate and region. Farmers have been following these series of ecological options which were based on their own knowledge systems. In the areas where monocropping and pesticides are used, the population of natural enemies has drastically reduced resulting in the outbreak of even new pests, which were secondary pests till recent past. Fortunately, the dryland farmers even today adopts inter/mixed cropping, which not only improves soil fertility but also checks the crop pests (Satheesh, 2000; Butterworth et al., 2003 and Reddy 2010). All we have to do is to encourage such practices and strengthen farmers' confidence in their own practices. In the recent times, the spread of non-pesticidal management or low external input pest management concept has been both vertical and horizontal and transformed into movement in villages of Andhra Pradesh. Using locally available, low cost inputs and traditional knowledge, farmers are successfully managing this devastating pest Helicoverpa with good yields and simultaneously adding to the overall improvement of the environment. Environmentalists and majority of social scientists feel that they have reached a stage where a policy towards withdrawal of pesticides should be promoted through formal and informal research as well as extension.

References

APARALU (2005): Lam farm Research Centre Guntur, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University.

Butterworth, John., Adolph, Barbara., and Suresh Reddy, B. (2003): How farmers Manage Soil Fertility: A guide to support Innovation and Livelihoods, ITDG Publishing, London.

Economic Survey 2007-08 (2008): Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Economic Division, NewDelhi.

Kashyap (1998): 'Farmers Innovatory Approach Towards Manging Gram Pod Borer on Redgram', Honeybee Newsletter, Shristi, Ahmedabad, Vol. 3.

Poinetti, Carine (2005): Sowing Autonomy: Gender and Seed Politics in Semi-arid India, International Institute for Environment Development (IIED), London.

Poinetti, Carine and Suresh Reddy, B. (2002): 'Farmers' Perceptions of Crop diversity in the Deccan Plateau', SEEDLING, Quarterly Newsletter of Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN), Spain.

Sasi K.P. (2000): When the Birds Stop Singing: A Study on the hnpact of Pesticides, Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, Mumbai.

Satheesh, P.V. (2000): Crops of Truth: Farmers' Perception of Agrobiodiversity in the Deccan Region of South India, Booksline, Hyderabad.

Reddy Suresh, B. (1999): NPM-Way of Achieving Food Security, LEISA INDIA, AME, Banglore, September 1999.

Reddy Suresh, B. (2010): 'Assessment of Economic and Ecological returns from Millet- based Bio-diverse Organic Farms vis-a-vis Conventional Farms', CESS Monograph Series No. 8, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad.

Reddy Suresh, B. (2010): 'Soil Fertility Managment in Semi-Arid Regions: The Socio-Cultural, Economic and Livelihood Dimensions of Farmers' Practices- A Case of Andhra Pradesh', unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Dr. B.R. Amedkar University, Hyderabad.

B. Suresh Reddy, Assistant Professor, Research Unit for Livelihoods and Natural Resources, Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), N.O. Campus, Hyderabad, e-mail: shihithasuresh@yahoo.com

Table 1
Yield Gaps of Important Dryland Crops

Name of the Yield in (Kgs/ha) Yield in (Kgs/ha)
crop Experimental plot farmers field

Red gram 1800-2000 700-900
Green gram 1200-1400 500-600
Black gram 1400-1600 500-700
Bengal gram 1900-2400 800-1000
Horse gram 1200-1400 200-400
Soybean 1700-1900 800-1000
Castor 1200-1400 700-900
Mustard 1200-1400 300-500
Sesame 500-700 150-300
Sun flower 1000-1200 400-600
Jowar 3000-3400 1000-1200
Bajra 1900-2400 1000-1200
Ragi 2900-3900 1100-1300

Source: Agricultural almanac, Acharja N.G. Ranga Agricultural
University and District Agricultural advisory technological
transformation centre, 2009.

Table 2
Economics of Low External Input Pest Management in
Redgram with Intercrop in Black soil

Name Area Yeild in Plant
of the in ha. Quintols/ha. protection
farmer cost
 Redgram Intercrop (Rs./ha.)

Jagannath 1.4 5.8 8.50 (a) 425
Reddy

Mahamood 1.2 4.16 3.75 (b)
Miya 0.50 (c) 263

Maruthi 0.8 3.12 2.50 (b)
Patel 1.43 (c) 213

B.Kanthamma 1.2 3.87 2.50 (c)
 1.25 (+) 350

M.Chandranna 0.6 5.83 6.66 (a) 288

Beerappa 0.8 5.00 1.87 (c) 375

Mustari 0.6 6.66 154
Saranappa

Manik Rao 1.6 5.31 5.00 (a) 269

Shankar 0.4 3.00 1.87 (b) 150

B. Tukaram 2.8 2.85 0.35 (a)
 1.42 (b)
 0.21 (c)
 0.14 (d) 163

Name Total Gross Net
of the cost of Income Income
farmer Cultivation (Rs./ (Rs./
 (Rs./ha.) ha.) ha.)

Jagannath 5361 13220 7859
Reddy

Mahamood
Miya 3468 11558 8090

Maruthi
Patel 2280 10069 7789

B.Kanthamma
 4798 11050 6252

M.Chandranna 1981 12166 10185

Beerappa 3265 94378 6172

Mustari 2271 9333 7062
Saranappa

Manik Rao 4423 9906. 5484

Shankar 2208 7200 4992

B. Tukaram
 2445 6685 4240

Source: Field study

Note: (a) = Jowar, (b) = Greengram, (c) = Blackgram; (d) = Niger,
* = Bajra; (+) = Field bean

Table 3
Economics of Conventional Farmers (control plots) in Redgram

Name Area Yeild in Plant
of the in ha. Quintols/ha. protection
farmer cost
 Redgram Intercrop (Rs./ha.)

D. Laxmi 0.4 0.625 2.50 (a)
 0.75 *
 0.87 (d) 563

Khajamiya 0.4 2.12 1.50 (a)
 0.87 * 937

Subhash Patel 0.4 2.87 2.50 (a) 1062

Saibanna 0.4 3.75 3.00 (b) 998

Mogulappa 0.4 1.5 4.37 (a) 1063

Name Total Gross Net
of the cost of Income Income
farmer Cultivation (Rs./ (Rs./
 (Rs./ha.) ha.) ha.)

D. Laxmi
 3165 4300 1135

Khajamiya
 2975 4400 1425

Subhash Patel 4357.5 5775 1418

Saibanna 6342.5 9150 2807

Mogulappa 3265 4725 1460

Source: Field study

Note: (a) = Jowar, (b) = Greengram, (c) = Blackgram; (d) = Niger,
* = Bajra; (+) = Field bean

Table 4
Economics of Low External Input Pest Management of
Redgram with Intercrop in Red soil

Name Area Yeild in Plant
of the in ha. Quintols/ha. protection
farmer cost
 Redgram Intercrop (Rs./ha.)

P. Siddiram 0.4 1.10 3.75 (a) 125

D. Shivappa 1.2 1.30 0.93 (a)
 0.72 (b) 163

Ashappa 2.8 2.00 0.89 (c)
 4.28 (a) 225

N. Rangamma 0.8 1.25 5.00 (a) 175

P. Subhash 0.4 1.62 5.00 (a) 150

K. Jettappa 0.4 3.25 2.50 (a) 138

R. Ismail 0.6 0.83 3.33 * 130

N. Radhamma 0.8 0.93 2.50 (a) 150

Jothappa 0.8 2.00 0.62 (a) 125

Balwanthi 1.4 1.42 0.71 (b)
 0.36 (c)
 3.57 (a)
 0.60 (+) 343

Name Total Gross Net
of the cost of Income Income
farmer Cultivation (Rs./ (Rs./
 (Rs./ha.) ha.) ha.)

P. Siddiram 1235 4700 3465

D. Shivappa
 1608 4190 2582

Ashappa
 1612 6785 5173

N. Rangamma 1733 4750 3017

P. Subhash 725 5775 5050

K. Jettappa 625 6300 5675

R. Ismail 687 3875 3188

N. Radhamma 420 2812 2392

Jothappa 1958 3238 1280

Balwanthi

 3755 6405 2650

Source: Field study

Note: (a) = Jowar, (b) = Greengram, (c) = Blackgram; (d) = Niger,
* = Bajra; (+) = Field bean