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 black
soils 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 2005-06 787.0
3 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. 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 484
4.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




Social mapping
S.
No
Year Village Population No. of farmers No. of non-
farm
families
Male Female
SC ST Others Total
1 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

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

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)

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

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




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
IPM
IPM
NON
IPM
IPM
Non
IPM
IPM
NON
IPM
IPM 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


Bollworm Incidence (No. larvae/plant):
Year
Spotted
Bollworms
(No./plant)
Helicoverpa
(No./plant)
Pink Bollworm
(No./plant)
Bollworm damage (%)
Spodoptera (No./plant)

IPM
Non
IPM
IPM
Non
IPM
IPM
Non
IPM
IPM 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

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
sprays
Name 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

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 crop
seeds, 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





Chapter V
Outcome (2008-09)
Status of pest and disease incidence
Pests 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 on
Bengalgram and even on Redgram
Spodoptera

On chillis, the incidence is
medium.
Pink bollworm



Status of beneficial insects (2008-09)
S.
No
Village
Name 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.

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.

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 3
6 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















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




5. Socio-economic change :

Social change :

S.
No.
Socio-Psychological
character
Change in the character
(1-4 scale)
Activity responsible
for 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
Income
through
agriculture
Rs.
Net income
Cost of
Fertilizers
consumption

Cost of Plant
Protection





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.
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.