Evaluation of the benefits of an insecticide resistance management programme in Punjab in India

Abstract

In India, many IPM programmes have been implemented, but they have not achieved the desired level of success in reducing insecticide use and increasing adoption of IPM practices. This inter-disciplinary study evaluated an Insecticide Resistance Management-based Integrated Pest Management (IRM-IPM) programme in cotton and compared it with non-IRM production for a range of IPM and economic measures. The IRM-IPM programme has been implemented in 28 districts of 10 states of India since 2002 to help rationalize and reduce the use of insecticides and to overcome the development of resistance in cotton pests, especially Helicoverpa armigera. The IRM-IPM strategy includes applying insecticides only when pests exceed economic threshold levels, using selective insecticides that are compatible with biological control, and rotating between different insecticide classes. The IRM-IPM programme we evaluated resulted in a reduction in insecticide consumption (technical grade material) by 30%, and it reduced the number of sprays by 15%; however, it did not result in a significant change in productivity. The majority of IRM farmers avoided using highly toxic insecticides such as monocrotophos, avoided use of synthetic pyrethroids beyond 140 days after sowing to avoid resurgence of Bemisia tabaci, and rotated the insecticide compounds/groups to delay the development of resistance and ensured effective management of H. armigera. On average, the IRM-IPM programme resulted in a return of US $24.05 ha 71 (at 2005 rates: US $1 ¼ 45 Indian rupees), by saving on insecticide costs. While the farmers gained significantly in knowledge of IPM practices, the level of adoption of IPM techniques was low. Further studies based on impact evaluation methodology, employing a with/without and before/ after quasi-experimental design, would provide feedback to help in the formulation of future IPM strategies.

Impact evaluation indicators of an Integrated Pest Management program in vegetable crops in the subtropical region of Jammu and Kashmir, India

“…IPM-trained farmers applied a smaller quantity of pesticides (a.i) by weight compared to non-IPM farmers in cauliflower and eggplant crops. The results are in line with other IPM studies conducted by Mullen et al (1997); Mancini et al (2008);and Peshin et al (2009c). In the cabbage and okra crops, the pesticide use (a.i.)…”

Factors preventing the adoption of alternatives to chemical pest control among Pakistani cotton farmers

“…However, strong institutional support is required to extend the scale of IPM training. In the previous program in India, while farmers gained significant knowledge of IPM practices, the level of adoption of IPM techniques was low (Peshin et al 2009). Therefore, in seeking for a better solution to pest control problems and negative externalities of pesticide use, the priority issues should not be just how to set up regulations and policies that would ban pesticide use in crop production, but how to use pesticide correctly and safely, avoiding various forms of misuse.…”

“…Examples of such awareness programs relating to pesticides can be traced in other developing countries (Sam et al 2008;Hashemi et al 2009;Gaber & Abdel-Latif 2012). In India, an IPM program based on insecticide resistance management in cotton resulted in a reduction in insecticide use (technical grade material) by 30% and reduced the number of sprays by 15% (Peshin et al 2009). Also, trained smallholder farmers from cotton-growing areas of India showed enhanced decision-making by the use of more decision tools and new sources of information and technologies; thus, they were more confident in pest management strategies than untrained farmers from the same areas (Williamson et al 2003).…”

Farmers’ adoptability of integrated pest management of cotton revealed by a new methodology

“…CICR, Nagpur and the Asian Development Bank, CABI, and the Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage, Government of India, are promoting IPM to farmers since 1994. However, regardless of these efforts, the adoption of IPM practices has remained low (Peshin et al 2009a).…”

“…This in turn will provide researchers with empirical data, so that future research grants curtail wasteful expenditure. For example: Millions of taxpayers' money have been spent on the development of IPM technologies in the past five decades for reducing pesticide use (Grieshop and Pence 1990;Peshin et al 2009a), without widespread adoption by farmers. Millions of taxpayers' money have also been spent on IPM extension (Kenmore 1997;Bartlett 2005;Peshin et al 2009b), without much success in scaling up adoption (Bartlett 2005).…”