PROJECT PROPOSAL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN MANGO

Transcription

1 PROJECT PROPOSAL On INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN MANGO UNDER RKVY FOR THE YEAR Directorate of Horticulture, 39

2 Odisha, Bhubaneswar PROJECT SUMMARY Name of the project: INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN MANGO Implementing agency: Directorate of Horticulture, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Project area: Selected farmer s fields Unit cost: All 30 districts collaboration with CHES (ICAR), Aiginia, Bhubaneswar A. Demonstration Rs Farmer s contribution Rs (25%) RKVY assistance Rs (75%) B.Trainer s Training Rs Total Units: C. Farmers training: Rs A.Demonstration B.Trainer s Training 2000 nos 2 no C. farmers training: 50 nos Total Cost: A. Demonstration Rs lakhs (Farmers contribution Rs lakh RKVY assistance Rs lakhs) B. Trainer s Training Rs.0.15 lakhs C. Farmers training : Rs.7.50 lakhs Contingency RKVY assistance Rs.0.97 lakhs Rs lakhs Implementation Period:

3 PROJECT PROPOSAL ON INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN MANGO The harmful effects of chemical pesticide use in various crops have now being discussed everywhere. Integrated pest management is preferred over chemical control of disease pests in view of environmental and health hazards associated with the large-scale use of inorganic agrochemicals. Mango the king of fruits is the predominant fruit crop of Odisha. It is being cultivated over more than 1.78 lakh ha with production of more than 5.77 lakh MT with productivity of 4.45 MT / ha which is quite low even from the national average. The growing demand for fruits necessitates increasing the production and productivity of this potential crop of Orissa. Many biotic and non-biotic causes are responsible for this poor productivity which need to be addressed. In mango hoppers, mealy bug, scale insect, stone weevil, fruit flies, anthracnose and powdery mildew are the major biotic constraints in Odisha. Among these, hoppers, fruit flies and powdery mildew cause severe damage. An integrated approach for their management is needed for sustainable mango production. Limitations of the present management system: 1. Use of hazardous agrochemicals. 2. High incidence of diseases and pests. 3. Resurgence of pests. 4. High degree of environmental pollution. 5. Threat to the beneficial insects and pollinizers. 6. Occupational health hazard. 7. Increased crop loss, application of excessive pesticide in the ecosystem, social risk and lower benefit cost ratio. 8. Reduced crop yield and low profitability. 41

4 THE TECHNOLOGY Experimental findings of Central Horticultural Experiment Station, Aiginia, Khurda resulted in profitable mango crop with lower environmental hazards. The recommendations and experimental results are detailed below. For management of powdery mildew and hoppers 1. Spray of Sulfur 2 g /l (for powdery mildew) and carbaryl 2 g /l (for hoppers) at bud burst stage. 2. At high hopper density (>4 hoppers/panicle) spray Imidachloprid 0.005% or Lamda cyhalothrin % at full length stage of panicles but before full bloom to avoid killing of pollinators. At the same time the sulfur application may be repeated. 3. The third spray if required should be done at pea stage with carbaryl 2 g /l. For the management of fruit fly 1. Use of Male Annihilation Technique 10 blocks /ha. Install the traps at least 45 days prior to fruit maturity. If blocks are wetted in rains or fail to attract the flies, replace the blocks after 30 days or even early. These MAT blocks are available as Fruit Fly traps. 2. Use of Bait Annihilation Technique (BAT) (0.1% insecticide, 10% jaggery or banana in water) especially when fly pressure is high. Apply BAT mixture weekly starting 45 days prior to fruit maturity. Spray in spots with 40 ml at a rate of 200 spots/ha (approximately 8 L/ha). Preparation and application of BAT Prepare liquid of 0.1% insecticide and 10% jaggery or 10% pulped ripe banana in water. Apply this mixture in spots of 40ml at a rate of 200spots/Ha (approximately 8L/Ha) at the start of fruiting to the undersides of leaves, about 1.5m above the ground in orchard with sprayers or with a fine brush or broom to coat leaf surfaces smoothly. While applying, the bait is aimed into the middle rather than the extreme top or bottom of the tree and into the centre rather than the outer foliage. Hitting the fruit with the bait mixture and baiting trees with ripe fruit should be avoided. Bait is to be applied in the morning, if possible as midday application may lead to burning or scarring leaves and fruit. 42

5 All fruit trees should be baited and if the fly population is particularly high, the number of trees baited can be increased to include non-fruiting trees and non-fruit trees or the frequency of baiting can be increased to at least once a week. In cooler months, the frequency of baiting may be decreased to once every fortnight. Rain washes off foliage baits, so after heavy rainfall reapplication of bait is needed. Cost of MAT and BAT Costs of fruit fly control estimated from actual materials and labour due to each treatment has been presented in Table 1. Installation of MAT traps (fruit fly traps) requires half manday. Bait preparation and its spot spray once with knap sack sprayer needed one manday every time where as cover spray requires 1.5 mandays to cover one hectare area once. The unit cost of MAT along with application per ha. is Rs.462.(10 Blocks per Ha.). BAT repeated for six times, on a unit cost of Rs.170, makes a total cost of Rs Thus, the sum of MAT and BAT as an IPM package was =Rs The total cost of cover spray was Rs.1998 (three times Rs.666/spray). The analysis of pesticide: produce ratio indicated that MAT and BAT protected kg and whereas cover sprays only 1.14 kg of mango fruit per ml of insecticide used (Table-1). Table 1: Cost of fruit fly management using MAT, BAT and cover spray in mango Item Quantity* and cost (Rs.) of materials and Labour used in treatments per ha. Unit cost (Rs.) MAT BAT Cover spray Bait material (g) (Jaggery Rs. 40 /kg - (1000 gm) - / Pulped Banana) Rs. 40 Trap (nos) Rs. 40/- each (10nos) Rs. 400/- Insecticide (ml) Rs. 300 /L (20ml) Rs. 6/- (1600ml) Rs.480/- Labour (man.days) 124 /day (1/2 Mds) 43 (1Mds) Rs.124/- (1.5Mds) Rs.186/- Rs. 62/- Cost/application/ha - Rs. 462/- Rs. 170/- Rs. 666/- Total cost of control/ha** Rs. 462/- Rs. 1020/- Rs. 1998/- *Quantity in parenthesis ** 45 days trapping, 2 rounds of MAT blocks if required and 6 times bait spray. Comparison of IPM module with cover spray The experiment was conducted to compare the control and cost effectiveness of MAT and BAT together as against cover spray of insecticide. Total fruit yields, marketable yield, extent of fruit fly infestation, level of fruit protection and quantity of insecticide used in different treatments have been presented in Table 2. Results indicate that the marketable yield in different treatments was found to be governed by the level of fruit protection. Cover spray yielded significantly higher marketable yield (62.25 q/h) than untreated control (43.94 q/h) but significantly lower than MAT and BAT combined together (71.33q/h). In untreated plots the fruit damage was per cent which was significantly higher than cover spray. It indicated

6 that the cover spray could not stop the female fly from stinging fruit and therefore, damage went up to per cent in cover spray which was significantly higher than MAT + BAT (2.43%). On the other hand, the quantity of insecticides used in MAT+ BAT was reduced to 144 ml (11.11 times less) with a higher degree of fruit protection of 93.08% as against 1600 ml and 53.24%, respectively in cover spray. Table 2: Total and marketable Fruit yield, Quantity of pesticide used and extent of protection to fruit against fruit fly Treatment Fruit yield (q/ha) Marketable yield (q/ha) Infestation (%) Protection (%) Insecticide used (ml) Pesticide produce ratio C:B Ratio MAT+ BAT : :21.76 Cover spray :1.14 1:10.99 Non Treated C.D at 5 % NS Table 2a: Infestation level of fruit fly in mango orchard under various types of treatments and area expansion by a farmer Year Treatment Fruit fly damage (%) Revenue Realized (Rs.) 2000 Carbaryl cover spray (farmers practice) 15-20% Carbaryl cover spray (farmers 35-40% practice) 2002 MAT and BAT cover spray 0-3% 3, MAT and BAT spot application 0-3% 5, MAT and BAT spot application 0-2% 6, MAT and BAT spot application 0-4% 7, MAT and BAT spot application 0-3% 8,50000 Farmers field evaluation Percentage fruit fly infestation of mangoes with MAT and BAT application, and the inferred percentage reduction in infestation relative to the unprotected plot have been presented in Table-3 and 4. Data presented in Table-3 reveal that respective IPM modules (IPM modules based on rounds of MAT and BAT used at different locations) provided 95.71, and percent fruit protection at a cost of Rs.1698, Rs.1154 and Rs.1426/ha, respectively. Results indicated that lesser number of BAT rounds provided lesser protection and vice versa. Further it was also clear that BAT plays a vital role in fruit fly management and MAT alone may not be of great use. The results were promising in the sense that MAT and BAT utilised very low quantity of insecticide in comparison to cover spray and provided high level of fruit protection. It could be concluded that two application of MAT and 6-8 application of BAT 44

7 at 6 to 8 days interval in combination of field sanitation can be considered as IPM module of fruit fly management in mango with a high degree of fruit protection as well as high cost benefit ratio. The said module can eliminate the need of insecticide spray which is targeted for fruit flies. Table3: Infestation of fruit flies as affected by number of MAT and BAT rounds Area (Ha) Number of bait sprays Cost of control (Rs) Number of MAT rounds 45 % infestation Inferred % IPM untreated improvement Rayagada 16 8(6) Keonjhar 15 5(12) Kashipur 23 6(8) Table 4: Infestation of fruit flies as affected by number of MAT and BAT rounds ( ) Area (Ha) Number of bait sprays Bait spray interval (days) Number of MAT rounds % infestation Inferred % IPM untreated improvement Rayagada Koraput Sonepur Keonjhar Mid season Ranchi Table5: Cost Benefit analysis of fruit fly management in Mango using MAT and BAT Area Average Yield (Q/ha) Infestation (%) IPM Non IPM Cost of Control (Rs) Protected yield (Q/ha) Price of protected Produce (Rs) Cost benefit ratio Rayagada :7.72 Koraput :5.37 Sonepur :6.53 Keonjhar :3.04 Ranchi :5.99 Table6: Over all yield and monetary benefit due to fruit fly management Place Area (Ha.)under Total yield Percent infestation Protected yield (q) Value of protected demonstration (q) IPM Non IPM yield (Rs) Rayagada , Koraput ,22, Sonepur , Keonjhar , Ranchi , Total ,55,296.00

8 46

9 THE OBJECTIVES a. To disseminate research results in to reality. b. To reduced environmental pollution. c. To reduce the use of hazardous agrochemicals. d. To reduce the incidence of diseases and pests. e. To increase the profitability from mango cultivation. f. To increase the availability of safer food. g. To increase the total fruit production of the state Integrated Pest Management package for mango orchard a. Pre-flowering stage: 1. Summer ploughing should be taken up to expose the eggs of mealy bugs to natural enemies and reduce inoculum load of the pathogens. 2. Unseasonal / pre-seasonal bloom if affected by Powdery mildew should be pruned and destroyed. 3. Spraying of Cypermethrin (1 ml/ litre) / Carbaryl (2g/litre) + Carbendazim (2g/litre) during bud burst stage against sucking pests and fungi. 4. Removal of webs as and when observed. b. Flowering stage: 5. Apply Imidachloprid (0.4 ml/litre) + Sulphur 80 % WP (0.2%) or Dinocap 48% EC during flowering. Avoid spraying at full bloom to conserve pollinators and natural enemies. Avoid spray of sulphur, if temperature rises. 6. Spray of Carbendazim (0.1%) at 10 days interval, in case of incidence of blossom blight. c. Post-flowering stage: 1. Collect and destroy the fallen fruits at marble stage to destroy fruit borers and stone weevils. 2. Trunk spraying of Cypermethrin (1 ml/ litre) at marble stage. 3. Canopy spraying with Chlorpyriphos (2ml/litre) at marble stage against fruit borers. 4. Streptocycline 200 ppm should be sprayed, if the initiation of bacterial cankers disease is observed on the fruits and foliage. 5. Canopy spray of Copper-oxychloride (3g/li ter) in the third or fourth week of June for the control of anthracnose and red rust. 6. Canopy spraying with Carbaryl (2g/litre) during fruit set (if essential). 7. Pruning to remove mealy bugs, scale insects, ants etc. 47

10 d. Pre-harvesting stage: 1. Install MAT traps 30 days prior to harvesting and BAT application for management of fruit fly at fruit maturity. 2. Pre-harvest sprays of Thiophanate methyl (0.1%) or Carbendazim (0.1%) or Hexaconazole (0.01%) should be done to protect mango fruits from post harvest diseases, at 15 days interval, done in such a way that the last spray falls 15 days prior to harvest. e. Post-harvest and pruning stage: 1. The disease/pest attacked/ damaged fallen fruits after harvesting should also be collected and destroyed away from the main orchard. 2. After harvest, crop canopy & trunk spraying with carbaryl or and copper-oxychloride (@3g/litre) should be done. 3. After pruning, copper oxychloride paste should be applied to the cut ends of the plants. Spraying of copper oxychloride (@ 3g/litre) can be done on grown up plants. 4. Pasting of Bordeaux mixture on the trunk portion should be taken up during Aug-Oct in gummosis prone areas. 5. Trunk spraying of Cypermethrin (1 ml/ litre) / Carbaryl (2g/litre) during November against hoppers. 6. Apply 25 cm wide alkathene band or grease on tree trunk in November to prevent migration of mealy bugs in the prone areas. 7. During regular inspections of the orchard, diseased and pest attacked plant parts should be pruned and destroyed by burning or by burying in the soil. UNIT COST (For an area of 1 ha) Sl. No. Item of expenditure Quantity Rate (Rs.) Total (Rs.) 48 RKVY share (Rs.) Farmer s share (Rs.) 1 Cost of alkathene sheet 5 kg 110/ Kg Cost of fruit fly trap using methyl euginol 3 Cost of chemical pesticide a. Imidacloprid 375 ml 1600/L b. Cypermethrin 1 litre 800/L c. Carbaryl 2 Kg 400/Kg Cost of chemical fungicide a. Sulphur 80 % WP 2 Kg. 90/ Kg b. Carbendazim 50% WP 1 Kg 650/ Kg Application of chemical, LS installation of MAT/BAT 6 Misc. exp including literature TOTAL (Inter componential changes may be made as per prevailing rate limiting to RKVY Rs. 4500/- per unit)

11 BENEFICIARIES Any farmer-growing mango may be selected for undertaking the programme. The unit area fixed is 1 acre (0.4ha). However farmers can avail the assistance in multiplication of unit area with a maximum limit of five units per farmer. The main beneficiaries of the project are the advanced farmers. These communities may visualize a reduction in the use of pesticide leading to reduction in pest losses, lower production cost, improved human, environment and animal health and a more stable production system. PROSPECTS Disease and pest incidence to mango is many times high in all parts of the state. Mango crop serve as major source of income for farmers. The knowledge pertaining to pest control among the farmers is very poor. This system will reduce the incidence of pest and disease increasing the production and productivity of the crop. TRAINING (Master s trainer) Venue: Trainer: Trainees: Training duration: No. of trainees: No. of trainings: CHES, Aiginia (Training Hall) Scientists of CHES Horticulturists / Asst. Horticulture Officers 1 day 50 nos. 2 (25 each) Training Cost: Rs (@Rs per training Items Amount (Rs.) Training aid Refreshment Honorarium to the experts per expert Miscellaneous expenditure Total The scientists of Central Horticulture Experimentation Station, Aiginia and Khurda will impart training to the master trainers. 49

12 Farmers Training (Unit cost) Venue: Trainer: Farmer s Field/ Govt. farm Master Trainer (Trained at CHES, Aiginia), KVK Scientists and CHES scientists where ever possible Trainees: Training duration: No. of trainees: Farmers of nearby area 1 day 100 nos. No. of trainings: 1 Training Cost: Rs.15, 000/- per field day Items Amount (Rs.) Training aid Refreshment Miscellaneous expenditure Total The local peoples representatives; district administration officials and media personnel may be invited to the field day to highlight the programme. Target units of Demonstration, 2 trainers training and 50 groups of farmers training PROJECT COST A. Demonstration Rs lakhs (Farmers contribution Rs lakh RKVY assistance Rs lakhs) B. Trainer s Training 2 nos: Rs.0.15 lakhs C. Farmers training 50 Nos: Rs.7.50 lakhs Contingency : Rs.0.97 lakhs RKVY assistance required: Rs lakhs 50

13 14. OUTCOME / BENEFITS A. The cost on recurring pesticide application is reduced as damage of the pest is reduced. B. Cost of pest control is reduced due to increased efficacy of pest control actions. C. Cost of labour, drudgery and risk are reduced. D. The mango yield will increase due to adoption of IDPM module at farmers field. E. Drudgery reduction and increased efficiency due to efficient use of plant protection chemicals. F. Environmental safety. Outcome of the project: It will create safer environment, provide safer food and feed with sustainable agricultural production. 51