TRIP REPORT. India IPM CRSP Sites in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. August 21-29, 2009

Transcription

1 TRIP REPORT India IPM CRSP Sites in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka August 21-29, 2009 E. A. Short Heinrichs, Consultant, VA Tech Srinivasan Ramasamy, Entomologist, AVRDC- The World Vegetable Center Tamil Nadu farmer in her field of brinjal infested with the papaya mealybug Paracoccus marginatus. The 1.5 acre field has been sprayed with insecticide several times at a cost of Rupees27,00 0 ($ 600) but will be plowed due to lack of effective mealybug control. 1

2 Purpose of Trip: To review the progress of the India site projects and to identify activities for the next phase of the South Asia Regional Project, India site. Sites Visited: TNAU activities in the Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu area and TERI demonstration plots in Bengarpet, Kolar, Karnataka. Description of Activities/Discussions: Date Contact/met with Activities/Discussions August 23 August Mohan Kumar K. Angappan 24 August TNAU and KVK staff Dr. V. Udayasuriyan and Dr. R. Samiyappan Dr. E.I. Jonathon Dr. Kalai Selvan Dr. P. Karuppuchamy Dr. G. Chandrasekaran Dr. S. Subramanian Left Lincoln, Nebraska 21 st arriving in Coimbatoreon 23 rd. Arrived Coimbatore 9:00 am. 1:00 4:00 pm Discussed the proposed program of visit, current status of the project, proposed activities for the next phase and components of the next annual report submission. 8:00 9:00 Training Programme on Strategies to Mitigate Papaya Mealy Bug 9:00 9:30 Discussion with Professor and Head DPMB&B Dr. V. Udayasuriyan and Director of CPMB Dr. R. Samiyappan 9:30 10:00 Discussion with Director CPPS Dr. E.I. Jonathon 10:00 10:30 Discussion with Director of Extension Education Dr. Kalai Selvan 10:30 1;00 pm Discussion with Prof. and Head of Agric. Entomology Dr. P. Karuppuchamy, Plant Pathology Dr. G. Chandrasekar and Nematology Dr. Subramanian 2:30 5:30 pm Discussion on TNAU IPM CRSP activities and proposed plans for the next phase. Participants: Dr. Mohan Kumar, Entomologist 2

3 Dr. K. Angappan, Plant Pathologist P. Karuppuchamy, Head, Entomology Dr. C. Durairaj, Entomologist Dr. S. Suresh, Entomologist Dr. E.I. Jonathon, Director CPPS Dr. G. Chandrasekar, Head, Plant Pathology Dr. S. Subramanian, (in charge), Nematology Dr. R. Samiyappan, Director, CPMB 7:00 9:00 pm Dinner with TNAU Plant Protection staff hostedby TNAU Vice Chancellor Dr. P. Murugesa Boopathi and Registrar, P. Subbian 25 August TNAU, KVK Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperativve Ltd (M. Krishnan) and State Dept. of Horticulture Staff 26 August Dr. Nutan Kaushik, TERI IPM CRSP Coordinator and Sri Manjunath, Teri Field Asst. 27 August Dr. Nutan Kaushik, TERI IPM CRSP Coordinator and Sri Manjunath, Teri Field Asst. 28 August Dr. K.P.Jayanth, Vice Pres.; Dr. Swapan Kumar Ghosh, Sr. Manager Research; M.S. Prabhakara, Manager Extension; Dr. Malvika Chaudhary, Manager Research and Dr. Gangadhar B.N., Manager Research. 10:00am 2:00pm Farmers meeting and grafting training at Thondamuthur block Vegetable field visits at Pullagoundanpudur area Visit TERI tomato IPM demonstration sites in Bengarpet, Kolar, Karnataka area Visit TERI tomato IPM demonstration sites in Bengarpet, Kolar, Karnataka area 8:00 2:00 pm Visit to PCI BioControl Research Laboratories (BCRL), Dodballapur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka. Note: Several of the technologies used in the IPM CRSP demo trials were developed and provided by BCRL. Dr. N. G. Kumar, Head of Ent. Dept., Dr.B. Mallik, Acarologists, Dr. A.V.R. Kumar, Entomologist and Dr. C. Virakatamath, 2:00 3:00 pm Visit University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) Department of Entomology 3

4 Professor Emeritus Dr. R.J. Rabindra, Director, 3:00 5:00 pm Visit to National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects, ICAR, Bellary Road, Bangalore (formerly Commonwealth Bureau of Biological Control CIBC followed by Project Directorate of Biological Control) 7:00 pm Leave for Delhi 29 August 2:00 am Leave Delhi for Lincoln, NE via Frankfurt Chicago. Training Activities Conducted: Program type (workshop, seminar, field day, short course, etc.) Date Audience Number of Participants Men Women Training Provider Training Objective Workshop at TNAU 8/24/09 Tamil Nadu KVK (Krishi Vigyan Kendra) extension staff Workshop in Pullagoundanpudur village, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 8/25/20 09 Vegetable farmers of Thondamuthur block TNAU Papaya mealybug sensitization TNAU, Tamil Nadu State Dept. of Horticulture, local KVK agent Integrated Vegetable Grafting Technology for Managing Soil Borne Diseases Summary of the Training on Integrated Vegetable Grafting Technology for Managing Soil Borne Diseases at Thondamuthur, Coimbatore, India on August 25, 2009 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore in collaboration with AVRDC The World Vegetable Center, Taiwan, USAID supported IPM CRSP, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA and State Department of Horticulture, Tamil Nadu jointly organized a training on Integrated vegetable grafting technology for managing soil borne diseases and increasing tolerance to flooding in the hot wet season at Thondamuthur block, Coimbatore district on Dr. E.A. Heinrichs, IPM CRSP Consultant, Virginia State University, USA and Dr. R. Srinivasan, Entomologist, AVRDC gave special addresses emphasizing the needs of vegetable 4

5 grafting and prospects achieved with the training in different countries. Dr. A. Chandrasekaran, Director, Centre for Plant Protection Studies (I/C), Professor and Heads and scientists from Dept. of Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology and Agricultural Entomology, TNAU participated in the training. From the State Department of Horticulture, Thiru. M. Thangarasu, Deputy Director of Horticulture, Coimbatore and Thirumathi. R. Rajamani, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Thondamuthur also participated in the programme. Members of Dheeeran Chinnamalai Precision Farmers Association, Pullagoundanpudur participated and benefitted from the training. Out of 58, twenty three women farmers also actively participated. The participants were divided in to six groups. The farmers were explained regarding construction of tunnel type grafting chamber, which is the pre requisite for establishment of vegetable grafted seedlings using locally available materials. Grafting technique was explained and a hand on training was imparted using pro tray raised seedlings of tomato, brinjal and chillies. After training, a session was arranged to have discussion between scientists and farmers. Dr. A. Chandrasekaran, Director, Centre for Plant Protection Studies TNAU addressing the gathering Dr. E. A. Heinrichs, Virginia Tech, USA addressing the gathering 5

6 Dr. R. Srinivasan, AVRDC emphasizing the needs of vegetable grafting technique Thiru. M. Thangarasu, Deputy Director of Horticulture,Coimbatore addressing the gathering Demonstration of grafting technique to paticipants Hands on experience in vegetable grafting technique Professor and Head (Agricultural Entomology) TNAU interacting with farmers about IPM of papaya mealybug Professor (Plant Pathology)TNAU interacting with farmers 6

7 Observations of TNAU and TERI Activities 1. There is no apparent linkage between the Global Themes and the TNAU and TERI demonstration activities. 2. The linkages between the India site, Bangladesh and Nepal are weak and have little appearance of a regional project. Except for training of Bangladesh scientists at TNAU there has been little in the way of synergistic collaboration among the three countries. 3. The linkages between the India components, TNAU and TERI are weak. This may be due to an insufficient budget. 4. Since TERI does not develop technology they need a linkage with those who do develop technology including universities and private companies such as biocontrol and seed companies. 5. The project needs more interaction and collaboration with private industry. For example, many of the technologies employed are provided by the Bio Control Research Laboratories (BCRL) in Bangalore and are agencies and are commercially available throughout India. Examples Pseudomonas, Trichoderma (NIPROT), Nuclear Poyhedrosis Virus (NPV), Neem Baan, Beauveria bassiana (Myco Jaal) and Bacillus thuringiensis and pheromones for Helicoverpa armigera (American Bollworm), Spodoptera litura (Tobacco Caterpillar), Plutella xylostella (Diamond Back Moth), Chilo infuscatellus (Sugarcane Early Shoot Borer), Leucinodes orbonalis (Brinjal Fruit & Shoot Borer), Bactrocera cucurbitae (Melon Fly) and Bactrocera dorsalis (Fruit Fly). There should also be closer collaboration with the vegetable seed industry. 6. There is a need to increase the chances of sustainability of the project. TNAU has linkages with extension via the KVK which can continue promoting vegetable IPM when TNAU funding is terminated. However, TERI has no such linkages. 7. Since this project is an applied research and technology transfer project it seems logical that the TNAU component would be lead by the Centre for Plant Protection Studies (CPPS) rather than by the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology as is the current arrangement. 8. The technology used in the demonstration plots appears to be effective in minimizing pesticide use, is economically viable, increases yields and increases farmer income. The farmers we met were enthused with the IPM technology. However, the impact on a national (or state) basis is inconsequential since so few farmers are involved. 9. A number of technologies are being used but it is not clear which technologies are contributing to the increased yield. TNAU has conducted some research comparing technologies and has prepared a paper for publication which will shed some light on this subject for brinjal. However, this paper has no economic data in regard to the various IPM tactics compared to the farmers practice. 10. There is a need to document whether the IPM demonstration plots are actually more productive than the farmers normal practice. For example, farmers say their yields are 1.5 times their yields in the previous year or 2 times that of their neighbors but have no 7

8 scientific proof for either. It is difficult to promote the technology based on the lack of scientific evidence. 11. Demonstration plots are mostly in isolated farms, far from a road and cannot be readily seen by other farmers as they pass by on the way to town. Thus the impact is minimal. 12. TERI has insufficient funds to conduct the demonstrations properly. For example, when peacocks destroy the pheromone traps in an attempt to eat the insects from the plastic bag they do not have funds to replace the traps. To TERI s credit they are subsidizing the project from non IPM CRSP funds. Recommendations for the next phase( ) of Regional IPM CRSP Project India Site the South Asia Networking 1. A strategy must be developed to fully integrate the Global themes of Invasive Species, Insect Transmitted Viruses, Regional Diagnostic Labs and Impact Assessment into the next phase. 2. The South Asia Regional Project was not a regional project in the third phase but three country programs; Bangladesh, Nepal and India operating independently. The potential synergism in networking was not achieved. The next phase of the South Asia Regional Project must be designed to insure networking and close collaboration networking among the three countries. Inclusion of Sri Lanka in the network should be explored. 3. A close working relationship must be developed between TERI and TNAU and potential other agencies that are component of the next phase. Technology developed at TNAU should be incorporated into the TERI demonstration plots. 4. In addition to a closer linkage with TNAU TERI should develop linkages with technology development (research) and technology transfer (extension) agencies in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh in order to incorporate the latest technology in their demonstration plots and to more effectively spread the technology within the region. One approach would be to provide the opportunity for University of Agricultural Science (UAS), Bangalore, Karnataka to conduct their M.Sc. theses evaluating the effectiveness of various technologies in the TERI demonstration sites in Karnataka. This could also be done in the sites in Andhra Pradesh and in Uttar Pradesh. 5. To provide new technology for the demonstration sites, provide increased impact and promote sustainability of the project once IPMCRSP terminates its involvement, the addition 8

9 of private industry as components of the project should be considered. These institutions could include among others the BCRL for biological control agents and Gujarat Agri Genetic Ltd. for vegetable seeds. Both have indicated an interest in developing formal collaboration. 6. The India site has technology and expertise that should be shared with other countries in the regional project (Bangladesh and Nepal) and with other regional projects such as Central Asia. This could include workshops and short term training in the collaborating countries and in India and degree training in India. Sustainability 1. In designing the next phase of the India site project sustainability is of major importance. In Tamil Nadu, TNAU needs to intensify, expand and strengthen their link to the KVK centers. TNAU should also expand their contacts and collaboration with NGOs and commercial industries. TERI Has no such links to extension and when they close their sites there will be no agency to continue the promotion of the IPM concept. A strategy should be developed to link TERI with technology transfer agencies at their sites in Karnataka, AP and UP. TERI can also consider expanding to additional states. 2. To increase the impact and provide for sustainability of the vegetable IPM project we must consider collaboration with other relevant Indian agencies and NGOs. One such agency is the National Centre for integrated Pest Management (NCIPM) which would provide linkages to ICAR institutes, the Plant Protection Information Network, Directorate of Extension of the Ministry of Agriculture, Central and State Agricultural universities, Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs), and industry. The NCIPM promotes IPM modules in major crops at village levels, develops pest forewarning systems, computer software and preparation of geographical pest distribution maps as well as conducting training programs in various fields of IPM. Their interest in collaborating with the IPM CRSP in promoting vegetable IPM deserves exploration. Management 1. The TNAU component should be under the direction of the Centre for Plant Protection Studies (CPPS) rather than the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology as is the current arrangement. It would then have direct links to the weed scientists, entomologists, plant pathologists and nematologists and a strong link to the Director of Extension for technology transfer. Impact 1. The impact of the current project on a national (or state) basis is inconsequential since so few farmers are involved. If the technology is as good as the farmers say it is we need to give major emphasis on developing a strategy to reach more farmers with the IPM technologies. One strategy is to significantly increase the networking with agricultural universities, state agricultural departments, national plant protection agencies technology transfer agencies, NGOs and private industry. 9

10 2. The demonstration sites should be strategically located. Placing them near a busy road rather than in a hard to reach farmers field would definitely create more awareness and have an increased impact. Applied Research 1. Research is needed to determine which technologies are contributing to the increased yield, if any in effect are. When we asked a farmer in Bengarpet, Karnataka who said his yields were doubled using IPM technologies, what technology was giving him the big yield boost, he referred to the sticky traps. However, this is his guess but we believe that it is more likely Trichoderma or Pseudomonas treatments or the variety planted. More research on the effectiveness of currently used technologies and on new technologies to be introduced is needed. These studies should include yield and economic data. They would make excellent M.Sc. theses and collaboration with agricultural universities in the region should be encouraged. These studies would provide both valuable potential impact data (ex ante) and promote institutional capacity building by training the students in vegetable IPM research and by linking their professors with vegetable IPM activities in the area. 2. There is a need to document whether the IPM demonstration plots are actually more productive than the farmers conventional practice. All of the farmers we talked to indicted increased yields in IPM plots over previous years or that of their neighbors non IPM plots in the current season. However there is no scientific proof for either statement. A need for properly designed tests is necessary. Otherwise, it is difficult to promote the technology based on the lack of scientific evidence. These studies would also provide data for M. Sc. theses. 3. Because of the wide range of host plants (including vegetables) and the severity of the damage caused the new phase should include a strategy to manage the invasive papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus. Because biocontrol agents have the most potential to manage this pest collaboration with the National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects is recommended. Project Development 1. In the development of the workplan for the new the U. S. university contracted to lead the South Asia Regional Project should work very closely with the Indian agencies sub contracted to carry out the India site activities. Most of the shortcomings of the current phase can be avoided with proper planning. This requires that the U.S. Project Leaders meet with their Indian counterparts to jointly develop the workplan. 2. The new phase should build on the successes of the first phase. Technologies that were most effective in the first phase should be included in the demo plots in the new phase. 3. Target crops in the third phase were bhendi (okra), brinjal (eggplant) and tomatoes. The next phase should be expanded to include cucurbits. Farmers at Meerut (near Delhi) have previously indicated that cabbage be included in addition to cucurbits. 10

11 4. The new phase should include more emphasis on the screening and selection of vegetable varieties for resistance to insects and diseases, especially insect transmitted viruses. This tactic has been underutilized in the current phase. Funding 1. Project development should be based on the funding available for each agency involved in the next phase. To increase the quality of the activities they should be realistically based on the funding available. TNAU s Proposed Workplan and Timeline for the Second Phase Activities Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 1. Regional network establishment Activity 1.1 Regional meeting (proposed to be held at TNAU, Coimbatore) Activity 1.2 Establish a national network of IPM expertise (NCIPM, TERI, NBPGR) Activity 1.3 Seek USAID support 2. Promote Regional and International Communication Activity 2.1 Website development Activity 2.2 Establish a Yahoo group on South Asia IPM Activity 2.3 Establish an expertise directory Activity 2.4 Publish an e-news letter on South Asia IPM activities 3. Collaborate with Global Theme Projects and Regional Centers Activity 3.1 Meet with lead PI of the virus gloabal theme and conduct a workshop at TNAU Activity 3.2 Meet with lead PI of the pest diagnostic laboratories global theme and conduct a workshop at TNAU Activity 3.3 Meet Lead PIs of the South Asia Regional Project at TNAU Activity 3.4 Meet with the national partners at TERI, New Delhi 11

12 4. Develop baseline information Activity 4.1 Mini-participatory appraisal Activty 4.2 Pest and beneficial survey Activity 4.3 Pesticide usage pattern survey Activity 4.4 Baseline toxicity assay for newer molecules of pesticides Activity 4.5 Cataloguing of pests and diseases of under utilized vegetable crops 5. Farmer participatory technology development Activity 5.1 Collection and assembling of biotic stress resistant vegetable germplasm (wild, varieties and hybrids) from national and international agencies Activity 5.2 Evaluation for pest resistance and pest resistance breeding using conventional and molecular tools Activity 5.3 Development of mass multiplication Activity 5.4 Developing an IPM package for gourds Activity 5.5 Developing an IPM package for vegetable nurseries Activity 5.6 Developing an IPM package for cabbage and cauliflower Activity 5.7 Developing an IPM package for chillies and onion Activity 5.8 Developing IPM for protected (screen net) vegetable cultivation Activity 5.9 Molecular diagnostics Activity 5.10 Evaluation of new environmentally low-risk molecules (both synthetic and botanicals) for plant protection 6. Vegetable ecosystem safety analysis Activity 6.1 Pesticide residue analysis in vegetables Activity 6.2 Monitoring the impact of commercialized transgenic crops Activity 6.3 Cataloguing and monitoring ecotype variation in pests 7. Training and institutional capacity building 7.1 Evaluation of training needs 12

13 7.2 Training in molecular pest diagnostics 7.3 Training in virus-vector dynamics in the vegetable ecosystem 7.4 Formulation development of botanicals 7.5 Pest reisistance breeding using conventional and molecular tools 7.6 Partcipating/presenting results in international congresses/workshops and symposia 8. Technology transfer Activity 8.1 Identify technology transfer collaborators Activity 8.2 Development of IT-enabled resource material for safe vegetable cultivation Activity 8.3 Identification and testing of available technologies Activity 8.4 Validation and transfer of technology developed through this project Activity 8.5 Transfer of technology through extension Activity 8.6 Conducting frontline demonstrations on IPM modules 9. Monitoring and evaluation Activity 9.1 Activity Impact Assessment (collaborate with Global Theme on Impact Assessment) 13

14 Photo Gallery TNAU, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu and TERI, Bengarpet, Karnataka Sites August 2009 Papaya mealybug Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink on a papaya leaf. Papaya mealybug Paracoccus marginatus on a papaya fruit. 14

15 Papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus, infested brinjal field at Pullagoundanpudur village, Thandamuthur block, Coimbatore. First instar Papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus, crawlers on a brinjal leaf at Pullagoundanpudur village, Coimbatore. 15

16 Papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus, ovisacs on a brinjal fruit at Pullagoundanpudur village, Coimbatore. Malformation of okra (causal agent not determined) at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. 16

17 Yellow vein mosaic virus on okra at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. Mylabris pustulata feeding on an okra flower at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. Tomato fruitworm, Helicoverpa armigera, virus, Alternaria fruit rot (?) and environmental stress damaged tomatoes at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. 17

18 Tomato fruitworm, Helicoverpa armigera, damage on a young tomato fruit at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. Tomato fruitworm, Helicoverpa armigera larva on a tomato plant at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. Alternaria fruit rot (?) on a tomato fruit at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka 18

19 Septoria leaf spot on a tomato at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. Wilt on tomato at Bengarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka. 19

20 Mr. Thimmarya Reddy, Village Battegoudanur, Bengarpet Taluk, Karnataka in the TERI IPM CRSP tomato IPM demonstration plot. Mr. Thimmarya Reddy, TERI IPM CRSP collaborator, Village Battegoudanur, Bengarpet Taluk, Karnataka in front of his newly constructed house (behind the paddy field). Because of the high yields of tomatoes and other vegetables Mr. Reddy has harvested the last two years and the premium prices paid for his fruit he has been able to purchase additional land and constructed a new house (seen in rear)in the last year. 20

21 Lastraw, a new organic salt based product developed by the Bio Control Research Laboratories, Bangalore is effective against a wide range of sucking insects and mites. Mealybug infested plant (left) and healthy plant (right) treated with Lastraw in Bio Control Research Laboratories tests. 21