Indian cotton farming – Study identifies training needs

Cotton farmers in many parts of India are struggling against insect resistance to pesticides, but without the knowledge or resources to help them combat the problem. Pesticide companies are initiating training programmes in areas of high pesticide usage. The study reported here was undertaken by Guglielmo Pampiglione(1) at Imperial College, and provided the background to a training programme by Zeneca Agrochemicals in Andhra Pradesh, India. Barbara Dinham has highlighted key aspects.

Pesticide advertising entices farmers

Insect pest resistance to pesticides, often brought on by a poor understanding of pesticides usage and of the principles of good crop management, can have a devastating effect on farmers’ crops, income, health and environment. Tragic results can follow. In some areas of the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh, centred mainly in the Warangal district, suicides among cotton farmers number in the hundreds(2). These farmers, already deeply in debt to money lenders and pesticide dealers, have lost crops after spending scarce resources on pesticides to which insects have become resistant. Their desperate actions may provide an escape for the farmer, but leave behind women to cope with a devastated household and in greater poverty. 
    Other regions in the State are less affected, but not immune, with suicides registered in Guntur and elsewhere, where there are also significant signs of pest resistance and falling yields. Cotton production in India accounts for 35-45% by value of pesticide use, while occupying only 5% of cultivated land.  In parts of Guntur like Patnan Bazaar, every second shop is a pesticide outlet. The sales staff in these shops have no training to enable them to advise on appropriate pesticides for cotton pests, nor in how to use pesticides. They stock many products from both the major companies and the local pesticide producers and have a strong incentive to increase their sales.
    The complexity of pesticide application and management has been vastly under-estimated, and recognition of the need for farmer training is growing. In the cotton growing regions of Guntur, Zeneca Agrochemicals UK is initiating a farmer training programme to address resistance problems. A survey carried out in this region in June and July 1997 aimed to assess farmers’ knowledge and expertise as a baseline study for the cotton insect pest management extension training programme. Detailed questions were asked of 43 farmers in three villages, providing a unique insight into their pest management practices in cotton.

Exhibition of pesticide equipment near Patnam Bazar–farmers cannot afford to maintain or regularly upgrade sprayers

The farmers surveyed
The selection of farmers for the survey was not random, but included those with characteristics to be targeted in the Zeneca pilot project. The criteria suggested the target group should include farmers who could influence others;  managers of small- to medium-sized holdings; literate or semi-literate; hands-on farmers who personally managed their farm; and sufficiently resourced to purchase pesticides and remain independent of the dealers’ credit schemes. 
    The farmers interviewed spent an average of 28% of their gross income on insecticides, but despite this had faced alarming increases in cotton yield losses, which rose from 18% in 1956 to 50-60% in 1996. All the farmers owned at least some land, and the average of 4.7 ha is a sizeable plot, compared to 61% of farmers on the Andhra Pradesh coast who own less than 1 ha of land. The 10 farmers who owned little land had incomes from other activities. None of the farms was fully mechanised, and none of the farmers owned a tractor, but all could rent one when required.  Most had been cotton farmers for a long time (on average 14 years) and were likely to be able to influence other cotton farmers, providing a potential knock-on effect.

Finding the problems
The interviews consisted of 108 questions, covering background information on the farm and farmer;  economics of cotton farming; cotton hygiene; spraying equipment and maintenance; ability to identify cotton insect pests;  use of personal protective equipment (PPE); effects on health; treatment of empty containers; storage; pest scouting routines;  recognition of pest damage; non-chemical control used;  understanding of IPM; ability to understand the label; and general questions about sources of information. Farmers answers were illuminating in revealing their practices and problems.

Common problems in practice 
As farmers have received little or no information or training in the use of pesticides or in cotton growing, poor agricultural practices are common, and encourage pest outbreaks and pest resistance. These include:  

• continuous monocropping of large cotton areas

• extension of cotton beyond its season

• cotton plant litter left in the field

• poor pesticide spraying equipment which gives improper treatment of foliage

• insecticide treatment with sub-lethal dose

• use of adulterated insecticides

• indiscriminate use of insecticides

• killing of natural enemies by early season spraying

• excessive use of nitrogenous fertilisers and poor plant spacing

• cultivation of crops which act as a host to cotton pests.

The average expenditure on insecticides per acre was £70.86, but 26 farmers spent above this sum, and seven were spending £93 per acre. The 1996/97 season saw a large variation in farmers’ yields of cotton lint, ranging from 283 kg ha to 526 kg/ha, giving a gross income of between £187 and £347 an acre.  With 28% of the average gross income spent on pesticides, and an additional 20% on seed and fertilisers, potential income was cut dramatically. Furthermore, all but one of the farmers sold their cotton to private traders and would receive a lower price than through a direct sale to the ginneries. If more farmers sold to the government they would incidentally build up contact with the agricultural services and possibly attract better support.

A farmer checking a syringe sprayer in his village. The washers at the base of the lance are prone to leakage (see below)

Spraying hazards
Many of the problems and inefficiencies centre on the spraying equipment and practices.  Sprayers were generally of two types:  the 10 litre syringe (Akela) sprayer and the 12 litre knapsack mistblower sprayer. 
    The syringe sprayer is relatively cheap and simple, activated by pumping with both hands, which requires considerable physical exertion. In order to spray all their cotton, farmers with larger areas could only spray piecemeal which can lead to inadvertent double spraying in some areas and omission of others. Accurate and precise application is virtually impossible, particularly once a dense leaf canopy develops.  The essential washers and seals in the syringe sprayer need to be carefully maintained and replaced regularly, but this was rarely done.  All the farmers using syringe sprayers had very serious problems with equipment leakage.
    The motorised, low volume knapsack mist-blower used by farmers is dependent on an even flow of insecticide to the nozzle, and on correct droplet formation and dispersal. The engine must be well maintained and rubber sealing effective in keeping the tank airtight to achieve the desired pressure. There was, however, little evidence of systematic maintenance. The sprayers observed were dirty and neglected, mostly old—some up to 25 years—and leaked from multiple points. Nozzle tips need regular cleaning with a soft brush, but 14 of the farmers used wire or blew blocked nozzles with their mouths.  
    None of the farmers was aware of the reasons for good maintenance, including preventing leakages for their own health or successful insect control.

Label use, mixing and spraying
The interviews alarmingly revealed that farmers have no concept of the importance of insecticide formulation guidelines and dosage advice on the insecticide labels or guideline leaflets. Farmers regarded these as irrelevant to their own situation and made no connection between accurate dosing and better pest control.
    Farmers could not make use of the hazard symbols on the labels, and were oblivious of the risks to themselves, animals and the environment. Two of the farmers mixed insecticides using their arms.
    The average time period for cotton seedlings to emerge is about ten days. Farmers commenced spraying, on average, 12 days after sowing. The philosophy seemed to be ‘the sooner the better’. All farmers indicated that they sprayed according to a fixed schedule, but all increased spraying frequency when they considered cotton pests to be increasing: at times every three days and sometimes every 24 hours. Consequently the average number of sprays in the 1996/97 season appeared to be 41. This is slightly higher than, but not inconsistent with other observations.

Resistance
Farmers are using the right insecticide for the right insect pest group, but almost all indicated they were having increasing difficulty controlling pests, a warning sign that insect resistance and decreasing natural enemy populations may be operating.  While many farmers had observed that spraying was not effective on American bollworms, 26% were not familiar with the concept of insecticide resistance, and none knew of resistance strategies.

Hazardous pesticides in use
Farmers were using a range of 22 insecticides, many of which are highly hazardous under these conditions of use, and should be used only by trained spray operators, with good equipment and PPE, and which require observation of a number of days before re-entry to the field. The World Health Organisation (WHO) classes are a guide to acute toxicity, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the UN recommends that Class Ia, and Ib should not be used  in developing countries, and preferably not class II either. Of the main classes of insecticides used, organophosphates (OPs) are the most hazardous to health, and affect the nervous system;  organochlorines are highly persistent (though endosulfan is less so); and synthetic pyrethroids have a negative impact on beneficial insects.  

Health and health care
Farmers did not know how insecticides enter the body or how they affect it. Almost half used some form of protective clothing during spraying, but only four did so during dilution and mixing, when exposure danger is greatest. All indicated they kept separate clothing for spraying and that it was washed after use. As washing is likely to be done by women in the family, they will then be exposed to pesticides. Some farmers considered it normal to empty the remaining insecticide solution into the river, further increasing local exposure.
    More than half the farmers (25), had experienced ill-effects from insecticides. The main health care available is through Registered Medical Practitioners (RMPs), villagers who have received official medical training over several years in the local hospital, and are registered to administer basic drugs and medication, while referring more serious medical cases to the local hospital. 
    The RMPs interviewed were not aware of medical advice on insecticide labels and had no experience of reading labels.  RMPs did not appear to keep case records, but they recalled that during the last cotton season a few cotton farmers would seek medical attention each day, and each RMP treated about 100 farmers over the cotton season. The RMPs interviewed expressed an interest in obtaining training in safe use of insecticides and first aid procedures for victims; in recognising symptoms associated with insecticide poisoning; and in monitoring safe practice.

Farmers need training
Training to help farmers introduce Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques has been shown to reduce pesticide use and improve farmers income, while maintaining yields.  The observations made by Guglielmo Pampiglione during this study led him to believe that many of the problems farmers encountered could be remedied with good training which addresses such points as:

• cotton agronomy and good practices, such as clearing fields and crop rotation

• basic knowledge of the life cycle and behaviour of each cotton insect pest

• recognition of crop damage caused by specific insect pests

• identification of beneficial insects

• accurate insect pest scouting procedures

• correct usage, cleaning and routine maintenance of spraying equipment

• accurate preparation of sprays and better knowledge of insecticide chemical groups

• the hazards and cumulative effects of insecticides on human health, animals, beneficial insects and the environment

• alternative, non-chemical IPM, and the meaning of IPM which emphasises management rather than eradication

• dangers of imprecise and indiscriminate spraying as a factor inducing insect resistance.

In the first two-year phase the training focused on improving standards of pesticide technology and product usage (see box). 
      Company projects which aim to assist farmers in choosing safer pesticides, and in using better pest management techniques in the crops they grow are an important, and perhaps essential, part of product stewardship practices. The programme highlighted the major problem of the spray equipment used. It is clear too that farmers’ ignorance of label instructions, of both general and specific hazards, and of agronomic competence in cotton crop management suggests that bringing about change requires a long term commitment. In an IPM training project in the Punjab, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research has run a project covering 15 villages for 15 years. Training covered groups of two or three villages for three years and led to a 23% increase in cotton yield and an average 32% increase in farmers’ net income. 
      Better information on costs, timeframe and outcome of different approaches to farmer training are needed, particularly to enable comparisons between participatory IPM (which encourages such aspects as recognition of when pest damages will result in economic loss, pest-predator cycles, and improved soil management) with the costs of the pilot described here.

Conclusion
While poor cotton production practices continue, and farmers lack agronomic information, it will inevitably be difficult for farmers to achieve good cotton yields, even when insect pest levels are low. Where pesticides continue to be used, investment in the ability to use them safely and effectively needs to be taken into account as part of the cost the products. The farmers in Guntur have little knowledge on which to base decisions for better pest management, and these gaps in knowledge need to be filled. Without this understanding, farmers will continue to believe that continuous pest control with insecticides is the best approach. The investment and running costs of these training programmes have to be compared with the economics of IPM using no pesticides.

Reference
1. Guglielmo Pampiglione, Proposals for an Insect Pest management Extension Training Programme for Smallholder cotton farmers of Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) Region of India, based on findings of a farmer survey done for Zeneca UK.  A thesis submitted for an MSc in Pest Management and Applied Entomology, Department of Biology, University of London, Imperial College at Silwood Park, December 1997. Unless otherwise referenced, the information in this report is based on his study.
2. Parthasarathy Shameem, G., Suicides of Cotton Farmers in Andhra Pradesh: an exploratory study, Economic and Political Weekly, 28 March 1998. See also John Vidal, ‘The seeds of wrath’, Weekend Guardian, 19 June 1999.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No.45, September 2000, pages 12-14]