Senegal cotton farmers learn to cut chemical costs through IPM  

In recent years the Senegalese cotton sector has become less profitable on account of increases in pesticide costs. These higher costs have resulted in a significant increase in farmer debt, with many deciding to stop growing cotton altogether. PAN Africa started IPM training in August 2000 to address these problems. Julienne Kuiseu, Mourtada Thiam and Abou Thiam describe the process. 

Farmers with an IPM trainer doing some agronomic observations in a Farmer Field School (FFS) at Velingara in Senegal, September 2001.  Photo: Julienne Kuiseu / PAN Africa

Cotton growers in the Velingara district of Southern Senegal have enthusiastically embraced the training opportunities provided by PAN Africa. The objective was to rekindle interest in cotton growing among smallholder farmers. 
    The goal of training in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is to reduce production costs, and to protect human and animal health and the environment by reducing pesticide use. The Farmer Field School (FFS) training methodology is used, similar to that initiated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (see PN61).
    Training sessions are preceded by workshops bringing together extension agents and farmers. The objective of the workshops is to raise the participants’ awareness of the importance of IPM and of the FFS approach, and to train them in the different methods used in the field. Farmer Field Schools do not teach farmers new techniques developed outside their environment but offer instead the possibility to learn by doing, while being involved in experimentation and research, discussion and decision-making regarding fields and crops. The aim is also to equip farmers with tools that will allow them to analyse their practices and identify solutions to the specific problems they encounter. IPM training relies on four principles:

• producing a healthy crop
• protecting the natural enemies of pests
• weekly field observations
• making the farmer an expert in his/her own field. 

Training covers the entire growing season, from soil preparation to harvest. Work is carried out on two 500m2 plots of land: the so-called ‘farmers’ practice’ (FP) plot, where conventional cultivation practices are carried out and the ‘IPM’ plot, where a range of alternative pest and soil management methods are carried out. 
    Another plot is set aside in the same field to simulate pest attacks and study the crop plant responses at different stages of development.

Comparison of cotton practices
On the IPM plot sowing is carried out manually along 24 lines of 25 metres with a spacing of 80 cm x 20 cm. Plants are thinned to one per seed hole 21 days after sowing.
    On the FP plot farmers follow their normal practices. The crop is planted using a disc-based seeder with 16 or 18 holes, with 24 to 37 lines of 25 metres spaced about 70cm apart. Plants are thinned out to one or two plants per seed hole 21 days after sowing. 

Fertilisation
On the IPM plot, organic manure is applied at the rate of four tonnes per hectare, with 100 kg per hectare of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) in the proportions 20:16:20. Cover manuring is applied using urea at 50 kg/ha 21, 25 and 54 days after sowing. 
On the FP plot, cover manuring is applied at 200kg per hectare of NPK in the proportions 20:16:20 after emergence and 50kg per hectare of urea 45 days after sowing. 

Plant protection
On the IPM plot Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), neem and cow urine are used to control cotton pests. 
    On the FP plots the chemical pesticides used include Callisulfan (endosulfan + cypermethrin), Conquest Plus (acetamide + cypermethrin + triazophos), Cyper Cal (methamidophos + cypermethrin), Nurelle (chlorpyriphos ethyl + cypermethrin) as well as several organophosphates. These formulations include pesticides responsible for death and ill-health in West African cotton systems (see PN47 and 52). The conditions in the villages are highly inappropriate for handling hazardous pesticides, and are made more hazardous because of the low literacy levels. 
    FFS participants carry out two types of observation on each plot: biological and agronomic. The main pests observed in the plots are Dysdercus volkeri (cotton stainers), Cosmophila flava (semi-looper), Empoasca fascialis (jassids), Bemisia tabaci (white fly), Helicoverpa armigera (American bollworm), Sylepta derogata (leaf rollers), and Earias insulina (spiny bollworm).
    Biological observations are made on 10 seed holes chosen at random. The plants are examined to identify and count the number of pests and their predators. In addition, weeds, signs of disease, the degree of damage, nutrient shortfalls and the immediate surroundings of the plant are noted. 
    Agronomic observations take place around 10 plants chosen at random identified by posts painted in bright colours. Observations are made of the number of leaves and roots, the height of the plant, the numbers of flowers, squares and bolls and other factors.
    The biological and agronomic data are analysed, presented on flipcharts, and discussed with the farmers as a group near the plots.     Recommendations are made and applied prior to the next session. 
    Weekly activities undertaken in each training session include: 

• analysis of the agro-ecosystem allowing comparison of economic advantages and incidences of pest and natural enemy populations and diseases on each plot
• defoliation or suppression of the terminal bud to test the ability of the plant to compensate for different defoliation levels (25% and 50%) and suppression of the terminal bud at different developmental stages of the plant (these activities take place in the test plot)
• an insect ‘zoo’ that allows participants to recognise and learn the biology of pests and natural enemies, and to analyse the agro-ecosystem for better decision-making
• group dynamics (a non-formal training method) in which activities change in order to split the work up and prevent it from becoming tedious
• a special subject which is determined according to the growing calendar and following an evaluation of the training – as a way of resolving problems that may have arisen. 

Following the recommendations of the FFS this farmer is removing the weeds from his IPM plot, August 2003.  Photo: Mourtada Thiam / PAN Africa

Observations from the FFS in Velingara
Number of producers trained 
A total of 359 producers from 69 villages were trained in IPM between 2000 and 2003. The first training session had 45 producers from 10 villages divided into two FFS. The second session began in May 2002 in Velingara with 114 producers in 19 villages divided into four FFS, and the third involved 200 producers from 40 villages divided into eight FFS. The fourth season has just begun and also involves 200 producers from 40 villages, 30 of whom are new. 

Comparison of IPM and FP plots
During the training sessions, the students made between three and eight treatments with chemical products on the FP plots. In contrast, only two or three treatments with products based on natural ingredients were applied in the IPM plots. During these training sessions in Velingara, some farmers practised FFS principles in their own fields. They only carried out two or three insecticide treatments instead of the six recommended by Sodefitex (the Senegalese cotton board) and the yields were judged to be good. 
    Cotton yields were generally lower in the IPM fields than in the FP plots but with some exceptions. 
    For most of the training sessions, production costs were 3% to 60% lower in the IPM plots compared with the FP plots. This decrease in costs was most pronounced in the second session. 
    In most FFS, the FP plots produced the best profits. However, in 2001/2002 a profit of 74,085 FCFA (£76.50) per plot was made in one of the four FFS by IPM practice. Profits of 6,265 FCFA (£6.50) and 50,165 FCFA (£51.80) were made by IPM in two FFSs.

Financial benefits of IPM
Sodefitex, the Senegalese cotton company has a system of ‘joint guarantee’, which makes all farmers responsible for their own debts through their producer groups (GPCs); debt is repaid out of the GPC’s cotton income at the time of marketing. In return, Sodefitex supplies the GPCs with agrochemical inputs and the GPCs, in turn, supply their members. All farmers wanting to grow cotton have to obtain their seed and chemical pesticides on credit, depending on the size of the area they plan to sow, and they are provided with pesticides whether they plan to use them or not. This leads to pesticides ending up on the open market and being used on crops for which they are not intended but farmers still have to pay for the pesticides.
    This pesticide distribution system is a major block to the practice of IPM in Senegalese cotton, and thus trained producers cannot practice IPM in their fields. 
    The lower yields achieved to date do not necessarily prevent IPM being implemented. Producers are interested in the lower production costs achieved with IPM and the lack of associated debt. Notwithstanding the yield problems and input costs, the farmers showed great interest in the training sessions. They now have a knowledge of pests and natural enemies and are able to use pesticides in a rational way. Farmers’ knowledge has greatly increased so that they are able to:

• distinguish between pests and natural enemies
• understand the role of natural enemies in the field
• understand mechanical steps such as pulling up or destroying affected plants or plant parts
• understand the use of botanically-based pesticides such as neem, chilli peppers, lemon, for example.

Conclusion
Farmers have now become interested in research into traditional knowledge used in the early days of plant protection which had been abandoned with the advent of chemical pesticides. Farmers identified several plants with insecticidal properties: scientific research could help identify their active ingredient content, the ideal solution preparation and suitable doses for use on cotton. 
    This type of training could in future allow economies in pest management costs by progressively reducing the quantities of chemical pesticide used. IPM is a viable and sustainable alternative for poor, smallholder producers. 

Abou Thiam is Coordinator of PAN Africa, Julienne Kuiseu is the Cotton Project Coordinator and Mourtade Thiam is Trainee Information Project Coordinator, panafrica@pan-africa.sn

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 62, December 2003, pages 8-9]