Adoption and Impact of Integrated Pest Management in Cotton, Groundnut and Pigeonpea

Not AvailableThe new agricultural technologies such as improved crop varieties, use of chemical fertilizers have led to substantial productivity gains. Another factor associated with the growth in productivity is the substantial increase in the use of chemical pesticides, both in terms of area covered by plant protection and quantity of chemicals applied per unit of cropped area (David, 1986; Birthal et al, 2000). The use of chemical pesticides was widely adopted, especially by better endowed farmers and in the case of commercial crops, as farming became more market oriented. However, high and indiscriminate use of pesticides has led to problems such as pest resurgence, resistance, health and environmental hazards (Armes et al., 1992) on one hand and increased dependence of farmers on external inputs on the other. The market imperfections, as reflected in poor quality of pesticides, high interest rates on borrowed capital, unfavourable out prices etc., also contributed another dimension to the ‘crisis’ associated with the indiscriminate use of pesticides (Chowdry et al, 1998). In response to such a scenario, researchers have been trying to develop alternative means of pest management which are known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices (Pedigo, 1991). Spedding (1988) defined IPM system as a group of interacting components operating together for a common purpose – to keep the pest populations below the economic threshold levels. These components include cultural, mechanical, physical, biological and lastly chemical measures. The IPM basically involves application/use of a variety of means that aim to manage pest populations below the economic threshold level (Smith and Reynolds, 1966; FAO, 1971). The input requirements, managerial skills and information needs of IPM therefore vary from those of chemical pest control and hence need to be examined more closely. The need for IPM is even more in rainfed agriculture characterized by poor biophysical and socioeconomic environment (Kanwar, 1999). Though substantial efforts have been under way to get these practices adopted by farmers, adoption has been observed to be limited (Unni, 1996) because of various constraints. These constraints are both technology related and institution related. This research bulletin puts together the major findings of the study that looked into the extent and determinants of adoption and impact of IPM in three crops, viz., cotton, groundnut and pigeonpea. The study was funded by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.Not Availabl