ournal of ) groforestry and nvironment December 2015 Vol. 9 No. 1&2 band 6. Official Publication of; eee (of)SN 1995-6983 J. Agrofor. Environ. 9 (1 & 2): 11-14, 2015 Is ‘Sweet gourd production: a comparative economic study of IPM and conventional pest ‘management QMS. Islam, M.S, Alam!, M, Mohiuddin’ and Na. Toma? ‘Agricultural Economies Division, BARI. Gazipur, "Upazila Agriculture Office. Mirsharai, Chittagong. “Agricultural Egonomics Division. BARI. RARS, Jamalpur and "Department of Agricultural Economies. EXIM Bank Agricultural University, Bangladesh [Abstracts The present study isan altempt to assess the existing IPM practices on sweet gourd eulivation, cost comparison with Non. IPM (NIDM) farmers in Jessore Magura, Comilla and Bogra districts dring 2012. The yield of sweet gourd was found 20.10 uha and 1820 dha in 1PM and NIPM farmer. respectively, The euitivation of sweet gourd was profitable since BCR were 2.17 for dhe IPM and 193 far Non-IPM farmers. Gross retum and gross margin of IPM farmers were 10 percent and 20 percent higher than NIPM farms ‘Eames inthe study areas adopted most of the PM practices an they were mostly influenced by IPM schoo. 1PM farmers mainly used Sex pieromone traps, so amendment and hand picking. Trend in area of IPM practices is increasing over the las the years. Most of the sampled farmers (84 percent) shoved positive atitide towards using 1PM practices in svect gourd cultivation in fare, The use of pheromone traps and other IPM practices in sweet gourd cultivation was found very effective in reducing invest infestation. The Availabilty of pheromone taps and wither IPM technologies must be availble in time to the Frmers. Key words: Sweet gourd, esonomic study, IPM, conseational pest management. Introduction Vegetables are the cheapest source of vitamins, minerals salts and proteins, which are essential elements for human health, So it plays an important role in balanced diet for human being as well as it acts as an income generating source of the farmers. Fruits of sweet gourd are good and cheap sources of vitamins, especially high carotenoid pigments and minerals (Bose and Som, 1986). Besides. the tender stem, leaves and flowers are also relatively high in protein, energy, carbohydrates, minerals, calcium, phosphorus and vitamins (Bose and Som. 1986). Thus sweet gourd can contribute to improve nutritional status of the rural people, It is grown extensively throughout the country during khasif season with a total area of 67737 hectare and produetion of 92900 MT (BBS, 2010), Most of the vegetables grown in Bangladesh are vulnerable to be attacked by insect pests. The unfinorable weather condition (such as low temperature, dew drops stored on the leaf, continuous fog ete) prevailing in this season causes Various types of diseases and insect attack in sweet gourd which significantly contribute to high farm production costs and reduce quality and yields (Hennebery ef af, 1991), But intensified use of insecticides can cause a serious public health hazard especially in the form of residues in food (Rola and Dingali 1993, Antle and Pingali 1995. Antle et al. 1998, ‘Ajayi 2000, Paul 2003, Mohiuddin er af, 2007) Moreover, the use of insecticides is destroying the bio- diversity seriously Macintyre e7 af, (1989) reported that low-level exposure ‘of consumers containing insecticide residues to food products over time cause cancer. genetic dam Suppression of the immune system. The IPM method cause ‘minimal environmental damage and poses litle oF no risk to human health, IPM involves selection, integration and implementation of pest eonteol actions on the basis of predictable economic, ecological and sociological consequences. The sludy attempts to use the IPM technologies like the use of poultry refuse. mustard oileake tnd Pheromone trap in the vegetable fields to control sol borne diseases and attack from inseet pest. With this view in mind, the present study has been undertaken to know the attitude towards using IPM practices and estimate cost and relative profitability of sweet gourd production with IPM and existing pest control practices Materials and Methods The present study’ Was conducted in four distriets namely Jessore, Magura. Comilla and Bogra of Bangladesh. Multi-stage sampling technique was followed lor the study. Firstly four districts were purposively selected considering the IPM practices on sweet gourd cultivation From each district one Upazila and from each Upazila two villages ftom uvo blocks were selected. A complete list of sweet gourd growers in each village was prepared by the help of DAE personnel and sample farmers were selected randomly. total of 320 farmers were selected taking 40 from each village (20 IPM and 20 Non- IPM farmers) Data were collected through pre-designed and pre-ested imerview schedules. The collected data were summarized and analyzed 10 fulill the objectives set for the study Tabular method of analysis using average. percentages, ratios, ete, was applied inthis study Results and Discussion Agronomic practices: Agronomic practices like ploughing. laddering, sowing. weeding, — spraying. irrigation, fertilizing and harvesting were included. It was jobserved that on an average, IPM and Non-IPM farmers ploughed their land 4 times. IPM and Non-IPM (NIPM) farmers perform laddering 3 and 2 times. respectively (Table 1), It was found that 30 and 37 pereent of IPM and NIPM farmers used home supplied seeds in their plot respectively. On an average. 39 percent farmers completed their sowing within the month of October followed by September 32 pervent and November 29 percent by the IPM farmers. Similar sowing time was followed by the NIPM farmers. It was observed that late sowing was followed by the farmers of Comilla and Bogra due to cultivation of sweet gourd alter potato harvest. Two times weeding was done by most of the IPM and NIPM farmers Itvas seen that most of the farmers of Comilla not weeded their Field Input use pattern: Table 2 showed that in producing sweet gourd the total human labour requirement per hectare were estimated at 167 and 160 man-days for 1PMand NIPM practices respectively. More human labour was used in Jessore district due to more use of cowdung and weeding. On an average, NIPM farmers used more amount ‘of seed (1240 pmv/ha) compared to IPM farmers (1084 gnvha), Oileake was used only by the IPM farmers of Jessore, Magura and Bogra districts. IPM farmers used ‘more organic fertilizers per hectare than NIPM farmers except chemical fertilizers Table 1. Agronomic practices of sweet gourd cultivation for IPM and NIPM farmers mae Tes Nagas Toma “aise ° ca a TN NP Fraghing 2418 440 — 418 370 Tea Taerea eine 258248 2AS 20s 2 asia) 2ar Seed) Ow a a 3 n " ee ” Parctase ” 79 3 2 2 » 8 Peromone tap o gs » : ws te Insetodes (0) os 7 a fs " gation (8). vo fy toot tat Sowing ‘September o 68 2 2 a 2 u Octoker n 3% Moe a Bb 2 » is November B mo 3 Ss 2 5 ne) xu Weeding) Zero es 65 ne) 2 One io s a8 7 18 HG 3 io Two Ss @ % 9 § 7 re) 46 Three 30 B 2 om 3 7 mm ® 16 0 Four 3 sO 3 18 5 7 3 Five 5 5 3 3 5 2 2 Table 2. Input use pattem for sweet gourd cultivation he sg Cg as a Pi NN NNN Taman abou (wanaystay 208 —— 20 1591s) 139139 Ie 138 1g 1 Seed ana) 2 Yoho) 300 (Cow dingy) om 6123319184008 ATT7, 2k) hse St 8D (Oieske apa) 16 7 z 26 ei 20 Uren (hha) pe ee ee eed eee ee TSP kghay ao 35) MoS Tas Mor tka) i eww Other gy ogee sepa eel ee 3. eee Table 3. Cost and return of sweet gourd production for IPM and Non-IPM farmers (Tk/ha) ‘Table 4, Profitability oF sweet gourd production for IPM and Non-1PM farmers, = Costs are the expenses for organizing and carrying out the production process. The cost of production included different variable cost items like land preparation, human labour, seed. organic and inorganic fertilizers, irrigation, pheromone trap and insecticides ete Both cash expenditure and imputed value of family supplied inputs were included Human labour was the major cost items which was more in [PM (41880 Tha) than NIPM farmers (40074 TWha (Table 3). Land preparation cost was slightly higher inIPM farmers but sced and fertilizers cost were more in NIPM farmers due to more used of these inputs. But cowdung was used more by the IPM farmers. Total variable cost was estimated at Tk 7315S and TA74114 per hectare by IPM and NIPM farmers, espectively Table 5. Per hectare comparative profitability of sweet gourd production for IPM and Non-IPM farmers Tes TPM NomPM ‘Mean difernce Percent higherlowar “Total variable cost TE) 36367 87 6422495 =TRS7.06 “1394 Yield (Tha) 20.10 18.20 1.90 Sus Goss retin (Th) 136299 140288 16081 1027 Goss margin Tk) 99931 76025, 25008, 2392 Table 6, Sources of information about IPM practices (percent) Catspony ones Tigh Mein Tow Family members 7 1s 26 Neighbours to 32 0 Relatives 5 4 0 Mass media : 6 2 IPM School 46 2s 6 Demonstration : 3 5 Others 6 és ‘Table 7, Percentage of farmers using different IPM practices TPM pracices Locations Soilamendment Pheromone ap Hand picking Teor 10 7 "4 Magura 28 8 a Coils : 50 1 Bogra 0 a y All arexs 20 %6 “ Profitability: On an average, yield of sweet gourd was. found 20.10 Vha and 18.20 vha by IPM and Non-IPM farmers respectively. Potential yield of sweet gourd was, 30-45 Uha (Khishi Projukti Hathboy, 2011). The yield of | sweet gourd was observed comparatively higher in Comilla and Bogra districts due to after potato harvesting, farmers were cultivated sweet gourd and there may be some residual effects, The reason may be cultivation of sweet gourd after potato harvesting. The average gros: retum from sweet gourd production was found Tk, 156299/ha for IPM farmers and Tk. 140248/ha for Non IPM farmers, Gross margin was found Tk. 83143/ha for IPM farmers and Tk. 66134/ha for Non-IPM farmers. The benefit cost ratio was estimated at 2.17 and 1.93 for IPM. and Non-IPM farmers respectively Tig. Tondinara under PM practices of ‘wast gourd eutvaton Comparative profitability: Table 5 revealed that, the mean differences in total variable cos, yield, gross return and gross margin were -7857.06, 1.90, 16051 and 23908 respectively and percentage of higher and lower were ~ 13.94, 9.45, 10.27 and 23.92, respectively Sources of information about IPM: About 46pervent of the IPM farmers reported that they were highly influenced bby IPM school to adopted [PM practices. The IPM farmers reported that they were influenced by neibours (32 percent), relatives (20 percent) and mass media (22 Percent) to some extent (Table 6) IPM praetices used: About 86 percent ofthe IPM farmers used sex pheromone trap in sweet gourd cultivation in all the areas. The use of sex pheromone trap was highest in Jessore and lowest in Comilla district which was depends fon the availability of wraps. In case of soil amendment, farmers used only oileake in the study areas. It was found highest in Bogra (40 percent) compared 1 Magura (28 percent) and Jessore (10 percent). On an average, 20 Percent of the farmers practicing soil amendment in their sweet gourd field (Table 7). Hand picking was practiced by 44 percent farmers and it was found more in Comi dlistiet. Trends in IPM practices: Use of IPM technologies in Bangladesh has slightly inereased in the recent years. It is evident from fig 1 that the trend in area of IPM practices is increasing over the last three years. Average area under IPM practices in the study areas, was increased from 29 decimal to 39 decimal in duting the period of 2009 to 2011Farmer's attitude towards [PM technology: tis evident from table 8 that 84 percent of the IPM farmers were willing to increase the IPM practices in near future Highest 89percent of the respondents mentioned that less harmful to health was the major reason behind the increase of IPM practices in future followed by reduction in pesticide cost (86 percent) and higher income (78 percent). Table 8. Willingness of increasing IPM practices in future On the other hand, 16percent of the respondents opined that they are not willing to increase the IPM practices in future due to lack of technical knowledge about 1PM practices (38 percent), not effective for all insects (36 percent), slow work (28 percent) and non-availability of Sex pheromone traps (13 percent), Teer regonder ie eee Tess Nig Comtle Ba em Wiles io merese Willing ntease » ts a i Notinrease i 1s >» 16 ‘Higher nome 85 15 70 8 1 Rebs te cost of pestice o & 0 a 6 Les har whee 33 ” 5 6 » 4 fay towne 2 i 5 4 ” ““a- Lack of technica knowledge about IPM practices 30 3 4s 40 ® Slow wo work 3 2 Pf B © Noteffetne fr linac 40 i is 8 4. Non aby phsomone taps i 2 id i ‘Table 9. Facilities needed by the Farmers Fass Tere Niagara Com Taga Aor -Avalabiiy of pharma Tape 70 30 cc cS 7 Trating on IP practices * 2 * 2s » ance super” 10 1s 2 ik W oes" _ s 7 see The farmers in the study areas benefited from the IPM Antle, JM. Cole, D.C. and Crssman, CE. 1998, Further technologies with higher yields 9 percent and higher gross ‘margin 20 percent, Rate of return (BCR) was 2.17 whieh was more than the farmers own practices (1.93). The technology was found to be encouraging by the farmers. Trend of IPM practices was observed inereased. About SApercent farmers were willingness to inerease IPM practices in future. For successful adoption of the technologies, the availability of sex pheromone trap must be ensured to the farmers. Government can encourage some entrepreneurs to make available sex pheromone trap throughout the country. Training should be arranged for the farmers, extension personnel and NGO aftcils For the ellective dissemination of IPM technologies, References Aji, O.C. 2000, Pesticide use practices. prodtivity and farmers" health; The case of cotonerice systems in Cote Foire, West Attica Germany: University of Hanover. Pesticide Poliey Project special issue publication series 20 Brie 245i p Anil, JM. and Pingali. P1995. Pesticides, productivity, and farmer health: A Philippine case study. In: Pingali PL and PA Roger (ed), Impact of pesticides on farmer health and the rcs environment, Los Banos (Philipines): faterational Rice Research Institue (IRRI}.p 361-385, tvidonce on pesticides. productivity. and farmer health Potato production in Ecualor.Agriltura! Economy 18 199-209 BBS. 2010. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Yearbook ‘of Bangladesh, Statistics Division. Ministry of Plating Gon. Bose, T. K. and Som, M.G. 1986. Vegetable Crops in Ini ‘Naya Prokash, Caleta, 92.95 pp, Hennebery. TJ. Glass, EH. Gilbert, RG. and Ding. FG. 1991. “Inteprated "Pest "Management A Sustainable Technology” Agriculture and the Environment, The 1991 yearbook of agriculture, US” Govt. printing office Washington DC- pp. 130-159 Moliudsin. M.. Hossain, M. M.. Rahman, A. K. M, Mand Palash, M.S. 2007. Socio-economie study of nseicide se ‘on vepetable cultivation at fam level in Chitagong region, J, Bangladesh Agri, Univ, 70) 343-350, Macingyre. ANN. Allison, N, and. Penman, DAR, 1989, insecticides: issues and options for Nev Zealand Ministry of the Envizonment, Wellington. New Zealand Paul, N. K. 2003. Residue Analysis of two common insecticides ‘sed deninst shoot and frit borer in eggplant Irit. M.S thesis Dept.of Entomology. BAU. Mymensingh Rola. A.C. and Pingali, P.L, 1993, Pesticides, Rice Productivity ‘and. Farmers! Health-An Economic Assessment. Work! Resources Institute and Intemational Rive” Rescarch Institute, Los Banos. Laguna, Philipines,