ICRISAT Archival Report 2006 - The seedlings of success in the ...

Each participating farmer grew crops on a plot divided into two halves, one half followed the farmers conventional
practice (involving synthetic pesticides)-FP, and the other half used low-cost and biological approaches, labeled as
‘Bio’ using vermiwash from vermicomposting of neem leaves along with other organic residues. Observations were
recorded for (a) number of damaged and healthy fruits plant -1 , (b) number of spiders’ plant -1 , (c) number of
coccinellids plant -1 , (d) yield of whole field/plot and (e) net income from each treatment. Inputs in case of ‘Bio’
plots were charged at the rate of about Rs. 1700 ha -1 (determined by mutual agreement with participant farmers), to
ensure involvement of farmers with required seriousness. Data was subjected to statistical analysis, to learn
treatment differences where each farmer was treated as replication, in a given village, year and for a given crop.
In 2005, mean yield of the six farmers growing tomato in Kothapally was 56% more (range 2 to 76%) in ‘Bio’ plots
over that in FP (2.45 t ha -1 ) plots. On average, cost of purchased inputs (agro-chemicals in case of FP) was 22%
more than in ‘Bio’ plots, where net income was more (range 18 to 586%) in Bio than FP plots.
2006 yield data for tomatoes and onions is summarized in Table 9B15. In 2006, onion in the field of Mr S
Hanumanth Reddy and tomato in field of Md. Khadir were severely damaged by sucking pests (thrips in onion and
aphids in tomato) – both in Kothapally, village and did not recover in the FP plots, despite sprays of synthetic
chemicals. These two plots were therefore deleted from statistical analysis. We failed to control damage by thrips in
the ‘Bio’ plots also, but it was much lower than in FP plots. Yield of tomato in 2006 was substantially more than in
2005. Mean yield of the five farmers growing tomato in Kothapally was 30% more in ‘Bio’ plots (range 13 to 93%)
over that in FP (3.83 t ha -1 ).
Table 9B15 Yield (t ha -1 ) and net Income (Rs ha -1 ) in Bio and FP plots of different vegetables, summer 2006
Yield (t ha -1 ) Net income (Rs ha -1 )
Village name
Crop
Bio FP Bio FP
Kothapally Tomato 5.74 4.53 19251 12480
SE± 0.300* (0.066) 2009* (0.097)
Kothapally Onion 9.35 6.67 15236 8070
SE± 1.08 NS 2074 NS
Yellakonda Onion 15.9 14.3 30432 24431
SE± 0.592 NS 1575*[REF110]
Yellakonda Tomato 1 19.47 24.27 84512 45880
Yellakonda Chilies 1 2.64 2.12 60004 44167
Values in the parentheses are F- probabilities; NS= statistically non-significant
*=Statistically significant at 5%,[REF111] NS=statistically non-significant; 1=crop was different, therefore not
included in the main table for the purpose of statistical analyses
A new crop of onion was taken for experimentation during 2006 at Kothapally and at the neighboring village
Yellakonda. Its mean yield was more (by 40% in Kothapally and by 11% in Yellakonda) in Bio than in FP plots
(6.67 t ha -1 in Kothapally and 14.3 t ha -1 in Yellakonda, Table 9B15). In case of tomato the mean net income was
54.3% more in ‘Bio’ plots compared to FP plots (mean income Rs. 12479) while in case of onion it was 89% more
in ‘Bio’ plots than FP plots at Kothapally. In Yellakonda, mean net income was 29% more (range 6 to 58%) in Bio
plots of onion (Table 9B15) than FP plots (mean Rs. 24430). One plot of chilies was also protected well at
Yellkonda where Bio plot yielded 25% more resulting in 36% more net income than that in FP plot.
344