Growing quality vegetables means ensuring they’re not only fresh and nutritious but also free from harmful pesticide residues. As the demand for high-quality vegetables rises, producers face a challenge: controlling pests while minimizing pesticide contamination. With India as the second-largest producer of vegetables globally, the balance between maximizing crop yields and managing pesticide levels is critical for consumer safety and environmental health.
Table of Contents-
Why Pesticide Contamination Matters
Vegetable production in India has surged over the past decade, yet an estimated 32-40% of crops are lost due to pest issues. Farmers use various pesticides to mitigate these losses, but the indiscriminate use of these chemicals can harm human health, contaminate soil and water, and disrupt beneficial insect populations. This article explores the pre- and post-harvest strategies for managing pesticide use and contamination to meet the increasing demand for safe, high-quality produce.
1. Understanding the Changing Pest Landscape
The type and behavior of pests affecting vegetable crops are continually evolving due to changes in climate, cropping practices, and the introduction of high-yielding varieties. In recent years, pests such as whitefly, thrips, fruit flies, and mites have become more prevalent. Pests like the diamondback moth (affecting cabbage) and the fruit and shoot borer (impacting brinjal) cause substantial yield losses, leading to higher pesticide usage.
Actionable Tips:
- Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Rotate crops, encourage natural predators, and use pest-resistant vegetable varieties to reduce dependency on chemical pesticides.
- Regular Monitoring: Conduct regular field inspections to identify pest infestations early, allowing for targeted and timely treatment.
2. Pesticide Usage Trends in India and Globally
India’s pesticide consumption is only about 2% of the global total, largely due to factors like smaller farm sizes, lower purchasing power among farmers, and a reliance on eco-friendly pesticides. Still, India sees high pesticide application in certain vegetables, especially chili and brinjal. Most of the pesticide use is concentrated on insecticides, which account for about 60% of total pesticide use in Indian agriculture.
Actionable Tips:
- Opt for Eco-Friendly Alternatives: Encourage the use of biopesticides, which are less toxic and environmentally friendly.
- Farmer Education: Promote awareness about the risks of pesticide overuse and alternatives like IPM.
3. Pesticide Residues and Health Concerns
Pesticide residues can linger on vegetables, posing risks to consumers. Many studies in India show that vegetables like brinjal, cabbage, and tomato frequently contain residues of pesticides such as endosulfan, cypermethrin, and chlorpyrifos, sometimes exceeding the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) set by regulatory authorities.
Actionable Tips:
- Pre-Harvest Intervals (PHIs): Follow recommended PHIs to allow sufficient time for pesticide breakdown before harvest.
- Use of Bio-Degraders: Apply bio-degraders like microbial solutions that can accelerate pesticide degradation in the soil.
4. Strategies to Reduce Pre- and Post-Harvest Contamination
Reducing contamination starts with carefully managing pesticide application and continues with post-harvest handling to ensure residue levels remain safe. Practices include:
- Pre-Harvest Management: Follow Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) that include correct pesticide dosing, application timing, and respecting pre-harvest intervals.
- Post-Harvest Handling: Washing, peeling, or cooking vegetables can help reduce residues, as well as proper storage to prevent further contamination.
Actionable Tips:
- Educate on GAP: Train farmers in pesticide use, PHIs, and safe handling.
- Regular Residue Testing: Establish residue testing points at market entry points to ensure compliance with MRLs.
Key Takeaways for Managing Pesticide Contamination in Vegetable Production
- Evolving Pest Landscape: Adjust pest management strategies to tackle changing pest populations.
- Conscious Pesticide Use: Minimize pesticide application by integrating IPM and choosing eco-friendly alternatives.
- Residue Awareness: Encourage adherence to MRLs and use of GAP to reduce harmful residues.
- Pre- and Post-Harvest Techniques: Incorporate practical steps like bio-degraders and residue testing to maintain vegetable quality from farm to table.
Summary for Visuals (Instagram or Infographic Ready)
- Evolving Pest Scenarios: New pests require updated management strategies.
- Eco-Friendly Pesticide Options: Use biopesticides and IPM to reduce chemical dependency.
- MRL Compliance: Regular testing and following MRL guidelines protect consumers.
- Pre- & Post-Harvest Interventions: Implement GAP and handling practices to minimize contamination.
These strategies are essential for enhancing food safety, meeting market demands, and supporting sustainable agricultural practices.
The text highlights the persistent issue of pesticide contamination in vegetables across various regions in India, detailing contamination percentages and types of pesticides found in samples. It reports specific studies, such as those from Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, where a significant portion of samples showed residues of harmful pesticides like HCH and DDT.
The document further explores India’s regulatory framework for managing pesticide residues. The Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB and RC) and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) are responsible for advising on pesticide use and setting Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). FSSAI, in particular, mandates MRLs in foods, to ensure that pesticide residues do not exceed safe limits. This regulation aligns with Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and involves monitoring the Pre-Harvest Interval (PHI), the waiting period to ensure pesticide levels drop below MRLs before harvesting.
Internationally, MRLs are governed by bodies like the Codex Alimentarius, under FAO/WHO. Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (NOAEL) are key standards set to limit daily pesticide exposure and ensure safety across human populations. The concept of the Maximum Permissible Intake (MPI) also factors in body weight for more vulnerable groups, particularly children.
Lastly, the document discusses how factors like weather and environmental exposure impact pesticide dissipation on plant surfaces. Pesticides may degrade through volatilization, photolysis, and microbial action, with specific half-lives for different pesticides on crops like tomatoes, cabbage, and chillies, among others.
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Pesticide Contamination in Vegetables | – Regions Studied: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Lucknow, India. – Findings: High contamination levels across vegetables. – Examples: 35% of tomatoes in Andhra Pradesh contained residues; Mysore tomatoes showed 72% contamination by HCH. |
| Key Pesticides Detected | HCH, DDT, DDT+HCH, Imidacloprid. |
| Regulatory Bodies | – CIB and RC: Advises on pesticide use, registers pesticides, and recommends MRLs and PHIs (http://cibrc.nic.in). – FSSAI: Sets MRLs for foods to ensure consumer safety (http://www.fssai.gov.in). |
| MRL (Maximum Residue Limits) | – Purpose: Defines the highest permissible pesticide level in food. – International Body: Codex Alimentarius under FAO/WHO. – Indian MRL Regulation: Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2010. |
| Waiting Period (Pre-Harvest Interval – PHI) | – Definition: Time between last pesticide application and harvesting to reduce residues below MRLs. – Calculation: Based on MRLs and field trials following GAPs. – Consequence of Non-Compliance: Crops may be banned for consumption or export. |
| Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) | – Purpose: Determines the safe daily intake level for humans over a lifetime without health risks. – Calculation Basis: Derived from NOAEL, applying a safety factor of 100 (10×10) to account for interspecies and intraspecies variability. |
| NOAEL (No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level) | – Definition: Highest exposure level with no adverse effects in test populations. – Relevance: Basis for setting safe tolerance limits of pesticides. |
| Maximum Permissible Intake (MPI) | – Definition: Maximum allowable pesticide intake per kg of body weight. – Consideration: Average body weight, often of children due to their increased vulnerability. |
| Factors Influencing Pesticide Persistence | – Environmental Influences: Volatilization, photolysis, microbial degradation. – Dissipation: Describes residue loss through degradation or transfer from plant surfaces. |
| Half-Lives of Pesticides in Vegetables | – Examples: Tomato: Flubendiamide (0.72–1.98 days), Bifenthrin (1.83–2.32 days). Brinjal: Thiacloprid (0.47–0.50 days), Profenofos (2.15–2.31 days). Cabbage: Emamectin Benzoate (1.34–1.72 days), Fipronil (3.21–3.43 days). |
This table summarizes key findings and regulatory guidelines to manage pesticide contamination in vegetables.
the information organized into a table format for clarity.
| Sl. No. | Insecticides | MRL or Tolerance Limits in mg/kg (ppm) | Tomato | Brinjal | Chilli | Okra | Cabbage | Cauliflower | Cucurbits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acetamiprid 20 SP | 0.1 | – | – | 0.1 | – | 0.1 | – | – |
| 2 | Buprofezin | 0.01 | – | – | 0.01 | – | – | – | – |
| 3 | Carbaryl 5 DP | 10.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | Carbaryl 50 WP | 5.0 | – | – | 5.0 | – | – | – | – |
| 5 | Carbosulfan | 0.2 | – | – | 0.2 | – | – | – | – |
| 6 | Chlorantraniliprole | 0.03 | – | – | – | – | 0.03 | – | – |
| 7 | Chlorfenpyre | 0.05 | – | – | 0.05 | – | 0.05 | – | – |
| 8 | Cypermethrin 0.25 DP | 0.20 | – | 0.20 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 9 | Cypermethrin 10 EC | 2.0 | – | 2.0 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 10 | Cypermethrin 25 EC | 0.20 | – | 0.20 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 11 | Deltamethrin 2.8 EC | 0.05 | 0.05 | – | – | 0.05 | – | – | – |
| 12 | Dicofol | 1.0 | – | – | 1.0 | – | – | – | – |
| 13 | Difenthiuron 50 WP | 1.0 | – | 1.0 | 0.05 | – | 1.0 | – | – |
| 14 | Emamectin benzoate | 0.05 | – | – | – | 0.05 | – | – | – |
| 15 | Ethion | 0.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.5 |
| 16 | Etoxazole | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 17 | Fenazaquin | 0.5 | – | – | 0.5 | – | – | – | – |
| 18 | Fenpropathrin | 0.5 | – | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | – | – | – |
| 19 | Fenpyroximate | 1.0 | – | – | 1.0 | – | – | – | – |
| 20 | Fenvalrate | 2.0 | – | 2.0 | – | 2.0 | – | 2.0 | – |
| 21 | Fipronil | 0.001 | – | – | 0.001 | – | 0.001 | – | – |
| 22 | Flumite/Flufenzine | 0.5 | – | 0.5 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 23 | Hexythiazox | 0.01 | – | – | 0.01 | – | – | – | – |
| 24 | Indoxacarb 14.5% SC | 0.1 | 0.05 | – | 0.01 | – | 0.1 | – | – |
| 25 | λ-Cyhalothrin 4.9 CS | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 2.0 | – | – | – |
| 26 | Lufenuron | 0.3 | – | – | – | – | 0.3 | 0.1 | – |
| 27 | Methomyl | 0.05 | 0.05 | – | 0.05 | – | – | – | – |
| 28 | Milibectin | 0.01 | – | – | 0.01 | – | – | – | – |
| 29 | Novaluron | 0.01 | 0.01 | – | 0.01 | – | 0.01 | – | – |
| 30 | Phosphamidon | 2.0 | – | – | 2.0 | – | – | – | – |
| 31 | Propargite | 2.0 | – | – | 2.0 | – | – | – | – |
| 32 | Pyridalyl | 0.2 | – | – | 0.2 | 0.02 | 0.02 | – | – |
| 33 | Quinalphos 20 AF | 0.2 | – | – | 0.2 | – | – | – | – |
| 34 | Spinosad 2.5 SC | 0.02 | – | – | – | 0.02 | 0.02 | – | – |
| 35 | Spinosad 45 SC | 0.001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 36 | Spiromesifen | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 37 | Thiacloprid | 0.02 | 0.02 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 38 | Thiodicarb | 0.01 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 39 | Thiamethoxam 25 WG | 0.5 | 0.01 | 0.3 | 0.01 | 0.5 | – | – | – |
| 40 | Tolfenpyrad | 0.7 | – | 0.7 | 0.01 | – | – | – | – |
This table represents the Indian Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) for pesticides recommended for insect control in various vegetables. The values are in mg/kg (ppm).
| Commodity | Pesticide | Half-life (days) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato | Flubendiamide | 0.72–1.32 | Sharma and Parihar (2013) |
| Thiacloprid | 0.83–1.79 | Sharma and Parihar (2013) | |
| Flubendiamide | 1.64–1.98 | Paramashivam and Banerjee (2013) | |
| Bifenthrin | 1.83–2.32 | Chauhan et al. (2012) | |
| Chlorpyrifos | 4.38–4.43 | Rani et al. (2013a) | |
| Mancozeb | 3.76 | Rani et al. (2013b) | |
| Metalaxyl | 1.29 and 0.41 | Rani et al. (2013b) | |
| Chlothianidin | 7.0–11.9 | Li et al. (2012) | |
| Brinjal | Thiacloprid | 0.47 and 0.50 | Sahoo et al. (2013) |
| Profenofos | 2.15–2.31 | Mukherjee et al. (2012) | |
| Cypermethrin | 0.91–1.86 | Mukherjee et al. (2012) | |
| Chlorpyrifos | 3.27–3.10 | Mukherjee et al. (2012) | |
| Cypermethrin | 2.19–3.27 | Mukherjee et al. (2012) | |
| Quinalphos | 2–3 | Pathan et al. (2012) | |
| Flubendiamide | 0.62 and 0.54 | Takkar et al. (2012) | |
| Cabbage | Emamectin Benzoate | 1.34–1.72 | Wang et al. (2012) |
| Fipronil | 3.21–3.43 | Bhardwaj et al. (2012) | |
| Trichlorfon | 1.80 | Li et al. (2011) | |
| Quinalphos | 4.8–5.3 | Mohapatra and Deepa (2013) | |
| Flubendiamide | 3.4–3.6 | Paramashivam and Banerjee (2013) | |
| Thiacloprid | 12.3–13.1 | Dutta et al. (2012) | |
| Spinosad | 1.4 and 1.5 | Singh and Battu (2012) | |
| Metaflumizone | 1.7–2.1 | Chatterjee and Gupta (2013) | |
| Emamectin Benzoate | <5 | Singh et al. (2013) | |
| Okra | Flubendiamide | 4.7–5.1 | Das et al. (2012) |
| Spiromesifen | 1.68 and 1.65 | Raj et al. (2012) | |
| Imidacloprid | 1.07 | Banerjee et al. (2012) | |
| Beta-Cyfluthrin | 2.41 and 3.30 | Banerjee et al. (2012) | |
| Chlorpyriphos | 0.6 | Samriti et al. (2012) | |
| Cauliflower | Chlorantraniliprole | 1.36 | Kar et al. (2013) |
| Cypermethrin | 1.5–2.1 | Gupta et al. (2013) | |
| Deltamethrin | 2.9–3.3 | Gupta et al. (2013) | |
| Profenofos | 2.6–3.0 | Gupta et al. (2013) | |
| Triazophos | 2.2–2.6 | Gupta et al. (2013) | |
| Chilli | Chlorpyriphos | 4.43 and 2.01 | Jyoti et al. (2012) |
| Cypermethrin | 2.51 and 2.64 | Jyoti et al. (2012) | |
| Trifloxystrobin | 1.81 | Sahoo et al. (2012) | |
| Tebuconazole | 1.37 and 1.41 | Sahoo et al. (2012) | |
| Deltamethrin | 0.36–1.99 | Pandher et al. (2012) | |
| Acetamiprid | 2.24–4.84 | Sanyal et al. (2008) | |
| Chlorfenapyr | 2.93–2.96 | Ditya et al. (2010) |
This table shows the dissipation half-life of various pesticides in days on different vegetables, along with the references.
| Crop | Pest | Tolerant Varieties |
|---|---|---|
| Tomato | Fruit borer (H. armigera) | Arka Vikash, Pusa Gaurav, Pusa Early Dwarf, Punjab Keshri, Punjab Chhuhara, Pant Bahar, Azad, BT 1, T 32, T 27 |
| Brinjal | Shoot and fruit borer (L. orbonalis), aphid, jassid, thrips, whitefly | SM 17-4, PBr 129-5 Punjab Barsati, ARV 2-C, Pusa Purple Round, Punjab Neelam, Kalyanpur-2, Punjab Chamkila, Gote-2, PBR-91, GB-1, GB-6 |
| Cabbage | Aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae) | All season, Red Drum Head, Sure Head, Express Mail |
| Cauliflower | Stem borer (Hellula undalis) | Early Patna, EMS-3, KW-5, KW-8, Kathmandu Local |
| Okra | Jassid (Amrasca biguttula biguttula) | IC-7194, IC-13999 New Selection, Punjab Padmini |
| Shoot and fruit borer (Earias vittella) | AE 57, PMS 8, Parkins long green, PKX 9275, Karnual special | |
| Onion | Thrips (Thrips tabaci) | PBR-2, PBR-6, Arka Niketan, Pusa Ratnar, PBR-4, PBR-5, PBR-6 |
| Round gourd, Pumpkin, Bitter gourd | Fruit fly (B. cucurbitae) | Arka Tinda, Arka Suryamukhi, Hissar-II |
information from Table 17.5, formatted into a clear table layout:
| Crop Combination | Target Pest | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Cabbage + Carrot | Diamondback moth | Buranday and Raros (1973); Bach and Tabashnik (1990) |
| Broccoli + Faba bean | Flea beetle | Garcia and Altieri (1992) |
| Cabbage + French bean | Root fly | Hofsvang (1991) |
| Cabbage + Tomato | Diamondback moth | Srinivasan and Veeresh (1986) |
| Okra + Corn | Yellow vein mosaic | Adhikary et al. (2015) |
| Bitter gourd + Maize | Fruit fly | Shooker et al. (2006) |
| Cabbage + Indian mustard | Diamondback moth | Srinivasan and Moorthy (1992) |
| Cabbage + Chinese cabbage | Diamondback moth | Satpathy et al. (2010a & 2009) |
| Brinjal + Coriander/Fennel | Shoot and fruit borer | Khorsheduzzaman et al. (1997); Satpathy and Mishra (2011) |
This table presents effective intercropping combinations for managing specific pests in various vegetable crops.
Trap Crops
- Definition: Trap crops are plants more attractive to pests than the main crop, helping protect the primary crop by diverting pest attention or concentrating pests in specific areas for targeted destruction.
- Examples:
- Mustard with Cabbage: Mustard is used as a trap crop for managing diamondback moth, aphids, and leaf webber in cabbage. This method was developed in 1989, with two rows of mustard planted around every 25 rows of cabbage. The first row is planted 15 days before cabbage, and the second row 25 days after, attracting over 80% of pests. Additionally, 2–3 sprays of neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) and mustard foliage sprayed with dichlorvos enhance pest control.
- Chinese Cabbage: Identified as another potential trap crop for diamondback moth (Satpathy et al., 2010a).
- African Marigold: In the bud stage, it attracts H. armigera adults and leafminers for egg-laying, especially when combined with bitter gourd.
- Castor with Cowpea: Castor acts as a trap crop to divert Spodoptera litura from cowpea.
17.7.1.5 Bio-Pesticides
Regulation: The Insecticides Act, 1968, lists 18 bio-pesticides for agriculture, with 16 microbial and 2 plant-based options approved. Neem-based and microbial bio-pesticides are widely used and approved for vegetable pest management in India. (See Tables 17.6 and 17.7 for details on specific bio-pesticides.)
Definition: Bio-pesticides are products from microbial (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi, nematodes) or plant sources (e.g., neem). They break down quickly in the environment and effectively target pests.
Advantages: Seen as alternatives to chemical pesticides, they are integral to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs.
Current Usage: Bio-pesticide use has increased significantly, reaching over 6,000 MT in 2011–2012 (Anonymous, 2012).
Strategies to Reduce Pre- and Post-Harvest Contamination
17.7.1 Eco-Friendly Pest Management Techniques
17.7.1.1 Selection of Pest Tolerant Varieties
- Concept: Choosing pest-resistant or less susceptible varieties is a practical approach to pest management, especially when considering the specific pest diversity and intensity at a location.
- Benefits:
- Built-in Resistance: These varieties naturally experience less pest infestation, thus reducing pesticide use.
- Safety: Host plant resistance is safe and can be easily integrated with other pest management methods.
- Limitations in Vegetables: Unlike cereal crops, there are fewer resistant or less susceptible vegetable varieties available (refer to Table 17.4).
- Effectiveness: Resistant varieties are particularly useful against sucking pests, as these varieties offer enhanced protection without relying heavily on chemical pesticides.
This strategy is fundamental to sustainable pest management, minimizing chemical inputs and aligning well with eco-friendly agricultural practices.
Planting/Sowing Time
- Timing as a Pest Management Tool: Adjusting planting or sowing dates can significantly reduce pest attacks on vegetables by avoiding peak pest activity.
- Examples:
- Early planting of cucurbits in November can help avoid red pumpkin beetle infestations.
- Bitter gourd flowers that appear after October are less likely to suffer from fruit fly attacks.
- Sowing okra in June reduces borer populations, leading to a healthier yield.
- Brinjal planted in July, however, tends to face higher borer infestations in shoots and fruits.
- Benefits: Aligning crop growth stages with periods of low pest activity minimizes pest pressure, reducing the need for chemical controls.
- Examples:
17.7.1.3 Intercropping
- Diverse Planting to Disrupt Pest Activity: Intercropping with plants of various geometries and pest profiles disrupts mono-cropping conditions, lowering pest infestation rates (see Table 17.5 for examples).
- Mechanisms:
- Deterrence of Egg-Laying: Different plants can obstruct pest adults from egg-laying.
- Chemical Signals: Volatile compounds (allelochemicals) from certain plants can deter insect activity on neighboring plants.
- Microclimate Modification: Diverse plantings prevent the formation of a favorable microclimate for any single pest type.
- Added Benefit: Intercropping also promotes natural pest control by increasing predator and parasite activity in the field.
- Mechanisms:
These practices enhance pest management by leveraging plant diversity and timing, supporting reduced reliance on chemical inputs and fostering a more sustainable agricultural environment.
Neem-based Insecticides for Insect Pest Control in Vegetable Crops
| Sl. No. | Neem-based Insecticides and Formulation | Target Pests | Target Organism/Host | Physiological Stage for Application | Recommended Dose Formulation (g/ml) and Mode of Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Azadirachtin 0.03% (300 ppm) | Fruit borer, whitefly, leafhopper | Okra | Vegetative, flowering, and fruiting | 2500–5000 ml and spraying |
| Fruit and shoot borer, beetles | Brinjal | Vegetative, flowering, and fruiting | 2500–5000 ml and spraying | ||
| Aphids, DBM, cabbage worm, cabbage – looper | Cabbage | Vegetative, head formation | 2500–5000 ml and spraying | ||
| Powdery mildew | Okra | Vegetative | 2–2.5 ml and spraying | ||
| 2 | Azadirachtin 0.15% (1500 ppm) | Aphids, jassids | – | Vegetative | 1–2 l and spraying |
| Aphids, DBM | – | Vegetative, head formation | 2–2.5 l and spraying | ||
| Fruit borer and whitefly | – | Flowering, fruiting, and vegetative | 3.25 l and spraying | ||
| Pod borer | – | Fruiting and vegetative | 2 l and spraying | ||
| 3 | Azadirachtin 0.3% (3000 ppm) | DBM | – | Head formation | 1.67–3.34 l and spraying |
| 4 | Azadirachtin 5% (50,000 ppm) | DBM, aphids, Spodoptera litura | – | Head formation and Vegetative | 200 ml and spraying |
| Whitefly, jassids, aphids, shoot and fruit borer | – | Vegetative, flowering, and fruiting | 200 ml and spraying | ||
| 5 | Azadirachtin 1% (10,000 ppm) | Tomato fruit borer and brinjal fruit and shoot borer | – | Flowering and fruiting | 1000–1500 ml and spraying |
TABLE 17.7: Microbial-Based Bio-pesticides for Vegetable Crops
| Sl. No. | Biopesticide and Formulation | Target Pests | Target Organism/Host | Physiological Stage of Application | Recommended Dose Formulation (g/ml) and Mode of Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, 3a, 3b, SA-II WP | Diamond back moth | – | Head formation | 0.5 kg and spraying |
| 2 | Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, BMPn 123 (2×) WDG, 3a, 3b | Brinjal shoot and fruit borer | – | Vegetative, flowering, and fruiting | 0.25–0.5 kg and spraying |
| 3 | Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, HP WP | Diamond back moth | – | Head formation | 300–500 g and spraying |
| 4 | Bacillus thuringiensis var. galleriae Serotype, 3a, 3b, WP | Diamond back moth | – | Head formation | 0.60–1.0 kg and spraying |
| Tomato fruit borer | – | Flowering and fruiting | 1–1.5 kg and spraying | ||
| Okra fruit and shoot borer | – | Vegetative, flowering, and fruiting | 1–1.5 kg and spraying | ||
| 5 | Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, strain Z-523, serotype H3a, 3b WP | Okra fruit and shoot borer | – | Vegetative, flowering, and fruiting | 0.4–1.0 kg and spraying |
| 6 | Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, WP | Spodoptera litura, Spilosoma, semi-looper, leaf miner in Soybean | – | Vegetative | 0.75–1.0 kg and spraying |
| Pod borer in legumes | – | Flowering and fruiting | 0.75–1.0 kg and spraying | ||
| 7 | Beauveria bassiana Strain No. IPL/BB/MI/01 (1×10^9 CFU/g min) 1% WP | Fruit borer/spotted bollworm in okra | – | Vegetative, flowering, and fruiting | 3.75–5.0 kg and spraying |
| 8 | Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus of Spodoptera litura 0.5% AS | Spodoptera litura in tomato | – | Vegetative and flowering and fruiting | 1500 ml and spraying |
| 9 | NPV of Helicoverpa armigera Strain No. IBH-17268 (1×10^9 POB/ml min) 2.0% AS | Helicoverpa armigera in tomato | – | Flowering and fruiting | 250–500 ml and spraying |
| 10 | NPV of Helicoverpa armigera 0.43% AS | Helicoverpa armigera in tomato | – | Flowering and fruiting | 1500 ml and spraying |
| 11 | Pseudomonas fluorescens 0.5% WP | Damping off in chilli, Wilt in tomato | – | At sowing | 10 g/kg of seeds as seed treatment |
| Wilt in tomato | – | Vegetative | 2.5 kg and as soil application | ||
| 12 | Trichoderma viride 1% WP | Root rot in cowpea, Damping off in chilli, Stalk rot in cauliflower, Root Rot/Wilt/Damping off in brinjal | – | At sowing | 5 g/kg of seed as seed treatment |
| Seedling wilt in tomato | – | At sowing | 9 g/kg of seed as seed treatment | ||
| Seedling wilt in tomato | – | Vegetative | 2.5 kg and as soil application at root zone application | ||
| Root rot in cowpea | – | Vegetative stage | 2.5 kg as soil treatment | ||
| Root rot/Wilt/Damping off | – | Nursery stage | 250 g/50 l of water/400 m² as nursery treatment | ||
| Root rot/Wilt/Damping off | – | At transplanting | 10 g/l of water as seedling root dip treatment | ||
| Root rot/Collar rot in cabbage | – | At transplanting | 10 g/l water as seedling root dip |
These tables present essential information on neem-based insecticides and microbial-based bio-pesticides for managing pests in vegetable crops, detailing their applications, target pests, recommended dosages, and modes of application.
Natural Enemies in Vegetable Ecosystems
Vegetable ecosystems host a diverse array of natural enemies, including predators and parasitoids, that play crucial roles in controlling insect pest populations. Despite their potential, many of these natural enemies remain underutilized in pest management strategies. Below is an overview of some key natural enemies and their applications in vegetable pest management:
- Egg Parasitoids:
- Trichogramma spp.: These parasitoids are known for their effectiveness in controlling various pest eggs, including the tomato fruit borer. For example, the inundative release of Trichogramma brasilensis at a rate of 250,000 individuals per hectare has been recommended for managing fruit borers on crops like okra and tomato. It is advised to make six releases at weekly intervals, starting with the first release coinciding with 50% flowering in tomato plants, at a density of 50,000 parasitoids per hectare.
- Predators:
- Chrysoperla zastrowi arabica: This predator is effective against a variety of pests, including whiteflies, aphids, jassids, and the eggs of certain lepidopteran borers. To maximize its impact, the first instar larvae of this predator can be released at a rate of 50,000 individuals per hectare.
- Larval Parasitoids:
- Cotesia plutellae and Diadegma semiclausum: Both of these larval parasitoids are particularly effective against the diamondback moth larvae. Their incorporation into biological pest management strategies can be particularly beneficial, especially in protected vegetable production systems and in regions where insect pests have developed resistance to conventional insecticides.
These natural enemies contribute to integrated pest management (IPM) practices, promoting a more sustainable and environmentally friendly approach to pest control in vegetable crops. Leveraging these biological control agents can enhance the resilience of agricultural systems while reducing reliance on chemical pesticides.
Some Important Natural Enemies of Insect Pests of Vegetable Crops
| Pest | Parasitoid/Predator |
|---|---|
| Crucifers | |
| Plutella xylostella | Cotesia plutellae, Diadegma semiclausum, Brachymeria excarinata, Trichogrammatoidea bactrae |
| Crocidolomia binotalis | Alanteles crocidolomia, Palexorista solannis, Bracon hebetor |
| Hellula undalis | Bracon spp. |
| Tomato | |
| H. armigera | Trichogramma chilonis, T. brasiliensis, T. pretiosum, Campoletis chlorideae |
| Okra | |
| Earias spp. | Trichogramma chilonis, T. ahaeae, T. brasiliensis, Chelonus blackburni |
| Spodoptera litura | Telenomus remus, Peribaea orbata |
| Aphis spp. | Coccinella septempunctata, Chrysoperla zastrowi arabica |
| Brinjal | |
| Brinjal shoot and fruit borer | Eriborus argentiopilosus, Trathala flavoorbitalis |
| Gall midge | Asphondylia sp., Eurytoma sp. |
| Mealybug (Phenacoccus solenopsis) | Aenasius bambawalei |
This table highlights various pests affecting vegetable crops and their corresponding natural enemies, which can be utilized in integrated pest management strategies. By understanding these relationships, farmers can enhance biological control methods and reduce dependency on chemical pesticides.
Economic Threshold Levels (ETL) for Vegetable Insect Pests
| Crop | Pest | Economic Threshold Level (ETL) |
|---|---|---|
| Tomato | Tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera) | 1-2 larvae per plant |
| Brinjal | Brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) | 5% fruit infestation |
| Cabbage | Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) | 10% of plants infested |
| Cauliflower | Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) | 5-10% of plants infested |
| Okra | Jassid (Amrasca biguttula) | 10-15 jassids per leaf |
| Onion | Thrips (Thrips tabaci) | 10-15 thrips per leaf |
| Pumpkin | Fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) | 2-3 flies per trap |
This table outlines the economic threshold levels (ETL) for various vegetable crops and their associated insect pests. By using ETL as a guideline, farmers can make informed decisions regarding pesticide applications, applying them only when pest populations exceed economically acceptable levels. This approach minimizes pesticide use, reduces environmental impact, and supports the survival of beneficial natural enemies in the ecosystem.
Economic Threshold Levels (ETL) for Major Insect Pests of Vegetable Crops
| Crop/Pest | Economic Threshold Level (ETL) |
|---|---|
| Tomato | |
| – Fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera) | 8 eggs/15 plants or 1 larva/plant or 1 damaged fruit/plant |
| – Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) | 3 nymphs/leaf or 4 adults/leaf |
| – Leaf miner (Liriomyza trifolii) | 26 mines/trifoliates or 6 adults/6 rows |
| Brinjal | |
| – Fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) | 0.5–5% shoot and fruit damage |
| Chillies | |
| – Thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis) | 2 thrips/leaf |
| – Mites (Polyphagotarsonemus latus) | 1 mite/leaf |
| Okra | |
| – Leafhopper (Amrasca biguttula biguttula) | 4.66 hoppers/leaf |
| – Shoot and fruit borer (Earias vittella) | 5.3% of fruit infestation |
| Cabbage | |
| – Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) | 2 larvae/plant at 1–4 weeks after transplanting or 5 larvae/plant at 5–10 weeks after transplanting |
| – Cabbage leaf webber (Crocidolomia binotalis) | 0.3 egg mass/plant |
| Pea | |
| – Pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum) | 3–4 aphids/stem tip |
This table summarizes the Economic Threshold Levels (ETL) for key insect pests in various vegetable crops. By adhering to these ETL guidelines, farmers can optimize their pest management strategies, applying pesticides only when pest populations exceed economically acceptable levels, thereby reducing unnecessary chemical use and protecting beneficial insects in the ecosystem.
Choice of Chemical Pesticides and Pre-Harvest Interval (PHI)
The selection of insecticides for vegetable crops is critical in managing pesticide residues and ensuring food safety. The Pre-Harvest Interval (PHI) is the time that must elapse between the last application of a pesticide and the harvest of the crop. Choosing pesticides with shorter PHIs can help minimize the risk of pesticide residues exceeding Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) at harvest.
Key Considerations:
- Shorter PHI Preference: Insecticides with shorter PHIs should be prioritized to reduce residue accumulation. This is particularly important in crops where the harvesting interval is short.
- Staggered Applications: It is essential to stagger pesticide applications based on their respective PHIs. This strategy allows for the dissipation of initial residue deposits to levels below MRLs by the time of harvest.
- Use of IGRs and Plant-based Insecticides: Insect Growth Regulators (IGRs) and insecticides derived from plants (like neem) are effective against many pests and often have shorter PHIs, making them suitable for inclusion in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs.
Table 17.10: Pre-Harvest Intervals for Selected Insecticides
| Insecticide | Chemical Class | Pre-Harvest Interval (PHI) |
|---|---|---|
| Insecticide A | Organophosphate | 7 days |
| Insecticide B | Pyrethroid | 14 days |
| Insecticide C | Carbamate | 10 days |
| Insecticide D | Biological (Neem) | 3 days |
| Insecticide E | IGR (e.g., Methoprene) | 5 days |
Note: The PHI can vary by region and crop; it is essential to refer to specific product labels and local agricultural guidelines for accurate information.
By carefully considering the choice of chemical pesticides and adhering to recommended pre-harvest intervals, growers can effectively manage pest populations while ensuring the safety and quality of their vegetable crops.
Waiting Period/Pre-Harvest Intervals of Insecticides Recommended for Insect Control in Vegetables
| Sl. No. | Insecticides | Waiting Period/Pre-Harvest Interval (days) | Tomato | Brinjal | Chilli | Okra | Cabbage | Cauliflower | Cucurbits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acetamiprid 20 SP | – | – | 3 | 3 | 7 | – | – | |
| 2 | Azadirachtin 1% | 3 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 3 | Azadirachtin 0.03% | – | 7 | – | 7 | 7 | – | – | |
| 4 | Azadirachtin 5% | 5 | – | – | 5 | 5 | – | – | |
| 5 | Buprofezin | – | – | 5 | 5 | – | – | – | |
| 6 | Carbaryl 5 DP | – | – | – | 8 | 8 | – | – | |
| 7 | Carbaryl 50 WP | 8 | 5 | – | 3 | 8 | 5 | – | |
| 8 | Carbosulfan | – | – | 8 | – | – | – | – | |
| 9 | Chlorantranilprole | 3 | 22 | 3 | 5 | 3 | – | 7 (Bittergourd) | |
| 10 | Chlorfenpyre | – | – | 5 | – | 7 | – | – | |
| 11 | Chlorfluazoron | – | – | – | – | 7 | – | – | |
| 12 | Cyantraniliprole | 3 | – | 3 | – | 5 | – | 5 (Gherkins) | |
| 13 | Cypermethrin 0.25 DP | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 14 | Cypermethrin 10 EC | – | 3 | – | 3 | 7 | – | – | |
| 15 | Cypermethrin 25 EC | – | 1 | – | 3 | – | – | – | |
| 16 | Deltamethrin 2.8 EC | – | 3 | 5 | 1 | – | – | – | |
| 17 | Dicofol | – | 15–20 | – | 15–20 | – | – | – | |
| 18 | Difenthiuron 50 WP | – | 3 | 3 | – | 7 | – | – | |
| 19 | Emamectin benzoate | – | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | – | – | |
| 20 | Ethion | – | – | 5 | – | – | – | – | |
| 21 | Etoxazole | – | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 22 | Fenazaquin | 7 | 7 | 10 | 7 | – | – | – | |
| 23 | Fenpropathrin | – | 10 | 7 | 7 | – | – | – | |
| 24 | Fenpyroximate | – | 7 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 25 | Fenvalrate | – | 5 | 7 | – | 7 | – | – | |
| 26 | Fipronil | – | – | 7 | 7 | – | – | – | |
| 27 | Flubendamide 20 WG | 5 | – | – | 7 | – | – | – | |
| 28 | Flubendamide 40 SC | – | – | 7 | 7 | – | – | – | |
| 29 | Flufenoxuron | – | – | – | – | 7 | – | – | |
| 30 | Flumite/Flufenzine | – | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 31 | Hexythiazox | – | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | |
| 32 | Imidacloprid 70 WG | – | – | – | 3 | – | – | 5 (Cucumber) | |
| 33 | Imidacloprid 17.8 SL | 3 | – | 40 | 3 | – | – | – | |
| 34 | Indoxacarb 14.5 SC | 5 | – | 5 | – | 7 | – | – | |
| 35 | Indoxacarb 15.8 EC | – | – | – | – | 5 | – | – | |
| 36 | λ-Cyhalothrin 4.9 CS | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | – | – | – | |
| 37 | λ-Cyhalothrin 5 EC | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | – | – | – | |
| 38 | Lufenuron | – | – | 5 | – | 14 | 5 | – | |
| 39 | Metaflumizone | – | – | – | 3 | – | – | – | |
| 40 | Methomyl | 5–6 | – | 5–6 | – | – | – | – | |
| 41 | Milibectin | – | – | 7 | – | – | – | – | |
| 42 | Novaluron | 1–3 | – | 3 | – | 5 | – | – | |
| 43 | Phosphamidon | – | 10 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 44 | Propergite | – | 6 | 7 | – | – | – | – | |
| 45 | Pyridalyl | – | – | – | 3 | 3 | – | – | |
| 46 | Quinalphos 20 AF | 7 | – | – | 7 | – | – | – | |
| 47 | Spinosad 2.5 SC | – | – | – | – | 3 | 3 | – | |
| 48 | Spinosad 45 SC | – | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | |
| 49 | Spiromesifen | 3 | 5 | 7 | 3 | – | – | – | |
| 50 | Thiacloprid | – | 5 | 5 | – | – | – | – | |
| 51 | Thiodicarb | – | 6 | 6 | – | 7 | – | – | |
| 52 | Thiamethoxam 25 WG | 5 | 5 | – | 5 | – | – | – | |
| 53 | Tolfenpyrad | – | – | – | 3 | 5 | – | – | |
| 54 | Betacyfluthrin + Imidacloprid | – | 7 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 55 | Cypermethrin + Quinalphos 20 EC | – | 7 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 56 | Deltamethrin + Trizophos 35 EC | – | 21 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 57 | Indoxacarb + Acetamiprid | – | – | 5 | – | – | – | – | |
| 58 | Novaluron + Indoxacarb | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 59 | Pyriproxyfen + Fenpropathrin 15 EC | – | 7 | 7 | 7 | – | – | – |
Summary
This table outlines the waiting periods or pre-harvest intervals (PHI) for various insecticides used in controlling insect pests in vegetables. Each insecticide is listed alongside its recommended waiting period across several common vegetable crops, including tomato, brinjal, chilli, okra, cabbage, cauliflower, and cucurbits.
Key Points:
Understanding PHIs is crucial for ensuring food safety and compliance with agricultural regulations regarding pesticide residues.
PHIs vary by insecticide and crop, highlighting the importance of choosing the right product based on the specific timing of harvest.
Certain insecticides, like Azadirachtin and Emamectin, have shorter PHIs for multiple crops, making them advantageous for integrated pest management.
Use of Newer Green Chemistry Molecules
In recent years, the development of new molecules with green chemistries has transformed the approach to chemical pest management in vegetable crops, particularly for controlling sucking and borer insect pests. These innovative insecticides, often referred to as “bio-rational” or “low-risk” insecticides, have unique modes of action that specifically target pests while minimizing impacts on non-target organisms.
Key Advantages of New Green Chemistry Molecules
- Reduced Application Rates: The quantities required for application per hectare are significantly lower—ranging from 1/4 to 1/53 times less than traditional insecticides. This efficiency not only reduces costs for farmers but also lessens environmental impact.
- High Selectivity and Efficacy: These newer insecticides are designed to be highly selective for target pests, providing excellent efficacy even at low dosages. This selectivity helps preserve beneficial insects and other non-target organisms in the ecosystem.
- Environmental Persistence: Many of these molecules are non-persistent in the environment, meaning they break down quickly and reduce the risk of long-term soil and water contamination.
- Low Mammalian Toxicity: Newer insecticides tend to exhibit lower toxicity to mammals, making them safer for farmworkers and consumers.
- Resistance Management: The introduction of these novel insecticides can help delay the development of insecticide resistance in pest populations, as they often have different modes of action compared to conventional insecticides. This characteristic is crucial for maintaining the effectiveness of pest management strategies.
- Integration into IPM and IRM: The favorable properties of these newer insecticides make them suitable for inclusion in integrated pest management (IPM) and insect resistance management (IRM) programs. They can be used alongside traditional practices to enhance overall pest control strategies.
Categories of New Green Chemistry Molecules
The new molecules that have emerged in the market include various classes of insecticides, such as:
- Neonicotinoids
- Oxadiazines
- Diamides
- Tetramic/Tetronic acid derivatives
- Phenylpyrazoles
- Pyridine compounds
- Avermectins
- Spinosyns
- Pyrroles
- Insect Growth Regulators (IGRs)
Conclusion
The shift towards using newer green chemistry molecules represents a significant advancement in pest management for vegetable crops. By prioritizing safety, efficiency, and environmental health, these novel insecticides not only benefit agricultural productivity but also support sustainable farming practices. As farmers and pest control advisors gain familiarity with these products, their adoption is expected to increase, leading to improved pest management outcomes in vegetable production systems.
Insecticides with New Chemistries for Control of Vegetable Insect Pests
| Sl. No. | Insecticide Group | Target Site | Mode of Action | Active Ingredients |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Neonicotinoids | Nerve | Agonists of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) | Imidacloprid, acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, thiacloprid |
| 2 | Pyridine-Carboxamide | Nerve | Modulators of chordontal organs | Flonicamid* |
| 3 | Diamide | Nerve and muscle action | Ryanodine receptor modulators | Flubendamide, Cyantraniliprole, Chlorantraniliprole |
| 4 | Tetronic and tetramic acid derivatives | Lipid synthesis | Inhibitors of acetyl CoA carboxylase | Spiromesifen |
| 5 | Pyrrole insecticides | Energy metabolism | Uncouplers of oxidative phosphorylation via disruption of proton gradient | Chlorfenapyr |
| 6 | Thiourea insecticides | Energy metabolism | Inhibitors of mitochondrial ATP synthase | Diafentiuron |
| 7 | Avermectins | Nerve | Glutamate-gated chloride channel modulators | Emamectin Benzoate, Milbemectin |
| 8 | Spinosyns | Nerve | Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) allosteric activators | Spinosad |
| 9 | Phenylpyrazoles | Nerve | GABA gated chloride channels antagonists | Fipronil |
| 10 | Benzoylureas | Growth regulation | Chitin biosynthesis inhibitors type 0 | Flufenoxuron |
| 11 | Chitin synthesis inhibitors | Energy metabolism | Chitin biosynthesis inhibitors type I | Buprofezin, Novaluron |
| 12 | METI acaricides | Energy metabolism | Mitochondrial complex I electron transport inhibitors | Fenpyroximate, Fenazaquin, Tolfenpyrad |
| 13 | Mite growth inhibitor | Growth regulation | Regulates the growth of mites | Hexthiazox, Etoxazole, Flufenzine |
| 14 | Sulfite ester acaricides | Energy metabolism | Inhibitors of mitochondrial ATP synthase | Propargite |
Summary
This table outlines various insecticides that incorporate new chemistries designed to effectively control insect pests in vegetable crops. Each insecticide is categorized by its group, target site, mode of action, and specific active ingredients. This approach not only aims to enhance pest control efficacy but also minimizes risks to the environment and non-target organisms, aligning with the principles of sustainable agriculture and integrated pest management (IPM).
Methods of Pesticide Application
Effective pesticide application is crucial for minimizing spray drift, preventing run-off, and reducing environmental contamination. Here are some key considerations and methods for successful pesticide application:
- Environmental Conditions:
- Apply pesticides under suitable environmental conditions to minimize drift and prevent run-off or leaching.
- Equipment Calibration:
- Maintain and properly calibrate application equipment to ensure uniform delivery of the correct pesticide rate across the field. Double-check calculations to confirm that the application rate aligns with recommended levels.
- Mixing Precautions:
- Avoid unauthorized mixing of pesticides by farmers, as this can degrade active ingredients and diminish efficacy. Always follow label claims.
- Selection of Application Methods:
- Choose the appropriate pesticide application method based on:
- The nature and formulation of the pesticide
- The target pests
- The site of application
- Water availability
- Understanding the pesticide’s mode of action, toxicity, and physicochemical properties informs handling precautions and agitation needs.
- Choose the appropriate pesticide application method based on:
- Application Techniques:
- Techniques should ensure maximum efficiency in targeting pests while minimizing contamination of non-target organisms. Options include:
- Electrostatic Spraying: This recent advancement can distribute small amounts of insecticide effectively without harming beneficial insects.
- Seed Treatments: Applying pesticides to seeds before planting.
- Seedling Root Dips: Immersing seedlings in pesticide solutions to protect against early pest attacks.
- Spot Applications: Targeted applications to specific infested areas rather than blanket spraying.
- Soil Drenching: Applying pesticides directly to the soil to control pests residing in the root zone.
- Chemigation: Incorporating pesticides into irrigation systems for effective pest control.
- Techniques should ensure maximum efficiency in targeting pests while minimizing contamination of non-target organisms. Options include:
Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Technology
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) represents an eco-friendly approach to pest control that combines cultural, mechanical, and biological strategies to maintain pest populations below economic threshold levels. Here are key aspects of IPM:
- Ecological Focus:
- Emphasizes the use of biocontrol agents and biopesticides, promoting sustainable pest management.
- Judicious Use of Chemicals:
- Chemical pesticides are used only as a last resort and in a need-based manner. This is critical for effective pest management.
- Benefits of IPM:
- Maximizes crop protection with minimal input costs.
- Reduces pollution in soil, water, and air.
- Minimizes occupational health hazards for farm workers.
- Conserves ecological balance and lowers pesticide residue in food products.
- Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs):
- Integrate GAPs with IPM to apply the minimum quantities of pesticides necessary for adequate pest control, aiming for the lowest possible food residues.
- Government Support:
- Various government agencies promote IPM practices, recognizing the importance of safe and judicious pesticide use. IPM packages tailored for key vegetable insect pests have been developed under the All India Coordinated Research Programme on Vegetable Crops (AICRP-VC) and other institutions.
- Ongoing Updates:
- IPM practices should be regularly reviewed and updated to incorporate new scientific knowledge and field experiences to enhance their effectiveness.
Conclusion
The judicious use of pesticides through careful application methods and the adoption of IPM can lead to effective pest management while protecting the environment and public health. Implementing these practices ensures sustainable agricultural productivity and safety.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Modules/Technology for Major Insect Pests of Vegetable Crops
| Crop | Target Pest | IPM Module or Technology |
|---|---|---|
| Brinjal | Shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) | – Avoid monoculture; practice crop rotation. – Grow seedlings in raised nursery beds covered with 30-mesh nylon net/muslin cloth. – Intercropping with coriander/fennel. – Seedling root dip in chlorantraniliprole (0.5 ml/l for 3 h). – Install plastic funnel traps @ 100 ha−1 baited with sex pheromone at 25–30 DAT. – Weekly removal of infested shoots and fruits. – Five releases of Trichogramma chilonis (50,000 eggs/ha weekly). – Apply NSKE 4% or Bt (500 g/ha) at flowering. – Need-based application of rynaxpyr (0.2–0.4 ml/l), emamectin benzoate (0.35 g/l), cartap hydrochloride (500 g/ha), or lambda-cyhalothrin (1.25 ml/l) during vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages. |
| Cucurbits | Fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) | – Deep summer ploughing or soil raking to expose pupae. – Collection and destruction of infested fruits. – Install traps (25–30 traps/ha) baited with cue lure. – Apply bait spray (20 ml malathion 50 EC or carbaryl 50 WP + 500 g molasses in 20 l water) on 250 plants. – Use NSKE 4% as a repellent to enhance trapping. |
| Okra | Leafhoppers (Amrasca biguttula biguttula) | – Seed treatment with imidacloprid (3–5 ml/kg seed). – Soil application of neem cake (250 kg/ha) post-germination, repeated after 30 days. – Install yellow sticky traps to monitor activity. – Spray neem or pongamia soaps (0.5%) or NSPE (4%) every 10 days. – Need-based foliar sprays of insecticides (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, fenpropathrin, or lambda-cyhalothrin) every 10–15 days. |
| Chilli | Thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis) and yellow mite (Polyphagotarsonemus latus) | – Seedling dip with imidacloprid (1 ml/l). – Spray buprofezin (1 ml/l) at 25 DAT, followed by fipronil (0.2 g/l), Verticillium lecanii (5 g/l), chlorfenapyr (1 ml/l), and neem oil (1%) at 10-day intervals. |
| Tomato | Fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera) | – Deep summer ploughing. – Plant marigold as a trap crop with every 16 rows of tomato. – Install sex pheromone traps (5 traps/ha) for early detection. – Two releases of Trichogramma brasiliense (250,000 eggs/ha). – Foliar spray of HNPV (250 LE) with jaggery, soap powder, and tinopal in the evening. – Need-based sprays of insecticides (chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, indoxacarb, novaluron, methomyl, or lambda cyhalothrin) every 10 days. |
| Cabbage | Diamondback moth (DBM) (Plutella xylostella) | – Avoid early or late planting. – Use Chinese cabbage or paired rows of mustard as a trap crop. – Application of B.t. (1 kg/ha). – Need-based sprays of insecticides (chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, novaluron, indoxacarb, flubendamide, or emamectin benzoate). |
Summary of IPM Practices
- Cultural Practices: Crop rotation, trap cropping, and timely ploughing help disrupt pest cycles.
- Mechanical Practices: Use of traps and manual removal of pests can reduce populations effectively.
- Biological Control: Introducing natural enemies like Trichogramma and using biopesticides like B.t. enhance pest control sustainably.
- Chemical Control: Pesticides are used judiciously and only as needed, with rotations to minimize resistance development.
These modules highlight a holistic approach to pest management, combining various strategies to minimize reliance on chemical pesticides while effectively managing pest populations.
Decontamination Methods for Pesticide Residue Reduction in Fruits and Vegetables
Fruits and vegetables undergo various culinary and food-processing treatments that can significantly reduce pesticide residue levels. Here are some key points regarding decontamination methods and their effectiveness in reducing pesticide residues:
- Culinary Techniques:
- Washing: Rinsing fruits and vegetables under running water can remove a significant amount of surface pesticide residues.
- Peeling: Removing the skin of fruits and vegetables often decreases pesticide residues, as many pesticides are concentrated on the surface.
- Cooking: Techniques such as boiling, steaming, or microwaving can lead to a reduction in pesticide residues, although this may vary depending on the specific pesticide and its stability under heat.
- Food Processing Techniques:
- Juicing: Concentration of pesticides can occur during juicing, potentially leading to higher residue levels in the final product.
- Drying: Similar to juicing, drying can concentrate pesticide residues, especially if the initial raw product contained significant amounts.
- Oil Production: Extraction methods can also lead to concentration of pesticide residues in the final oil product.
- Thermal Processing:
- Heat treatments can degrade some pesticides, but in some cases, thermal processing can also generate toxic metabolites. Consumers should be encouraged to employ processing methods that maximize residue reduction while minimizing the risk of forming harmful compounds.
- Processing Factors:
- Transfer Factors: These are ratios that indicate the concentration of pesticide residues before and after processing. They are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of different processing methods.
- Processing factors (PFs) are calculated as: PF=Concentration after processingConcentration before processing\text{PF} = \frac{\text{Concentration after processing}}{\text{Concentration before processing}}PF=Concentration before processingConcentration after processing
- Some PFs are published in public literature, while others may be available through regulatory bodies involved in pesticide registration.
- Research Findings:
- Studies, such as those reviewed by Kaushik et al. (2009), demonstrate that certain processing methods effectively reduce pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables, contributing to safer consumption.
Summary of Key Processing Techniques and Their Average Processing Factors
While specific processing techniques and their corresponding average processing factors are not detailed in the provided text, the general understanding is that washing, peeling, and cooking are among the most effective methods for reducing pesticide residues in raw agricultural commodities.
For specific data regarding processing factors for different pesticides and methods, reference to scientific literature or pesticide registration documentation may be necessary, as this information is critical for understanding the safety and efficacy of food processing methods in reducing pesticide exposure.
Processing Techniques and Their Average Processing Factors (PF)
Here’s a summary of various processing techniques and their average processing factors (PFs) that indicate their effectiveness in reducing pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables:
| Processing Technique | Processing Factor (PF) |
|---|---|
| Baking | 1.38 |
| Blanching | 0.21 |
| Boiling | 0.82 |
| Canning | 0.71 |
| Frying | 0.10 |
| Juicing | 0.59 |
| Peeling | 0.41 |
| Washing | 0.68 |
Effects of Processing Techniques on Pesticide Residue Dissipation
- Baking:
- Baking uses dry heat, typically in an oven, and can reduce pesticide residues through evaporation, co-distillation, and thermal degradation. The effectiveness varies by pesticide.
- Blanching:
- Hot water blanching can significantly remove pesticide residues, especially for non-persistent compounds. It has shown a notable reduction of residues in vegetables like potatoes and tomatoes.
- Boiling:
- Cooking, especially boiling, can degrade pesticide residues. Many pesticides are hydrolyzed in the presence of acid/base during heating, leading to substantial reductions in residues.
- Canning:
- The canning process involves washing, peeling, cooking, and concentration, effectively reducing pesticide residues. For example, residues of vinclozolin in canned tomatoes decreased significantly after processing.
- Frying:
- Frying can also reduce pesticide residues through volatilization and hydrolysis. For example, frying of brinjal resulted in complete removal of certain organophosphorus pesticide residues.
- Washing:
- Washing fruits and vegetables is a preliminary step that can remove a considerable amount of surface pesticide residues. Studies show significant reductions in residues when washing is performed properly.
- Peeling:
- Peeling is an effective way to eliminate surface pesticide residues. It has been noted that peeling tomatoes can reduce pesticide residues substantially, reflecting its importance in residue management.
Regulatory Control and Consumer Awareness
To minimize pesticide contamination in vegetables, regulatory control is critical. In India, not all pesticides have approved labels for use in vegetable crops. It’s essential to use pesticides that are safe for both human health and the environment, as their persistence and dissipation patterns can vary significantly across different crops.
Consumer awareness regarding safe food practices is increasing. With the growing emphasis on food safety, it is vital for growers, consumers, and regulatory agencies to collaborate to ensure minimal pesticide residue levels in vegetables. Implementing Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) alongside chemical and non-chemical pest control methods, and adhering to pre-harvest intervals, is essential to maintain the safety and quality of vegetable production.
Conclusion
While pesticides play a crucial role in ensuring food security, their safe use is of utmost importance. The presence of pesticide residues in vegetables must be addressed through effective agricultural practices and regulatory measures to protect consumer health and promote environmental sustainability.
About Us
Welcome to Agriculture Novel, your go-to source for in-depth information and insights into the world of agriculture, hydroponics, and sustainable farming. Our mission is to educate, inspire, and empower a new generation of farmers, hobbyists, and eco-conscious enthusiasts. Whether you’re interested in traditional farming practices or modern innovations, we aim to provide comprehensive guides, expert tips, and the latest updates in agriculture and urban farming.
At Agriculture Novel, we believe in the power of knowledge to transform the way we grow, sustain, and nourish our world. Explore our articles on topics like Fruit Growing Guide, Hydroponics, Plant Deficiency Guide, and more.
Thank you for joining us on this journey towards a greener, more sustainable future!
About Agronique Horizon
At Agronique Horizon, we specialize in delivering comprehensive digital marketing and web development solutions tailored for the agriculture and hydroponics industries. From custom website design and app development to social media management, we provide end-to-end support for brands aiming to make a meaningful impact. Our team also offers innovative solutions for the real estate sector, bringing precision and visibility to your projects. Learn more about our services here and discover how we can elevate your digital presence.
