Comparative Advantage of Using Bio-pesticides in Indian Agro-ecosystems


Pdf : 225 Views 628 Download 

Hasrat Arjjumend, Konstantia Koutouki, Simon Neufeld*

Citation: Hasrat Arjjumend, Konstantia Koutouki, Simon Neufeld “Comparative Advantage of Using Bio-pesticides in Indian Agro-ecosystems”. American Research Journal of Agriculture, Vol 7, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-15

Copyright t © 2021 Hasrat Arjjumend et., This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Abstract:

The use of unsustainable levels of plant protection chemicals and fertilizers has resulted in a steady decline in soil quality and crop productivity the world over. To combat this decline, agricultural practices must evolve to meet the growing global demand for food without irreversibly damaging the world’s natural resources.Biopesticides have tremendous potential to bring sustainability to agriculture and environmental safety.This article is part of a larger study conducted in India by the authors at the Université de Montréal with the support of Mitacs and Earth Alive Clean Technologies. In this research, farmers, manufacturers or suppliers of biopesticides, and R&D scientists were interviewed, and their responses demonstrate the advantages of applying microbial biopesticidesto field crops. Participants reported a15-30% increase in yields and crop production after the application of biopesticides, with better quality and quantity of fruits, grains, and tubers with a longer shelf life. Moreover, while the risk of croploss is high (60-70%) with chemically grown crops, this risk is reduced to 33% on average when crops are grown using biopesticides. The risk of crop loss is thus considerably reducedby the use of biopesticides.Yet, despite their positive impact on the health of humans, soil,ecosystems, and friendly invertebrates,biopesticides face significant challenges and competition vis-à-vis synthetic pesticides for a variety of reasons. The development of biopesticides must overcome the problems of improper formulations, short shelf life, delayed action, and high market costs, as well as a variety of legal/registration issues.
KEYWORDS: Biopesticides; Biologicals; Advantage; Ecological risks; Economic risks; Farmers’ Preference
Comparative Advantage of Using Bio-pesticides in Indian Agro-ecosystems

Description:

INTRODUCTION
 
There are an estimated 67,000 different crop pest species - including plant pathogens, weeds, invertebrates and some vertebrate species - and together they cause an approximately 40% reduction in the world’s crop yield (Oerkeet al., 1994). One way to increase food availability is to improve the management of these pests. However, the unsustainable application of plant protection chemicals has resulted in the steady decline of soil health and crop productivities the world over (Aktar, Senguptaand Chowdhury, 2009). To reverse this decline, agricultural practices must evolve to sustainably meet the growing global demand for food without irreversibly damaging the world’s natural resources (especially soil).

Simply put, increasing food yields cannot be achieved through unsustainable utilization of water, energy, chemicals, and land. Investing in sustainable agriculture is one of the most effective ways to simultaneously achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) related to poverty and hunger, nutrition and health, education, economic and social growth, peace and security, and the preservation of the world’s environment (Earth Alive, 2017). B
iopesticides hold the potential to increase farmers’ current agricultural productivity, while at the same time contributing to the soil’s ability to produce more in the future. Several countries such as Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, USA and Brazil, among others, have embraced these technologies. The list of potential commercial products that promise increased yield for the farmer continues to grow (Simiyu et al., 2013).
 
Although insect pests remain one of the major limiting factors in sustaining the productivity of various crops, the indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides negatively affects humans and their environment (Rani et al., 2013). Agriculture is one of the most important economic sectors within developing countries, and economic development in India is largely dependent upon the development of agriculture.
 
The scope of this study was confined to microbial products used for plant protection. According to scientists, biopesticides have minimal impact on non-target organisms (OECD 2009: 11). Possessing complex modes of action, they are not prone to resistance and help reduce the development of resistance when used in resistance management programs (Arjjumend and Koutouki, 2018).

Biopesticides also hold significant benefits for growers, offering:
  • Minimal impact on non-target organisms;
  • Pest control, thereby enhancing crop quality and yields;
  • Improved export opportunities, because most are exempt from minimum residue limits;
  • Organically approved status that allows organic growers to control pests while maintaining their certified status.
 
Biopesticides are derived from organisms including plants, bacteria and other microbes, fungi, and nematodes (Copping, 2009; EPA, 2012). They are often important components of integrated pest management (IPM) programmes and have received a great deal of attention as substitutes to synthetic chemical plant protection products (PPPs). There are three broad categories of biopesticides: microbial biopesticides, botanical biopesticides, and semiochemicals. Microbial biopesticides are derived from fungi, bacteria, algae, viruses, nematodes and protozoa, and other compounds produced directly from these microbes such as metabolites (van Lenteren, 2012). The names of some microbial biopesticides are shown in Table 1. A detailed biotechnological account of biopesticides is described by Arjjumend and Koutouki (2018).
The second category of biopesticides, botanical biopesticides, are derived from plants that have the ability to kill or sterilize insects, to control weeds, or to regulate plant growth. Worldwide, nearly 6000 plant species have been identified with insecticidal properties (Nawaz, Mabubu and Hua, 2016). In India, the application of botanical biopesticides is a very old tradition. Products derived from plants such as neem (Azadirachta indica), custard apple (Annona reticulata), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), and pyrethrum (Tanacetum cinerariifolium) have been used as insecticides (Koul, 2012). Farmers apply botanicals to protect crops and stored products from insect pests. Studies have shown that botanical biopesticides have ecologically benign characteristics, such as a volatile nature and low environmental risks as compared to synthetic pesticides (Nawaz, Mabubu and Hua, 2016). Indeed, the minimal residual activity of botanical biopesticides does not affect predation, parasitism, or pollination by insects (Xu, 2011). Table 2 lists some important botanical biopesticides.

The third broad category of biopesticides is semiochemicals which are chemical signals produced by one organism that cause behavioral changes in an individual of the same or a different species (Chandler et al., 2011). Commonly used semiochemicals for crop protection are insect sex pheromones, some of which can now be synthesized and are used for lure-and-kill systems (El-Sayed et al., 2009) and mating disruption (Chandler et al., 2011). Worldwide, mating disruption is used on over 660,000 hectares of land and has been particularly useful on orchard crops (Witzgall et al., 2008). According to Nawaz, Mabubu and Hua (2016), about 1000 kinds of insect pheromones have been identified so far and more than 30 target species have been controlled successfully by sex pheromones. Other types of semiochemicals are deployed to attract insect pests and kill them (Witzgall, Kirsh and Cock, 2010; Dhaliwal et al., 2012). For example, the application of compounds such as jasmonic acid to plants can induce the production of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs). Sodium alginate is an example of an HIPV that triggers biological control by attracting natural enemy insects and aphids (Heuskin et al., 2012; Gurr, Simpson and Wratten, 2012).
The global biopesticide market has been growing in the double digits. More than 200 products are currently sold in the US market, compared to only 60 comparable products in the EU. More than 225 microbial biopesticides are manufactured in 30 OECD countries (Hubbard et al., 2014). Countries like Canada, USA and Mexico use about 45% of the biopesticides sold, while Asia lags behind with the use of only 5% of biopesticides sold the world over (Bailey, Boyetchko and Längle, 2010). In India, the uptake has been rather slow. Biopesticides have low single digit market share (Urs, 2015). Along with neem (Azadirechta indica) derived products, Trichoderma strains of antagonistic fungi and Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria dominate the market. The existing producers of biopesticides in India have also been losing credibility among farmers, as their products prove to be ineffective against serious pathogenic outbreaks. The supply chain is also problematic, as minor changes in temperature, humidity, and exposure to the UV spectrum severely affects the performance of the biopesticides.
 
This article is part of a larger study conducted between September 2017 and February 2020 by the authors at the Faculty of Law at the Université de Montréal, with the support of Mitacs and Earth Alive Clean Technologies.It focuses on the advantages of using biopesticides vis-à-vis chemical pesticides. Three different groups of participants were surveyed about biopesticides between April 2018 and March 2019 using methods that included semi-structured interviews, structured interviews, informal discussions, and observation. Response groups included farmers who use biofertilizers (“user farmers”) and those who do not (“non-user farmers”), along with manufacturers or suppliers of biofertilizers, and R&D scientists.Their responses were recorded, leading to the conclusion that microbial products (biologicals) are advantageous when applied in field crops. The agronomic advantage of biopesticides compared to conventional chemical pesticides is well-proven biologically and in economic terms. Farmers have also shown their preference for biopesticides over chemical pesticides and have expressed a greater willingness to adopt biopesticides for better crop yields.
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 
Research was conducted in India to understand the comparative advantages of using biopesticides. The methods used to collect data for this research include primary surveys, interviews of participant groups, and observations made in the field.These methodologies are described below. 
 
Sampling and Sample Techniques
 
Three participant groups were chosen to conduct this study: Group 1 (G. 1) - R&D Scientists; Group 2 (G.2) - Manufacturers and Suppliers; and Group 3 (G.3) - User & Non-User Farmers of Biopesticides. Group1 comprised those involved in the research and development (R&D) of biopesticides, as well as scientists conducting research on microbial agents. This group was included for their knowledge of and experience with the microbiology and agrochemistry of microbial biopesticides. Group2 participants includedthe manufacturers and suppliers of agro-biologicals, who are direct stakeholders involved in the supply chain. Finally, Group3 participants were farmers/cultivators/growers, some of whom were using biopesticides on their crops. These farmers were direct stakeholders of the study on biopesticides.
 
Table 3 contains the total sample size of each of the participant groups. For Group1 participants (R&D scientists), the total sample size was 12. The Indian states where the Group 1 participants were located are also indicated. Similarly, eight manufacturers/suppliers of biopesticides (Group2 participants) were interviewed in the specified states. Finally, 36 farmers (Group3 participants) were also sampled and interviewed. The distribution of these farmers is highlighted in Table 4. All the proposed participants except those in Group3 were first contacted by telephone and/or email in order to make an appointment. Following this initial contact, the participants were visited inperson and interviewed.
 
Data was collected from each participant group using different sampling techniques and research methods (Table 3). The farmers in G 3 group were divided into two major distinct categories: non-users of biopesticides, and users of biopesticides. They were then randomly sampled (Table 3). The composition of the sampling of these farmers is illustrated in Table 4.



Methods of Data Collection

As indicated in Table 3, different data collection methods were used to gather data from participant groups. For instance, information from Group1 participants (scientists) was collected using informal discussions and semi-structured interviews based on the questions listed in Appendix 1. On the other hand, manufacturers/suppliers (Group2 participants) gave their responses in accordance with the questions as listed in Appendix 2. The data gathering methods used were semi-structured and structured interviews as indicated in Table 3. The farmer group (Group3 participants) were surveyed by employing structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and observation methods. The questions for non-users of biologicals are listed in Table 5, while the questions for users of biologicals are listed in Table 6.

Certificat d’approbation éthique (Ethical Approval Certificate) and Compliance


The Multi-Faculty Committee on Research Ethics (Comité plurifacultaire d’éthique de la recherche - CPER) of the Université de Montréal issued an Ethical Approval Certificate (no. CPER-17-114-P)to the study project. The conditions of the Ethics Certificate were fulfilled during the collection of field data from all threeparticipant groups. In compliance with the Ethical Certificate, aConsent Form was presented to each of the individual participants in either English or Hindi, depending on participant preference, and was signed by both the participant and field researcher. Before conducting the interview or discussion with the participant(s), each individual was informed ofthe objectives of the research through an Information Sheet containing participant expectations, the participantbenefits of sharing information, details concerning confidentiality, and participants’ right to withdraw. Information collection occurred only once explanations concerning the research had been provided and the freely given consent of the participant was obtained.

RESULTS


A sampling of 12 farmers (three farmers in each of four states) who were not using biopesticides and their responses to several questions were recorded (Table 5). These questions chiefly concerned their perceptions of the disadvantages of using chemical pesticides and the impacts they observed on the agroecosystem, human health, and domestic animals. Likewise, 24 farmers (sixfarmers in each of fourstates) who were using biopesticides were interviewed and their answers were recorded (Table 6). The responses of farmers in the “user” and “non-user” groups are analyzed and compared in the following subsections.

1. Soil performance with the use ofchemical pesticides and biopesticides


Participants whouse chemical pesticidesexpressed their views on how chemical pesticides affect the soil, plants, ecosystem, human health and animalhealth (Table 5). They indicated that the soil, air and water are contaminated by the use of chemical pesticides (Table 5). In turn, the contaminated soil causes public health hazards, threats to livestock, and damage to plants. Severalparticipants statedthat the number of cancer patients is increasing year by year in the state of Punjab due to the excessive use of chemical pesticides (Table 5). The farmers also highlighted the way in which pesticides affect the soil, ecosystem and humans. They described that a proneness to many diseases is created through constant or excessive use of chemical pesticides (Table 5). The effect of chemical pesticides manifests as an imbalance in the agroecosystem. Two important observationswere highlighted by farmers in this regard: 1) that the friendly insects and wasps die after exposure to toxic pesticides; and 2) that 90% of pesticide residues remain in the soil and enter the human body via the food chain (Table 5).

By contrast, farmers who use biopesticides expressed their views on how the biopesticides benefit the soil, plants, ecosystem, and human and animalhealth (Table 6). They responded that biopesticides can kill pest fungi, nematodes, insects and other pathogens(Table 6). According to several of the farmers interviewed, microbialbiopesticides support the soil biology and build soil health (Table 6).These farmers also described the ways in which soil health is protected or preserved usingbiopesticides. They statedthat the microbes inbiopesticides act only on the target eggs or larva of insect pests, or in some cases eat the spores of harmful fungi (Table 6). Manufacturers and suppliers also indicated that biopesticides help worms survive better in soil, as the soilremains healthy, protected, clean, residue-free and non-poisonous. Userfarmers also notedthat biopesticides do not have chemicals that cause damage to soil biology, and are cheaper and environmentally safe (Table 6).    

Farmers who use biopesticides further explained the ways in which biopesticides address crop protection issues and how plants are protected from insects, pests, fungi, nematodes, etc. (Table 6). According to these farmers, biopesticides disrupt the life cycle of insect pests, especially the larval or pupal stage) without affecting other (non-target) organisms and without harming beneficial insects and fungi (Table 6). Moreover, biopesticides leave no ecological footprint (Table 6).    





2. Health and ecological risks from chemical pesticides


Farmers who usechemical pesticides discussed the common health effects of chemical pesticides, especially on children and women (Table 5). They named certain common diseases that can be attributed to usage of chemical pesticides,such as: weakness, indigestion, memory loss, cancer, skin disorders, weight loss, energy inefficiency andweakened immune system. They also stated that pesticide residues affect the growth of children. The users of chemical pesticides also explained the ecological effects of chemical pesticides. They highlighted that water, soil and air are polluted, and that ecosystems are severely affected as pesticides destroy beneficial microbes and insects in the soil and agroecosystem (Table 5). While some farmers of Uttarakhand felt that there was no known effect of pesticides in the hills, other farmers statedthat water, air and soil are polluted and contributed to eutrophication of water bodies. The farmers using chemical pesticides also felt that public health is severely affected by these products.

The users of biopesticides also commented on the common health effects of chemical pesticides (Table 6). They listed some illnesses linked to the use ofchemical pesticides in agriculture, including reproductive disorders, hearing impairment, respiratory problems, cancer, asthma, memory loss, poisoning, skin diseases, eye irritation, disturbance of menstrual cycle, and neurological issues in children (Table 6).
    
All participant farmers compared chemical pesticides and biopesticides (Table 6),stating that biopesticides are safer compared to chemical pesticides. Moreover, with respect to the comparative ecological advantage of biopesticides, the participant farmers using biopesticides expressed that biopesticides do not pollute, poison or contaminate water, soil and air, and that they keep the environment clean and protect agroecosystems (Table 6). They clearly explained that biopesticides are safer and non-toxic,causing no ecological harm or killing of non-target insects. When these farmers were asked to comment on the biosafety aspects of biopesticides, they statedthat biosafety of these products isensured because they are non-toxicand environmentally safer (Table 6).

3. Comparative yield & characteristics of produce


During field studies, farmers providedfeedback concerningthe effect of biopesticides on qualitative changes in crop production (Table 6). To the question “how do you measure the (comparative) productivity of crops accruing after usage of biopesticide(s)?” (Table 6), the farmers responded that they observed an increase in crop yields. Onefarmer estimated a yield increase of 15% after the use of biopesticides. The qualitative aspects of crops, such as taste, colour, quantity, and shelf-life, may also change with the use of biopesticides. To assess these changes, farmers were asked “how is the farm produce (grains, fruits, tubers) different when biopesticide(s) used?” (Table 6). The participant farmers statedthat the tubers, grains and fruits had abetter taste, size, quality, production, shelf-life, and colour after the use of biopesticides. According to them, the biopesticides kill the pests and fungi, without doing ecological damage (Table 6).









4. Comparative investment and economic risks               

    
The users of chemical pesticides were asked how much money they spend  on purchasing chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Table 5). Ten farmers gave arough estimate of their expenditure which averaged 13,450 Indian rupees (INR) per annum per farmer. By contrast, 23 of the 24 surveyed farmers who use biopesticides, stated that their expenditure on chemical fertilizers and pesticides ranged from INR 1000 to INR 250,000 per annum, with an average of INR 43,370 per annum (Table 6). Ofthose using biopesticides, 22 farmers stated thattheir expenditure on biofertilizers and biopesticides was an average of INR 12,141 per annum. This amount is far less than the tenfarmers’ average spending of INR 13,450and 23 farmers’ average spending of INR 43,370 per annum (Table 6) on buying chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Surveyed farmers using chemical pesticidesalso gave a rough calculation of the economic or investment risks of crop cultivation if the crop fails due to nutrient deficiency, disease, pests, nematodes, insects, etc. (Table 5). Several farmers assessed these risks as being between50% to 70% (average 60%) of their total investment, while other farmers expressed these losses or risks in terms of amounts ranging from INR 125,000 to INR 250,000 per hectare per annum (Table 5). By contrast, some of the farmers using biofertilizers and biopesticides stated that the loss due to chemicals ranged from 45% to 90% with anaverage of 68% (Table 6), while others estimated this loss to be around INR 250,000.
    
With respect to the investment or economic risks involved if the crops are grown using biologicals, those farmers using biofertilizers and biopesticides estimated that the risk was between 25% and 40%, and stated that they found this risk to bebearable (Table 6). Thus, while the risk of loss was quite high (60-70%) with chemically-grown crops, the risk of loss was reduced to an average of 33%with the use of biopesticides(Table 6).

5. Farmers’ preferences for pesticides and biopesticides


The users of chemical pesticides were asked abouttheir preference of chemicalpesticides, as well as their potential preferences if biopesticideswereoffered to them (Table 5). Similarly, the users of biopesticides expressed their preferences (Table 6). Common pesticides used by both types of farmers include Challenger, Durmet, Nuran, Chloropyritos, Cypormethane, Marshall, Metacid and Alanto.

Users of chemical pesticides in Uttarakhand, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh reported that they would like to use biopesticides if they could get access to them. The farmers of Himachal Pradesh refused to consider the use of biopesticides. “What would drive you to use biopesticides in the future?” was anotherquestion put forward to farmers who use chemical pesticides (Table 5). These farmers respondedthat chemical pesticides are expensive, unsafe and toxic. On the contrary, biopesticides are safe with respect to human health, the environment, and soils, and are comparatively cheaper. The farmers of Himachal Pradesh did not respond to this question.

Nearly half of the participant farmers using biopesticides preferred biopesticides over chemical pesticides (Table 6), although they did not specify the reason forthis preference. However, they did report usingPseudomonas and Trichodermain abundance. Many of the farmers have also used chemical pesticides and biopesticides simultaneously (Table 6). These participant farmers explained the perceived or recorded advantages of using biopesticides, highlighting that biopesticides are ecologically safe and are instrumental in adopting organic farming (Table 6). Because biopesticides are safer and cheaper, these farmers were motivated to spend money on buying biopesticides (Table 6). Participants reported the company International Panacea Ltd. as the main supplier of biopesticides.

Farmers were also asked about their preference for local or foreign pest control products. The farmers who use chemical pesticides showed a preference for using both local and foreign made biopesticides (Table 5). Similarly, farmers who use biopesticidesstatedtheir preference to both local and international products (Table 6). However, half of the farmers using chemical pesticides have shown no preference to pay more for a foreign product. With respect to their willingness to pay more for a foreign product than for a local product, there was a mixed response from farmers who use biopesticides. Half of these farmers indicated theirwillingness, while one farmer only indicated to pay more if the foreign product was better than the local product.

With respect to farmers’ willingness to try a new/innovative biological product, 9 out of 12 farmers who use pesticides rated their willingness on a 10-point scale. The average willingness on this scale was5.89 out of 10 (Table 5). It is significant that nearly 60% of the farmers have a willingness to use biofertilizers or biopesticides in future. Likewise, all 24 farmers using biopesticides gave their willingness on a 10-point scale to try a new/innovative product (Table 6). Their average willingnesscomes to 7.6 (Table 6).

Certification and standards are key to the acceptance of, and preference for,biopesticides. Farmers using chemical pesticides and those using biopesticides bothstatedthat they trust local and international organic certification equally (Table 5).

DISCUSSIONS

1. Soil performance with the use ofchemical pesticides and biopesticides


Plantprotection chemicals (pesticides) can cause toxicity, poisoning and internal malfunction in the human body. Organophosphorus compounds and carbamates contain the enzyme cholinesterase, which destroys the nervous system of humans and animals. Moreover, pesticides kill beneficial microbes and insects, such as bees. Groundwater contamination, reservoir pollution and soil pollution are also caused by pesticides. Pesticides can persist in soil for 8-12 years and, with plowing, the pesticide residues pass into the air as a result of evaporation or dust. Poisonous soil causes public health hazards, threats to livestock, and damage to plants. Two important facts were highlighted by different participants: 1) that friendly insects and wasps die after exposure to toxic pesticides; and 2) that 90% of residues remain in soil and find a way to the human body via the food chain.

Bycontrast, biopesticides cause no harm to plants, soil orhuman health. Instead, antibiotic substances in biopesticides inhibit pathogens, and plant immunity is enhanced. Farmers explained that biopesticides are less harmful to the environment, and their action is directed exclusively at a certain group of pests and does not affect other insects, birds and mammals. For example, biopesticidal microbes feed on pathogenic fungi, preventing moldy fungi and root rot. Biopesticides also act as hyper-parasites and destroy the cell wall of pathogens. Biopesticides can form organic acids in the process of utilization of carbohydrates, as well as produce enzymes that contribute to the decomposition of phosphates. Microorganism-based biopesticides (bioagents: bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) usually target a narrow range of target organisms. Therefore, microbes kill precisely the targeted fungi, nematodes, enemy insects and pathogens. Accordingtothefarmers, biopesticides disturb/disrupt the life cycle (especially the larval or pupal stage) of insect pests without affecting other (non-target) organisms and without harming the beneficial insects and fungi.

2. Health and ecological risks from chemical pesticides


Common diseases caused by chemical pesticides include indigestion, memory loss, cancer, skin disorders, weight loss, energy inefficiency, immunity loss, hearing impairment, respiratory problems, asthma, poisoning, eye irritation, disturbance of menstrual cycles, neurological disorders in children, effects on the nervous system, effects on blood circulation, gastritis, ulcers, allergies, headaches, vomiting, rashes, autism in children, reproductive health problems (fertility, fetal development), and damage to the genetic, neurohumoral, immune, metabolic and other mechanisms of the fetus inpregnant women. Ecosystems are also affected, as pesticides destroy beneficial microbes and insects in the soil and agroecosystem. Water, air and soil are polluted, apart from heavy eutrophication of water bodies. Pesticides are also highly persistentin the environment. In relation to the ecological advantage of biopesticides, farmers indicated that biopesticides do not pollute, poison or contaminate water, soil or air, and that they keep the environment clean. Biopesticides are safer and non-toxic, causing no harm to the ecosystem or to humans. In addition, biopesticides do not kill non-target insects, and their biosafety is ensured because they act as antidotes and do not lead to chemicalization in the soil.

3. Comparative yield & characteristics of produce

Regarding the (comparative) productivity of crops, farmers observed a 15-30% increase in yields and crop production after using biopesticides. Using biopesticides also resulted in better fruits, grains, and tubers with a longer shelf life. As a result of biopesticides, risk of harvest failure was also reduced, and the health of plants improved. Not onlydoes germination increase because of biopesticides, but some bacteria also inhibit the growth of weeds,allowing crops to get more moisture and nutrition.

4. Comparative investment and economic risks               


Expenditures per unit area of land on buying chemical pesticides/fertilizers and buying biofertilizers/biopesticides were compared. In India, the cost to usebiofertilizers and biopesticideswas roughly INR 12,141 per annum, compared to an average of INR 43,370 per annum to purchase chemical fertilizers and pesticides.Whilethe risk of the losses was quite high (60-70%) with chemically-grown crops, this risk dropped to an average of 33% if crops weregrown using biologicals. Therefore, the risks are considerably reduced if biologicals are used.

5. Farmers’ preferences for pesticides and biopesticides

In India, common pesticides used by farmers include Challenger, Durmet, Nuran, Chloropyritos, Cypormethane, Marshall, Metacid and Alanto. The majority of farmers surveyed have used chemical pesticides and biopesticides simultaneously. Farmers used both local and foreign-made biopesticides. However, many participant farmers have shown no preference to pay more for a foreign product. Yet, the majority of farmers stated that they wouldpay more for foreign products if they wererelatively more effective and betterquality. In this context, the quality and effectiveness of products become very pertinent. To try a new or innovative product,chemical pesticide users rated their willingness as being 5.89 out of 10, while biopesticide users rated their willingness at 7.6 out of 10, on average. Thisshows that willingness among all types of farmers to try innovative products like biopesticides is quite high. As certification and standards are key to the acceptance and preference of biopesticides, farmers have equal trust in both Indian and foreign certifications and standards.         

CONCLUSION

Biopesticides are expected to provide predictable performance, and must do so in an economically-viable manner if they are to become more widely accepted. Biopesticides have tremendous potential to contribute to more sustainable, environmentally friendlyagriculture.Moreover, the use of biopesticides was reported to increase yields by 15-30%, and to producebetter fruits, grains, and tubers with a longer shelf life.Farmers also felt that the use of biopesticides lowered their risks of economic losses significantly. These findings indicate that a large proportion of farmers prefer to use biopesticides if they are effective and high-quality products.

Yet biopesticides face significant challenges and competition vis-à-vis synthetic pesticides for a variety of reasons. In some cases, biopesticides are highly specific, targeting particular pests, while the market prefers products with broad-spectrum activity. In other cases, biopesticides are only effective at specific stages of a pest’s lifecycle, further narrowing the biopesticide’s usage and applicability. If not used in a specified dose, at a specified time, and on a specified crop, the biopesticide will be ineffective, and farmers may lack education or motivation, preferring broad-spectrum chemical pesticides instead. Hence, the development of biopesticides must overcome the problems of improper preparation or formulations, short shelf life, delayed action, high market costs, and legal/registration issues.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


The authors acknowledge the funding support provided for this research by Mitacs (grant number IT09485) under its Elevate Program, and Earth Alive Clean Technologies, Inc. The authors also acknowledge the Ethical Approval Certificate (no. CPER‐17‐114‐P)issued by the Multi-Faculty Committee on Research Ethics (Comité plurifacultaire d’éthique de la recherche - CPER)of Université de Montréal to conduct this research.


References

Aktar, M.W., Sengupta, D. and Chowdhury, A. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2(1): 1–12. Doi: http://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7

Arjjumend, H. and Koutouki, K. (2018). “Science of Biopesticides and Critical Analysis of Indian Legal Frameworks Regulating Biocontrol Agents”, International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology, 11(3): 563-571. Doi: http://doi.org/10.30954/0974-1712.06.2018.20

Bailey, K.L., Boyetchko, S.M. and Längle, T. (2010). “Social and economic drivers shaping the future of biological control: a Canadian perspective on the factors affecting the development and use of microbial biopesticides”. Biological Control, 52: 221-229.

Chandler, D., Bailey, A.S., Tatchell, G.M., Davidson, G., Greaves, J. and Grant, W.P. (2011). “The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management”. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sciences, 366(1573): 1987-1998.

Copping, L.G. (2009). The Manual of Biocontrol Agents: A World Compendium,BCPC.ISBN978-1-901396-17-1.


Dhaliwal, G.S., Koul, O., Khokhar, S. and Singh, R. (2012). “Biopesticides: Springboard to environment and food security”, In: Koul, O., Dhaliwal, G.S., Kokhar, S., Singh, R. (eds.), Biopesticides in Environment and Food Security: Issues and Strategies, Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers, pp.1-11.

Down, R.E., Cuthbertson, A.G.S., Mathers, J.J. and Walters, K.F.A. (2009). “Dissemination of the entomopathogenic fungi, Lecanicillium longisporum and L. muscarium, by the predatory bug, Orius laevigatus, to provide concurrent control of Myzus persicae, Frankliniella occidentalis and Bemisia tabaci”. Biol. Control, 50:172-178.

Earth Alive (2017). Earth Alive’s Commitment to Sustainable Development, (available online): http://earthalivect.com/about-us/sustainability/. Accessed on 18 January 2017.

El-Sayed, A.M., Suckling, D.M., Byers, J.A., Jang, E.B. & Wearing, C.H. (2009). “Potential of “lure and kill” in long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species”. J. Econ. Entomol, 102: 815–835.

EPA (2012). “Regulating Biopesticides”, US Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed on 20 April 2012.

Gurr, G.M., Simpson, M. and Wratten, S.D. (2012). “A novel approach to enhancing biological control: attracting predators and parasitoids using herbivore induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) and nectar ‘rewards’”, In: Koul, O., Dhaliwal, G.S., Kokhar, S., Singh, R. (eds.), Biopesticides in Environment and Food Security: Issues and Strategies, Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers, pp.12-24.

Hajek, A.E., Papierok, B. and Eilenberg, J. (2012). “Methods for study of the entomophthorales”, In: Lacey LA. (Ed.), Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology. San Diego: Academic Press, pp.285-316.

Hauxwell, C., Tichon, M., Buerger, P., Anderson, S. (2010). “Australia”, In: Kabaluk, J.T., Svircev, A.M., Goettel, M.S. and Woo, S.G., The Use and Regulation of Microbial Pesticides in Representative Jurisdictions Worldwide. IOBC Global, pp.80-88.

Heuskin, S., Lorge, S., Godin, B., Leroy, P., Frere, I. and Verheggen, F.J. (2012). “Optimisation of a semiochemical slow-release alginate formulation attractive towards Aphidius ervi Haliday parasitoids”. Pest Manag. Sci., 68: 127–136.

Hubbard, M., Hynes, R.K., Erlandson, M. and Bailey, K.L. (2014). “The biochemistry behind biopesticide efficacy”. Sustainable Chemical Processes, 2:18.

Jaronski, S.T. and Jackson, M.A. (2012). “Mass production of entomopathogenic Hypocreales”, In: Lacey, L.A. (Ed.), Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology. San Diego: Academic Press, pp.257-286.
Jurat-Fuentes, J.L. and Jackson, T.A. (2012). “Bacterial entomopathogens”, In: Vega, F.E., Kaya, H.K. (Eds.), Insect Pathology, second ed. San Diego: Academic Press, pp.265-349.

Kim, J.J., Goettel, M.S. and Gillespie, D.R. (2009). “Evaluation of Lecanicillium longisporum, Vertalec against the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii, and cucumber powdery mildew, Sphaerotheca fuliginea in a greenhouse environment”. Crop Protect., 29:540-544.

Koppenhofer, A.M., Jackson, T.A. and Klein, M.G. (2012). “Bacteria for use against soil inhabiting insects”, In: Lacey, L.A. (Ed.), Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology. San Diego: Academic Press, pp.129-149.

Koul, O. (2012). “Plant biodiversity as a resource for natural products for insect pest management”, In: Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Snyder, W.E., Read, D.M.Y. (eds.), Biodiversity and Insect Pests: Key Issues for Sustainable Management. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp.85-105.
Lacey, L.A., Liu, T.X., Buchman, J.L., Munyaneza, J.E., Goolsby, J.A. and Horton, D.R. (2011). “Entomopathogenic fungi (Hypocreales) for control of potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc) (Hemiptera: Triozidae) in an area endemic for zebra chip disease of potato”. Biol. Control, 36: 271-278.

Mashtoly, T.A., Abolmaaty, A., El-Zemaity, M., Hussien, M.I. and Alm, S.R. (2011). “Enhanced toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki and aizawai to black cutworm larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with Bacillus sp. NFD2 and Pseudomonas sp. FNFD1”. J. Econ. Entomol., 104: 41-46.
McCoy, C.W., Samson, R.A., Boucias, D.G., Osborne, L.S., Pena, J. and Buss, L.J. (2009). “Pathogens Infecting Insects and Mites of Citrus”. LLC Friends of Microbes, Winter Park, FL, USA, p.193.

Moscardi, F., de Souza, M.L., de Castro, M.E.B., Moscardi, M.L. and Szewczyk, B. (2011). “Baculovirus pesticides: Present state and future perspectives”, In: Ahmad, I., Ahmad, F., Pichtel, J. (Eds.), Microbes and Microbial Technology. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.415-445.

Nawaz, M., Mabubu, J.I. and Hua, H. (2016). “Current status and advancement of biopesticides: Microbial and botanical pesticides”. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 4(2): 241-246.

OECD (2009). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2009 Series on pesticides no. 448. Report of Workshop on the Regulation of Biopesticides: Registration and Communication Issues. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/Collego55/43056580.pdf . Accessed 7 October 2010.
Oerke, E.C., Dehne, H.W., Schoenbeck, F. and Weber, A. (1994). Crop production and crop protection: Estimated losses in major food and cash crops. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Panazzi, A.R. (2013). “History and contemporary perspectives of the integrated pest management of soybean in Brazil”. Neotrop. Entomol., 42: 119-127.
Rabindra, R.J. and Grzywacz, D. (2010). “India”, In: Kabaluk, J.T., Svircev, A.M., Goettel, M.S. and Woo, S.G., The Use and Regulation of Microbial Pesticides in Representative Jurisdictions Worldwide. IOBC Global, pp.12-17.

Rani, K., Sridevi, V., Kumar, K.V., Harsha, N. and Kumar, C.S. (2013). “Biotechnological Approach in Biopesticides-An Overview”. Elixir Agriculture, 55: 12936-12940.

Rowley, D.L., Popham, H.J.R. and Harrison, R.L. (2011). “Genetic variation and virulence of nucleopolyhedro viruses isolated worldwide from the heliothine pests Helicoverpa armigera, Helicoverpa zea and Heliothis virescens”. J. Invertebr Pathol., 107:112-126.

Salma, M., Ratul, C.R. and Jogen, C.K. (2011). “A review on the use of biopesticides in insect pest management”. Int. J Sci Adv Tech, 1: 169-178.

Simiyu, N.S.W., Tarus D., Watiti, J., Nang’ayo, F. (2013). Effective regulation of bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides: A potential avenue to increase agricultural productivity, Compro II Policy Series, No. 1, 2013, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

Thakre, M., Thakur, M., Malik, N. and Ganger, S. (2011). “Mass scale cultivation of entomopathogenic fungus Nomuraea rileyi using agricultural products and agro wastes”. J. Biopest., 4: 176-179.

Townsend, R.J., Nelson, T.L. and Jackson, T.A. (2010). “Beauveria brongniartii – a potential biocontrol agent for use against manuka beetle larvae damaging dairy pastures on Cape Foulwind”. N.Z. Plant Protect, 63: 224-228.

Urs, A. (2015). The sorry tale of biopesticides. Business Standard, September 21, 2015.

van Frankenhuyzen, K. (2009). “Insecticidal activity of Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins”. J. Invertebr. Pathol., 101: 1-16.

van Lenteren, J.C. (2012). “The state of commercial augmentative biological control: plenty of natural enemies, but a frustrating lack of uptake”. Bio Control, 57:1-20.

Witzgall, P., Kirsh, P. and Cock, A. (2010). “Sex pheromones and their impact in pest management”. J. Chem Ecol, 36: 80-100.

Witzgall, P., Stelinski, L., Gut, L. and Thomson, D. (2008). “Codling moth management and chemical ecology”. Annu. Rev. Entomol, 53: 503-522.
Xu, X.M. (2011). “Combined use of biocontrol agents to manage plant diseases in theory and practice”. Phytopathol., 101:1024-1031.

Yang, M.M., Li, M.L., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y.Z., Qu, L.J., Wang, Q.H. (2012). “Baculoviruses and insect pests control in China”. Afr. J. Microbiol Res., 6(2): 214-218.



Appendix 1.
Questions for Scientists/Academics

•    Scientific features of biologicals being manufactured
-    Composition or ingredients of biologicals
-    Physico-chemical properties or characteristics of biologicals
-    Fertility or epidemiological functions
-    Efficacy or efficiency of biologicals
-    Toxicological information
-    Shelflife of the biological product
•    Characteristics of biologicals
-    How can biopesticides be distinguished from chemical pesticides?
-    What are the general characteristics of biopesticides?
-    How do biopesticides function when they are applied on plants, insects, herbs/weeds?
-    Can you comment on the shelf life of biopesticides?
-    What are ecological functions of biopesticides?
•    Comparative advantage of using biologicals
-    Are biopesticides economical compared to chemical pesticides?
-    Can you give any calculation of the costs of both?
-    How are biopesticides advantageous compared to chemical pesticides?
-    What are the ecological advantages of biopesticides?
-    Biosafety and hazardousness-related issues: which is better?
-    What are the advantages related to soil biology?
-    How will the use of biopesticides solve environmental problems?



ARJ @ SOCIAL

openaccess

Testimonials

Indexing

Indexing