INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OFCOFFEE BERRY BORER

FINAL REPORT - INDIA

CFC/ICO/02

Central Coffee Research InstituteCoffee Research Station

P.O. 577 117Chikmagalur District

KarnatakaINDIA

With contributions from:

CABI CommoditiesUnited Kingdom

CenicaféColombia

and

Jeff BentleyBolivia

EDITORIAL COORDINATIONHéctor Fabio Ospina O.

DESIGN AND LAYOUTCarmenza Bacca Ramírez

PRINTED BYFERIVA S.A.

Cali, ColombiaMay 2002

The Commodities Press1

1A joint CABI Commodities-Cenicaféenterprise

CREDITS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. COFFEE IN INDIAThe Indian economy and coffeeCoffee productionCoffee zones and growingCoffee farmersCoffee production costs

3. THE CBB IN INDIAIncidence and spreadCoffee phenology and CBB attack

4. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERAND RESEARCH

Overview of previous work inIndiaResearch of the present Projet

5. TESTING, VALIDATIONAND INTEGRATION OFCOMPONENTS

6. THE ECONOMICS OF CBBLosses due to CBBCost of CBB management

7. IPM INFORMATIONDISSEMINATION

Farmer participatory methodFarmer-researcher extensionist

meetingsImpact of the FPM programmeWomen empowerment

programmeSummary of extension activi-

tiesGroup gatherings at IPM plotsConclusions

8. SOCIOECONOMICSTUDIES ON THEADOPTION OF IPM

MethodologyExtent of adoption of man-

agement interventionsConstraints in CBB

managment technologyadoptionAwareness about CBB con-

cepts

9. CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES ANDPUBLICATIONS

APPENDICESAppendix 1: Coffee Board

of India infrastucture

Appendix 2: Overseas vis-its to attend meetings, train-ing and conferences on CBB

Appendix 3: Visits of con-sultants to India under theCFC-ICO project

Appendix 4: Earlier Indianstudies on CBB ecology andcultural control

CONTENTS

1

6

8

10

13

16

29

29

29

29

29

6

6

Since 1990 the Coffee Board of India(CBI) has initiated various researchand extension programmes to combat

the pest problem of the coffee berry borer(CBB) (Hypothenemus hampei, Coleoptera,Scolytidae). As additional financial supportwas required to carry out the newprogrammes, the Ministry of Commerce,Government of India, was approached forspecific projects under the CBI’s Plan. Thusthe first project cleared by the Ministry wasa scheme to provide pesticide and plant pro-tection equipment to the smallholder grow-ers, which was launched during November1991. Under this project, pesticide andsprayers were supplied to smallholder grow-ers at subsidized rates.

In order to intensify the studies on devel-oping an integrated management packagefor coffee berry borer with more focus onbiological measures, another project, theBiological Control of Berry Borer, was initi-ated during May 1993. Studies were con-ducted on the possibilities of usingbiocontrol agents in the management ofberry borer and studies were initiated onthe indigenous fungal pathogen, Beauveriabassiana. Simultaneously, attempts werealso initiated to import some exotic parasi-toids of the borer as there was no parasi-toid recorded from India. Two parasitoids,Cephalonomia stephanoderis and Proropsnasuta were introduced from Mexico dur-ing September 1995, and two entomologistswere trained on the mass multiplication ofthe parasitoids at ECOSUR (El Colegio de laFrontera Sur), Tapachula, Mexico. Fromthese activities, a culture of C.stephanoderis was established in India.

The Scientific Advisory Committee of theMinistry of Commerce under the Chairman-ship of Dr. M.S. Swaminathan recom-mended, during August 1994, to considerthe CBB as a national pest and implement aproject that had a mission mode approachto intensify the ongoing programmes in amore effective way. Thus, the Ministry ofCommerce sanctioned a project, the ‘Na-tional Mission on Control and Preventionof Coffee Berry Borer’, during December

1995 for a period of three years. All the ex-isting programmes on CBB were integratedinto this new project and new research andextension programmes were also started.This resulted in the emergence of a pack-age of practices for the management of thepest, and the creation of awareness amonggrowers on the importance of taking uptimely measures for tackling the pest. Theproject was continued as an ongoingprogramme during the IX Plan Period (1997-98 to 2001-02).

As the CBB is a serious pest problem in mostof the leading coffee growing countries inthe world, and the fact that much progresshad been achieved in research in biocontrolof CBB in Colombia and Mexico, the CoffeeBoard approached the International CoffeeOrganisation (ICO) to initiate an interna-tional project on the pest.

The ICO took an initiative in this direction,and during November 1995 a consultant, Dr.J. A. Nicholas Wallis was sent to India toprepare a draft proposal for an internationalproject. CABI Bioscience was identified as theProject Executing Agency (PEA) for imple-mentation of the project, and the CommonFund for Commodities (CFC) agreed to pro-vide funds. The details of the project wereworked out in a meeting of the participat-ing countries (India, Colombia, Mexico, Ec-uador, Guatemala, Honduras and Jamaica)with CABI Bioscience and the CFC at the ICO,London during July 1996. The Project waslaunched in January 1998 for a period ofthree years, which was later extended to De-cember 2001. This project provided an op-portunity for research and extension person-nel to have first hand knowledge of the lat-est developments in CBB managementworldwide. The technology of mass breed-ing CBB parasitoids developed at Cenicafé,Colombia was made available to Indiathrough training to researchers. Addition-ally, two parasitoids, Phymastichus coffeaand Prorops nasuta were imported fromColombia under this project. A farmer par-ticipatory approach was highlighted in theprocess of technology development andimplementation.

7

The detailed information on the various re-search and extension activities conductedunder the Integrated Management of theCoffee Berry Borer Project (CFC/ICO/02) arethe subject of this report. The informationis reported in the context of the coffee in-dustry in India, and previous work con-ducted on the CBB by the Coffee Board. Asummary of the structure of the Board’s re-

search and extension infrastructure, and ofthe principal collaborating personnel, areprovided in Appendix 1. A summary of thetraining and meetings visits made by someof these personnel under the project is givenin Appendix 2. Finally, the visits of consult-ants to the project are summarized in Ap-pendix 3.

10

10

THE INDIAN ECONOMYAND COFFEE

India’s major agricultural exports are ce-reals, spices, cashew, oilcake/meal, tobacco, tea, coffee, and marine products.

The value of agri-exports to total exportsof the country normally ranges between 15%and 20%. Coffee exports have remainedabove US$ 400 million during the last 5years, with the exception of 1999-2000when it was US$ 315 million. Table 1 de-scribes the composition of Indian agricul-tural exports between 1996-1997 and 1999-2000.

From Table 1, it is clear that some productshave been increasing their share of exports,for instance spices, cashew, sesame, guargum meal and seafoods. Other groups haveremained more or less constant, includingtea, coffee, tobacco, fruit & vegetables, meat& meat preparations. Overall coffee has re-mained constant at about 6% of agriculturalexports, despite low international coffeeprices during recent years. In the stateswhere coffee is grown, coffee contributesbetween 3% and 4% of GNP (ICO, 1997).

In India there seems to be a consensus thatthe agricultural sector is suffering a seri-ous crisis (Muralidharan, 2001). Several rea-

sons have been suggested including issuesrelated to the WTO and marketliberalisation, climate problems and govern-ment agricultural policies. For example, instates such as Gujarat, Orissa and Rajasthanthe monsoons have been deficient in the lasttwo years. The main consequences of thishave been a fall in the output of essentialoilseeds (groundnut, mustard and soybeanare most affected). On the other hand, foodgrain growth rates have declined from 3.5%in the 1980s to 1.8% in the last decade, whilein the non-food grain economy the growthrates have fallen from 4% in the 1980s to3.1% in the 1990s. Similarly, Menon (2001)points out that the fall in internationalprices of robusta coffee as well as pepperhas also affected coffee farmers inKarnataka and Kerala states. Pepper is animportant extra-income for many coffeefarmers, but its productivity has been low(between 275 and 300 kg/ha), despite itspotential. Additionally the price has seenreductions from Rs 22,600/quintal in 1999to Rs 12,000/quintal in 2000. A similar situ-ation has occurred with areca nuts. Pricesfell from Rs 154/kg in September 1999 toRs 78/kg a year later. This farming crisisdeserves a more complete analysis, but thepoint here is to highlight how the Indianagricultural sector is facing a difficult pe-riod that is affecting many crops.

11

Coffee production

Coffee planted areas have increasedmarkedly in India during the last halfcentury. In 1950/51 there were

92,523 ha, but by 1999/00 the total areahad grown to 340,306 ha. Figure 1 shows avery significant increase in total area dur-ing the 1970s and 1980s. Arabica increasedby about 100,000 ha, whilst robusta roseby 146,000 ha. Areas planted to arabica androbusta are now roughly equal.

In 1950/51 production was estimated atabout 18,893 metric tonnes while in 2000/01 the forecast is for 295,000 metric tonnes(Coffee Board, 2001). Figure 2 shows thisclearly.

In 1950-51 coffee productivity was approxi-mately 255 kg of parchment coffee per hect-

Figure 2.Coffee produc-tion in India,1950-51/2000-01

Figure 1.Area planted

with coffee inIndia, 1950-51 /

2000-01

are, while in 2000-01 the expected produc-tivity was about 1,084 kg of parchment cof-fee per hectare. The suggestion is that croptechnology has been responsible for thisincrease in productivity. Figure 3 shows thetrend in coffee productivity in India (x-scalenot continuous).

Nevertheless, coffee yield remains close to1 ton/ha, which is low in comparison toyields in other coffee countries. So, evenwithout expansion in total area, there maystill be considerable scope for an increasein total production.

Arabica and robusta are classified accord-ing to the post-harvesting processingmethod: “washed” and “non-washed”(naturals), and are further classified into 25grades based on the size of the bean andon the total number of defects or imperfec-

12

12

Figure 3.Yield per hect-are in India,1950-51/2000-01

tions (ICO, 1997). Separate from this sys-tem, specialty coffee is now the fastest grow-ing segment, and India hopes to export morein the next few years. Organic coffee is alsoof increasing interest, especially for coffeegrown on tribal land, which representsabout 42% of the coffee area in India. Herecoffee is managed in a less intensive tradi-tional way, which is close to organic pro-duction guidelines (Central Coffee ResearchInstitute, 2000). Some of the grades of spe-cialty coffee and value added coffee areMysore nuggets EB, Monsooned Malabar(AA, PB, C), Monsooned Arabica AA,Monsooned Robusta AA, MonsoonedArabica Tr., Monsooned Robusta Tr.,Monsooned Basanally, Monsooned ArabicaBBB, Monsooned Robusta C., Monsooned Ro-busta Bulk, Monsooned Robusta Blacks,Robusta Kapi Royale. Exports for thesecoffees have roughly doubled in the lastdecade (Table 2).

Coffee zones and growing

Ninety two percent of Indian coffee isgrown in the states of Karnataka,Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the rest in

small sectors of the states of AndhraPradesh and Orissa, as well as in some ofthe North Eastern states. Table 3 describesproduction in the main coffee areas in In-dia. Figure 4 shows a map of India, high-lighting the main coffee states.

Forty nine percent of coffee in India isarabica and fifty one percent robusta. Cof-fee leaf rust (CLR, Hemileia vastatrix) is amajor constraint to arabica production andefforts have been made to obtain resistantvarieties. Hence the main goal in arabicavarietal improvement is CLR resistance, to-gether with high productivity, wide adapt-ability and improved quality. In the case of

13

Figure 4.Main coffee

producingstates in India

robusta it is known that this species pos-sesses high tolerance to leaf rust disease,white stem borer, nematode attacks and hasgood potential to give consistent yields. Re-search therefore is concentrated on itsshortcomings: lack of drought-resistance,late stabilisation of yields and inferior cupquality.

But other factors such as soil characteris-tics and climate conditions have an impor-tant role in deciding what type of coffeeshould be grown. Table 4 describes the ad-equate conditions for each type of coffee.

The density of coffee trees per hectare var-ies according to several conditions. The den-

sity can range from 6,900 trees/ha in dwarfarabica varieties to 1,000 in robusta variet-ies such as SLN.1 R or SLN.3 R. The nationalaverage is around 1,000 to 1,400 coffeetrees/ha.

The amount and the frequency of fertiliseruse in India varies according to the coffeevariety. For instance, there are four key pe-riods to apply fertilisers: pre-blossom, post-blossom, monsoon and post-monsoon. Forarabica, if a high yield is expected (above1,000 kg parchment coffee/ha), coffee farm-ers should apply fertiliser in each of theabove periods. But if the expected yield isbelow 1,000 kg, the monsoon period appli-cation can be avoided. On the other hand,

14

14

for robusta, if the yield is above 1,000 kg,farmers should apply fertilisers three timesa year (pre-blossom, post-blossom and post-monsoon). When the expected yield is be-low 1,000 kg, it is recommended to applypre-blossom and post-monsoon only.

It is generally larger farmers who carry outcoffee fertilisation. Large farms applyfertilisers near the recommended levels,while smallholders commonly choose lowerrates or none at all. The use of organic mat-ter is also frequent. The expected price forthe coffee harvest obviously plays a key rolein decisions about fertiliser application.

At the farm level, Indian coffee productiv-ity is low in comparison with yields reachedin other countries such as Brazil, Colombiaor Vietnam. But productivity has been grow-ing. Table 5 shows coffee productivity ac-cording to the species grown over the lastfive years.

Coffee farmers

In India there are estimated to be 140,293coffee farmers while the total areaplanted in this crop is 340,306 ha; so the

national average would be 2.42 ha of coffeeper farmer, approximately 6.05 acres. Thisfigure is similar to that found in other coun-

tries such as Colombia, Honduras or Mexico.Table 6 below describes the distributionpattern of holdings in different states ofIndia (Coffee Board, 2000).

From Table 6, 98% of farmers have less than10 ha, and 86% have 2 ha (5 acres) or less.This characteristic is important since theadoption of technologies is often affectedby farm size. Duque et al. (2000), workingin Colombia, found that the adoption of IPMin CBB management was higher with me-dium and large-scale farmers than withsmallholder farmers (with less than 5 ha ofcoffee).

If this is true for other coffee countries, thestrategy for transferring IPM should be de-signed to promote good adoption levelsdespite socio-economic barriers, but alsothe IPM strategy by itself should be madeeasy to adopt. Despite most coffee produc-ers being smallholders, from Table 6 it canbe concluded that for Indian coffee there isa land concentration and if we take the cu-mulative percentage of farmers and coffeeareas we can quantify this as the Gini coef-ficient (Tascon, 1980). This indicator givesa measure of land concentration, which inthis case has a value of 0.48 that indicatesthat there is some degree of land concen-tration, e.g. 80% of coffee farmers have just40% of the coffee area farmed. The Indian

15

value of 0.48 compares to that of Colombia(0.57) and Mexico (0.43), i.e. that land con-centration is lower than in Colombia, buthigher than Mexico.

Land concentration can be seen from dif-ferent points of view e.g. land reforms, butit is important for IPM management becausethe pest management proposal should takeinto account the farmers’ resources (for in-stance, the method might create a high de-pendency on external inputs). It is logicalto suppose that labour should be the mostavailable resource for these types of farms.Another key point is that income generatedby small farms is of course not high (Table7), and if the market punishes coffee qual-ity they could be severely affected by CBB.

The Figure 5 displays the graphical repre-sentation of the Gini coefficient. The 45°sloping line (Gini coefficient = 0) means noland concentration whereas a value of 1would mean all land was concentrated in

one farm. The coefficient equals the shadedarea divided by the total area below the 45°line. This analysis is useful to help under-stand the importance of land distributionbetween owners, in order to design appro-priate pest management strategies.

As mentioned above, 67% of the Indianworkforce works in agriculture. Accordingto a study carried out by the Project (datain preparation), Table 8 shows typical labourrequirements for 3 Indian states and re-gions: Kogadu, Wayanad and Tamil Nadu(NB this excludes labour required for har-vesting coffee). These are high requirementsin comparison to other countries, but areless than other Indian estimates (e.g. Cof-fee Board, 2000). The ICO (1997) calculatesthat coffee production in India employsaround 367,000 persons equaling 1.07labourers per hectare. Labour costs showdifferences between producing states. Table9 indicates the labour cost in four states ofIndia.

16

16

Figure 5.Land concen-tration in thecoffee sectorin India

17

Hence a contracted temporary worker couldexpect an annual income of around US$ 250if he works all year. In comparison to manycountries labour is therefore very cheap inIndia (e.g. compared with Colombia, wherea labourer could earn the Indian yearlyequivalent in about two months), and thisis no doubt the reason why labour is asmaller proportion of the total productioncost structure. IPM strategies often demandgreater amounts of labour than anothermethods (e.g. chemicals), hence the low costof the labour in this country could facili-tate the adoption of an IPM strategy for man-aging CBB.

Coffee farmers’ income is seasonal in India,which is a risky situation because there isjust one peak of income per year. In orderto minimise the effect of these seasonalvariations, farmers can attempt to spreadflows of labour and harvest productionthroughout the year. Upton (1996) pointsout that there are various strategies, suchas diversification of agricultural production,to establish different on- and off-farm ac-tivities, storing food, seeds and animal fod-der, etc. Seasonal income will have differ-

ent effects depending on the period of theyear when income is scarce because someactivities have to be delayed to attend to amore important activity. The farmer has tomanage different labour requirements andavailability to optimise his gross income. Inthe case of CBB management, practices thatcan easily be accommodated by the farmerwill be easier to transfer.

In order to diversify their income, Indiancoffee farmers have developed productionsystems involving more than one crop inorder to get income from different sourcesand in different periods of the year. In asurvey carried out in the Project on coffeefarmers in Karnataka it was found that95.6% of them had pepper as an inter-crop.In many cases the inter-crop allows genera-tion of an important part of the total farmincome. For example, during Mr. Duque’svisit to the Wayanad region, he met Mr.Vijayakumar who has a small farm of about1 ha. He told him that his income dependedon three sources - coffee, pepper and arecanut. The individual split of each appears inFigure 6 below.

Figure 6.Income

composition ina small farm,

Wayanaddistrict

18

18

It is therefore important to stress the con-tribution of other crops to the income com-position of a normal coffee farm. It is quitepossible that sometimes this alternative in-come becomes a relevant source to covercosts related to CBB management.

Coffee production costs

Coffee production costs in India forthe year 2000-2001 was approxi-mately Rs 15,952/acre, around US$

340/acre. This figure is equivalent to US$850/ha/year. Table 10 shows the composi-tion of the total production cost in termsof both fixed and variable costs.

From Table 10 it can be inferred that fixedcosts are high, perhaps due to the irriga-tion equipment that was considered as afixed cost. When the proportion of fixedcosts is high it is more difficult to reach abreak-even point. A break-even analysis canbe useful to know how many kilograms of

clean coffee are needed to cover all variablecosts. Yield over the break-even point willcover fixed costs and the farm’s profit. Theformula proposed by Kay (1981) can be usedfor this purpose for robusta coffee, assum-ing a farm gate price of Rs 650/50 kg ofcherry coffee (Coffee Board of India, 2001).

Figure 7.Break-evenpoint for anaverage farmin thesample

If the average yield is 468 kg of clean coffeeper acre (for 2000 – 2001), the averagebreak-even point would not be reached bymany Indian coffee farmers. This situationreflects the real world scenario of interna-tional coffee prices. The Figure 7 elaborateson this.

As can be seen in Figure 7 an ‘average’ cof-fee farm would not reach the break-evenpoint, due mainly to high fixed costs and

19

low coffee prices. Assuming that all othervariables analyzed remain constant, therewould need to be an increase in coffee priceof about Rs 35/kg to reach the break-evenpoint. Thus CBB can play a key role in theeconomic performance of Indian coffeefarms, because on the one hand high infes-

tation levels will lead to higher CBB man-agement costs, which would increase vari-able costs. But on the other hand, depend-ing on the infestation level, CBB can reduceyield. If yield reduced so that the total rev-enue per acre was also reduced, the break-even point would be more difficult to reach.

22

22

Incidence and spread

The coffee berry borer was first re-ported from a large plantation inGudalur, Nilgiri District, Tamil Nadu

during February 1990. Damage to berrieswas first noticed in the curing works, wherethe coffee from this plantation was pro-cessed, and the cause was identified as in-sect damage. The matter was reported tothe CBI’s Research Department and the in-sect was identified as the coffee berry borer,Hypothenemus hampei. Immediate surveysin the surrounding areas revealed the pres-ence of the borer in a few more plantations,and interim control measures were sug-gested based on the information available.Simultaneously, surveys and awarenesscampaign programmes were organized inthe infested and surrounding areas. It isthought that Sri Lankan refugees whosettled in the area might have brought berryborer infested coffee from Sri Lanka fordomestic use, resulting in an accidental in-troduction of this pest.

On detection of the pest, the Coffee Boardimmediately initiated a series of steps tocombat the new pest problem through itsResearch and Extension Departments. Allthe Extension and Research units werealerted and large-scale grower educationprogrammes were launched in all the cof-fee zones. Intensive surveys were organisedin the pest-affected areas and infested es-tates identified. The information on thepossible techniques for combating the cof-fee berry borer was collected by literaturesurvey and was passed onto coffee growersfor immediate field application of suitablemethods. Phytosanitary measures, such asa clean and timely harvest, proper gleaningcollection, removal of left-over and off sea-son berries and spot application of endosul-fan were immediately advocated for thecontrol of the pest. Simultaneously, experi-ments were initiated by the Research De-partment on the biology of the pest and theeffectiveness of various methods for itsmanagement (see below for more details).

The Coffee Board, the Directorate of PlantProtection, Quarantine and Storage, Govern-ment of India, the Directorates of Horticul-ture, Govt. of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu,and the United Planters’ Association ofSouth India organized the first major sur-vey of coffee berry borer during September1990. A systematic sampling method wasadopted to assess the infestation level incoffee estates as well as at coffee curingcenters. In the field survey, 50 plants eachfrom five locations in each estate were se-lected. Two branches from infested plantswere selected for recording the number ofinfested berries and the percentage of plantand berry infestations were calculated.

At curing centres, composite samples wereprepared by drawing one kilogram of samplefrom each bag, out of 10% of bags selectedfrom 10% of the lots in storage. A workingsample of one kilogram was further pre-pared out of four composite samples bydividing them into four equal parts. Afterscreening the samples thoroughly for in-fested beans, the percentage of bean /cherryinfestation was calculated.

This survey revealed that:

Fourteen estates of 58 estatesscreened in 166 locations had CBB in-festation - one in Sulthan Bathery,Wayanad, Kerala and 13 in Gudalur,Tamil Nadu. The range of plant infes-tation varied from 1% to 95% andberry infestation from 0.83% to13.98%.

The presence of CBB infested coffeewas confirmed in two curing works,namely M/s. Kushalanagar Works,Kudige, and M/s. Karnataka CoffeePlanters Coffee Curing Works (P) Ltd.,Kushalnagar, on the basis of 1819samples drawn from 76 lots from 50go-downs in 6 curing centers. Therange of infested beans varied be-tween 0.22% and 1.26% of beans.

The pest infestation had spread tomore areas in Gudalur and shown its

23

presence in Wayanad, Kerala. How-ever, CBB had not entered into theplantations of Kodagu District,Karnataka.

Survey / campaign programmes were orga-nized regularly in all the three districts(Nilgiris, Wayanad and Kodagu), and the in-fested areas identified for follow-up action.As the pest was spreading gradually to otherareas, a second joint survey / awarenesscampaign was conducted in Nilgiris,Wayanad and Kodagu in association withthe Directorate of Plant Protection, Quar-antine and Storage during October 1991.

This survey revealed that as compared to1990 the pest was widely spread in Gudalurand had entered into the adjacent Coonoortaluk of Nilgiris District. Fresh incidence ofthe pest was also recorded in 16 estates inSulthan’s Bathery and Vythiri taluks ofWayanad District. The presence of the pestwas also confirmed in Kutta and Theraluvillages of Virajpet taluk of Kodagu District.The berry borer incidence in Kodagu wasearlier reported from Kutta during Febru-ary 1991.

During 1992 pest build up was confined toareas identified in the previous years andfresh incidences were noticed to a limitedextent. In another major survey conductedduring September 1993, covering 1,328 es-tates in Kodagu region, the pest was ob-served in 16 villages of Siddapur and in onevillage each of Virajpet, Sunticoppa andMadikeri Liaison Zones. During the March1994 survey, screening of 176 estates inKodagu region confirmed the presence ofthe pest in two more villages of Siddapurand four more villages of Virajpet Zone.Further surveys were conducted during Feb-ruary 1995 in all the three Taluks of Kodagudistrict and the pest was recorded from fourmore villages of Gonicoppal, six in Virajpet,four in Siddapur, three in Madikeri and twoin Sunticoppa Zones.

The coffee growing areas of Niligiri Districtof Tamil Nadu, Wayanad District of Keralaand Kodagu District of Karnataka together

form a contiguous coffee growing tract. TheCBB infestation in this region had spreadfrom the Niligiris towards the North cover-ing Wayanad and South Kodagu over a pe-riod of four to five years. The pest was firstnoticed outside this region in thePerumalmalai coffee zone of Pulney Hillsranges, Tamil Nadu, during September 1995.This region is quite far away from theNilgiris-Wayanad region, and is separatedby a large stretch of land not growing cof-fee.

Further spread of the CBB in Kodagu wasnoticed during June 1999, when it was re-corded from three villages of Somwarpetzone in North Kodagu. The pest was alsorecorded in Hassan District for the first timein October 1999 from one village inSakleshpur zone.

Though the pest was first recorded fromPulney Hills during 1995, the incidence wasconfined to one village of Pethuparai inPerumalmalai Zone till 1999. During thesurvey in October 1999, the pest was de-tected in 21 major coffee growing villagesof the Pulney Hills. During December 1999,the pest was recorded from Adimali andKattappana liaison zones in South Kerala,which are adjacent to the Pulney Hills.

During August 2000, the pest was recordedin Bodinayakanur, Tamil Nadu. By March2001, the CBB had spread to an area of 118,453 ha, accounting for 35% of the total cof-fee area of the country. The annual spreadof the pest, and annual cumulative pest in-fested area, are graphically depicted in Fig-ure 8.

The data show that the CBB spread duringthe first five to six years was rapid with anannual average increase of 35%. However,from 1996 onwards, the rate of spread de-clined to about 5.1%. The state-wise CBBinfested area as of March 2001 is presentedin Figure 9.

So far the coffee berry borer has not beennoticed in Chikmagalur region, which is themajor coffee growing district of Karnataka

24

24

State. The other major coffee growing ar-eas still free from CBB incidence are Yercaudin Tamil Nadu, Biligiri Hills in Karnataka andNelliampathy and Attappadi in Kerala.

An analysis of the nature and spread of thecoffee berry borer incidence in the affectedareas points to the fact that the build upand spread are faster in robusta areas whencompared to arabica areas. The pest prob-lem is acute in Wayanad and southern partsof Kodagu where robusta is predominantlycultivated. Inter-cropping dwarf varietieslike Cauvery under robusta could aggravatethe problem due to the availability of theright type of fruits for a longer time asCauvery matures much earlier to robusta.Harvesting of arabica coffee is generally

completed by December/January. The grow-ers bestow more care on a timely harvest ofarabica as most arabica coffee is preparedas washed coffee. On the other hand, ro-busta takes more time for ripening and soharvesting generally extends up to Febru-ary/March. Since robusta coffee is pro-cessed by drying the fruits to prepare cherrycoffee, there is a general tendency to pro-long the harvesting due to various reasons,especially if there is a labour shortage. Thisoffers the berry borer a better chance tomultiply faster as the berries at this stageare best suited for their multiplication. Ifberries are left on the plants after ripening,the number of berries falling during harvestwould be more. This leads to increased re-sidual populations of the pest in the fallen

Figure 9.State-wisespread ofCBB as ofMarch2001

Figure 8.Spread of

coffeeberry borer

in India

25

berries (gleanings). Furthermore, berries leftover on tall branches of big robusta bushescan also provide a refuge for the CBB.

The incidence level of CBB on Pulney Hillswas found to be higher than in other areas.This is mainly due to the multiple blossom(i.e. running blossom) experienced in thisregion, which results in the availability offruits almost throughout the year. This fa-cilitates a continuous build up of the pest,and adoption of either cultural or phyto-sanitary control measures becomes imprac-ticable.

Coffee phenologyand CBB attack

It is important to consider how coffeephenology relates to CBB abundance inIndia. As in all coffee countries, rainfall

pattern is a critical factor because of theway in which precipitation triggers flower-ing and hence the berries upon which CBBdepends. In Figure 10 we can see that therainfall pattern consists of four mainphases: winter, pre-monsoon, monsoon andpost-monsoon. Secondly, the main stages of

CBB entering coffee berry

Figure 10.Rainfall

pattern, coffeephenology and

CBB attack

26

26

the coffee fruiting phenology is depicted,and finally the horizontal bar represents themost critical period for CBB management.

Flowering can occur in February or March ifa farmer has irrigation facilities; if not, thenthey have to wait until April when naturalflowering will follow the start of the rains.Because of this, the coffee harvest occursin either December or January. A further

variable is the variety - for robusta theflower-to-ripe-bean cycle is about 40 weeks,whilst for arabica it is less.

Finally in Figure 10 the most critical periodfor CBB attacks is depicted as the periodbetween August and October, so labour andother inputs (e.g. spraying of insecticides)are particularly required at this time.

27

30

30

Overview of previouswork in India

During monitoring surveys and visitsto CBB affected estates, interactionswith growers on management issues

highlighted the following key factors:

Robusta coffee, grown withoutproper pruning, poses problems in theadoption of phytosanitary measuresand effective spraying operations

Sprinkler irrigation, given to robustarelatively early, leads to faster growthof berries which results in the earlyestablishment of berry borer whencompared to fruits formed due toblossom naturally watered

Arabica coffee, cv. Cauvery (catimor)interlined in robusta plantations fa-cilitates early establishment of theborer in Cauvery, with subsequentmigration to robusta

No effective control measures areavailable once the borer is establishedwithin coffee berries

There are limitations in the use ofbiopesticides and parasitoids

Off-season crop provides a mediumfor the continuous breeding of thepest

Constraints in timely harvest of cropdue to shortage of labour

Primitive and inadequate drying yardfacilities, especially in the smallgrower sector, results in prolongedand improper drying of coffee anddelayed harvest

Transporting of infested coffee fromplace to place for processing and mar-keting, which facilitates spread of thepest to new areas

Thus, to address some of the managementtechnology issues, the Coffee Board starteda research programme in the early 1990sto evolve components for a managementstrategy based on integrated pest manage-ment (IPM) principles. The on-farm valida-tion of these technologies is discussed laterin this report.

Various projects were implemented toachieve this objective. In particular, stud-ies were focussed on phytosanitary mea-sures, need-based and judicious applica-tions of pesticides, and biological controlutilizing native fungal pathogens:

Studies on phytosanitary and other cul-tural control methods showed the impor-tance of these measures and also resultedin the development of some simple and ef-fective techniques, e.g. the use of pickingmats, - this work is summarized in Appen-dix 4

A number of pesticides were screened bythe Coffee Board but the only effective oneproved to be endosulphan; this has beenwidely adopted by farmers although it isnow being phased out by the Governmentof India due to environmental concerns

Fungal pathogen work has largely focussedon Beauvaria bassiana. Laboratory and fieldstudies indicated the potential of B.bassiana as a biopesticide against CBB whenfresh cultures were applied at the appro-priate period. High volume application wasfound to give better results than low vol-ume sprays. Low percentage of infectivitywas observed in some experiments andseemed to be due to unfavourable weatherconditions or due to loss of infectivity ofthe culture. Whenever a 1 to 1½ month-oldculture was used during favourable environ-mental conditions, the results were better.This revealed that purity of material andtiming of the application are the two criti-cal factors in obtaining better results. Un-fortunately all the commercial formulationstested were of poor quality, without caus-ing any appreciable infectivity. The major

31

bottleneck in the large-scale use of B.bassiana is the constraint of making avail-able large quantities of fresh material at theappropriate time (Coffee Board of India,2001).

Research of thepresent Project

During the CFC/ICO/02 Project, re-search has focussed on the devel-opment of biological control with

insect parasitoids (particularly on the rear-ing, release and evaluation of species re-ceived earlier), and on the mass-trapping ofCBB adults.

Research on insect parasitoids

In India, no indigenous parasitoids wererecorded during extensive surveys con-ducted in all CBB infested areas, indicatingthat the CBB was introduced without anycomplement of parasitoids. As parasitoidsare being used for the biocontrol of CBB invarious countries, introduction of promis-ing parasitoids was attempted.

Importation and quarantiningof parasitoids

Two bethylid parasitoids, Cephalonomiastephanoderis and Prorops nasuta were im-ported from Mexico in 1995. The first con-

signment from Ecosur, Tapachula, Chiapas,Mexico was received on 5th September 1995.This consignment consisted of 510 C.stephanoderis and 140 P. nasuta. Twenty-four (4.7%) of the former and 18 (12.86%) ofthe latter perished in transit. The live para-sitoids were quarantined and multiplied atthe Project Directorate of Biological Control(Indian Council of Agricultural Research),Bangalore. Two more consignments of para-sitoids were later received from Mexico. Theculture of C. stephanoderis established wellin the laboratory, whereas P. nasuta failedto survive.

Further, under the CFC/ICO/02 project,cultures of Phymastichus coffea and P.nasuta in CBB infested parchment were airfreighted from Cenicafé, Colombia. The firstconsignment consisted of P. nasuta and P.coffea arrived Bangalore on 26th October1999. As the first consignment of P.coffeadid not establish, three more consignmentswere later sent.

Rearing, field release and evaluationof parasitoids

The rearing of C. stephanoderis and P.nasuta imported from Mexico was initiatedat Coffee Research Sub Station, Chettalli, inJanuary 1996.

As C. stephanoderis and P. nasuta have simi-lar breeding habits, the rearing techniqueis common to both. Initially the parasitoidswere multiplied by using naturally infestedcoffee fruits following the Mexican meth-odology. Infested berries collected from thefield were spread on white paper, air driedfor a few days and fruits with dark powdercoming out from the hole, which is indica-tion of all CBB life stages, were selected forparasitoid rearing. Mexican scientists hadfound greenish yellow, yellow and yellow-ish red fruits ideal, but red, green, and blackunsuitable. However, over ripe, semi-dryrobusta fruits also were found most suit-able for parasitoid breeding under Indianconditions.

Cephalonomia stephanoderis eggslaid on CBB prepupa

32

32

Confined release ofCephalonomia stephanoderis

When naturally infested fruits with imma-ture stages of CBB were not available, theColombian method of using artificially in-fested parchment was employed. Freshparchment was demucilaged by natural fer-mentation and treated with carbendazim at3 g per litre of water. The parchment wasspread in trays, air-dried in a room for aday, and the moisture level brought to 40-45%. Naked, broken, discoloured and dis-eased beans were removed and only healthybeans selected for CBB rearing. The selectedgood parchment was spread in metal orplastic trays of convenient size with venti-lation. Beetles collected from the breedingstock of naturally infested fruits were thenreleased in the trays at the rate of 2 perbean.

The trays were maintained at 25°C and 80%relative humidity and examined on the 8th,12th and 18th days after beetle release. Beanscontaminated with fungi such as Aspergil-lus and Beauveria were discarded, and thefrass removed by sieving. After 20-25 days,the infested beans had developed sufficientborer stages - eggs, larvae, prepupae andpupae - needed for parasitoid breeding. Onlyseeds with 2 or more holes were selected.The moisture level was around 30% at thisstage. About 150 or 300 infested beansmeasured by volume were placed in plasticboxes of convenient size and the parasitoidreleased at the rate of 1 per 3 beans. If natu-rally infested fruits were used, parasitoidswere released at the rate of 1 per 3 to 5fruits, depending on the number of CBBstages. The containers were covered withlids having muslin cloth ventilation andmaintained at 25°C and 80% relative humid-ity.

Parasitoids started emerging 20 to 30 daysafter release. An emergence cage (a woodenbox with blackened sides with transparentplastic jars fixed downwards) was used tocollect the wasps. When the parasitoids wereready to emerge, the containers were placedin the emergence box. Tungsten filamentlamps (60W) were provided near the jars toattract the wasps.

The wasps from the collection jars were re-moved using an aspirator and transferredinto small plastic containers. The contain-ers were covered with pieces of muslin clothand closed with lids having circular holesin the centre. A few drops of half dilutedhoney were provided on the cloth. The con-tainers were then taken to the field andwasps released on infested bushes by gen-tly tapping the containers. When the waspsemerged in large numbers, they were quan-tified by volumetric measuring, each milli-liter containing around 2000 individuals.

If released on the main crop, berries withthe parasitoids were harvested in a shorttime and processed, before the wasps couldestablish themselves in the field. Hence,releases were made mostly on robusta plan-tations having left-over fruits during thepost-harvest period.

For evaluation, infested berries from therelease sites were examined at regular in-tervals and the percentage parasitism, asindicated by the presence of parasitoidstages, calculated.

Early releases and evaluation

The first test field releases of C.stephanoderis and P. nasuta were effectedin January 1996 in Ballykilty estate,Cannoncadoo, North Kodagu. The parasi-toids were confined using cloth sleeve cageson infested coffee branches. On day 35, the

33

coffee fruits were stripped off and main-tained in the laboratory for adult emer-gence (Table 11).

A second test-caged release was done inFebruary 1996 with C. stephanoderis onAchyutha estate, Maldare, South Kodaguand P. nasuta on M.K. Kalaiah’s estate,Byrambada, South Kodagu (Table 12). Theresults indicated that the recovery of bothC. stephanoderis and P. nasuta were poorin the first confined release made onBallykilty estate during June. The recoveryfrom second release during Febraury wasmore promising.

Furthermore, P. nasuta was released insmall quantities in two sites on PulneyHills, Tamil Nadu, but was only recoveredfrom the site, with no further recoverymade in subsequent observations.

Though P. nasuta could be recovered insmall numbers from the confined releaseinitially, it could not be found later. It didnot survive in the laboratory culture, inspite of obtaining one consignment fromMexico and three from Colombia. Hence,more attention was given to the mass mul-tiplication of C. stephanoderis and intro-duction of P. coffea from 1998 onwards.

Mass rearing and field release ofCephalonomia stephanoderis

Under Indian conditions, over-ripe fruitswere found more suitable than artificiallyinfested parchment for rearing the parasi-toid. Progeny production of the wasp was5.75 (1.60 to 10.50) in naturally infestedfruits and 3.20 (1.30 to 7.50) in artificiallyinfested parchment.

A total of 2,430,536 wasps were producedat CRSS, Chettalli and RCRS, Chundale dur-ing the period from January 1998 to Sep-tember 2001. A total of 1,157,790 waspswere released into the field, during the post-harvest period, on 14 farms. The details ofthe field releases are presented in Table 13.The establishment of the parasitoid wasstudied by examination of left over blackberries and in certain cases the ripe/greenberries collected from release sites. About100 fruits collected at random from eachrelease site were examined in the laboratoryfor the presence of various stages of theparasitoid and the percentage parasitismcalculated. A few non-release sites were alsosurveyed to study the spread of the parasi-toid. The details of the evaluation tests arepresented in Table 14.

34

34

35

From the observations so far made on themass-rearing and establishment of the para-sitoid, the following points emerged:

Naturally infested fruits were idealfor rearing C. stephanoderis under In-dian conditions

There was no consistency in the es-tablishment of the parasitoid on re-lease sites

Spread of the parasitoid to non-re-lease sites with better establishmentthan in release sites was recorded

Survival of the parasitoid was observed in21 out of 52 release sites surveyed. Parasit-ism was observed in red and black berrieswhile that in green berries was rare. Nineout of 22 non-release sites also revealedparasitoid activity. In one case, the parasit-ism in leftovers in the release site was just9%, whereas in two neighbouring farms(non-release sites) 54% and 77% of leftoverfruits were parasitised. Carry-over of theparasitoid from one season to the other wasobserved in 5 cases.

Phymastichus coffea

The first consignment of P. coffea was re-ceived in October 1999, and the second inFebraury 2000. The parasitoid was rearedusing the method followed in Colombia.

CBB beetle parasitised by P. coffea,showing characteristic hanging head

Unfortunately, both the cultures failed tosurvive beyond the 6th generation. A pre-liminary field trial with P. coffea on cagedbranches revealed parasitism between 4%and 7.3%, with a mean of 4.7%.

Three more consignments of the parasitoidwere received from Cenicafé during June,July and September 2001. Progeny emerg-ing from all the batches have established inthe laboratory culture, and a total of 6,905females have been released on four farmsin Kodagu.

Mass-trapping studies

These studies were conducted in Wayanad,Kerala, and in Pulney Hills, Tamil Nadu. Herewe report the work from Wayanad, as theother studies mostly confirmed the resultsof these.

Evaluation of traps and lures

As mass trapping is reported to be a newtechnique in the management of CBB, stud-

Multiple bottle top trap

36

36

ies were initiated to evaluate the effective-ness of various types of traps and lures. InWayanad, a preliminary study was con-ducted in January and February 2000 inwhich the following four types of traps weretested. Each type of trap was baited withboth ethanol-methanol and coffee fruit ex-tract lures, and each treatment had 2 traps.All the treatments were placed both in non-harvested and harvested fields to find outdifferences, if any, in the pattern of attrac-tion. The traps were hung randomly on thecoffee bushes at a distance of 80 feet apart,at about 5-6 feet off the ground. The trapdesigns were as follows:

Multiple funnel traps made of plasticbottle tops: The top portion of min-eral water or soft drink bottles wasremoved and four such pieces in in-verted position, resembling funnels,were arranged one over the otherwithout touching using thin

galvanised iron wire. The multiple fun-nel structure was provided with ahood made of plastic plate on top forprotection against rain and dry leavesfalling into the trap. A small plasticbottle with water (receptor) was fit-ted to the neck of the bottom funnelto collect the beetles. The receptorwas provided with a few holes atabout 3/4 of its height to allow rain-water to flow out. The lure dispens-ing bottle with a pinhole on its capwas kept hanging in the second fun-nel

Single funnel trap with receptor: Asingle common funnel was fitted withthe receptor and the hood as in theprevious case. The bottle containinglure was hung from the hood

Single funnel without receptor: In thiscase, a single funnel was provided

37

with a hood. The inside of the funnelwas coated with “Trappit” insect glue(polybutene), replacing the receptorwith water of the single funnel trap.The lure-dispenser bottle was hungfrom the hood

Plastic can trap: A plastic can (liquidcontainer) of 2 litre capacity was pro-vided with windows at the centre ofits four sides and the bottom wasfilled with water, the trapping media.The lure-dispenser bottle was hunginside the container

Data obtained in the preliminary study arepresented in Tables 15 and 16.

Data obtained in the preliminary trialsshowed that a 1:1 mixture of ethanol andmethanol is effective in luring CBB beetles.The fruit extract in ethanol also lured thebeetle, but to a smaller extent compared tothe ethanol-methanol mixture. The multiplefunnel trap made of plastic bottle top wasthe most effective trap among those evalu-ated. Furthermore, more beetles weretrapped in harvested fields than in non-har-vested fields.

Further evaluation of trap designs

The following models of traps baited with1:1 mixture of ethanol and methanol werealso tested along with the previously testedmultiple funnel traps made of plastic bottletops and single funnel traps with receptor.

The treatments were replicated five times.

Traps made of multiple funnel: Fourcommon funnels were arranged oneover the other using thin galvanisediron wire, provided with a receptorfitting and hood as an alternative to

‘Multiple funnel trap’

‘Bottle trap’

38

38

the multiple funnel traps made ofplastic bottle tops. The lure-dispenserbottle was hung from the hood.

Bottle trap (the “Brocatrap”): Plasticmineral water or soft drinks bottleswere used in this case. Windows ofabout 1.5 to 2.0 inches width were cuton opposite sides, leaving only twosmall strips to keep the top and bot-tom together. A receptor with drainholes was fitted to the neck of thebottle and a third of it filled with wa-ter. The lure dispenser was placed in-side the bottle. In another modifica-tion, the bottle cap replaced the re-ceptor and the trapping media washeld in the main body of the trap it-self. The data obtained is presentedin Table 17

As in the preliminary trial, the multiple fun-nel traps made of plastic bottle tops werefound superior to all the other trap mod-els. The new model Brocatrap was close ineffectiveness to the multiple funnel trapsmade of plastic bottle tops. Being simple andeasy to fabricate, the Brocatrap was verycheap costing around Rs 5 to 7 comparedto Rs 14 to 20 for multiple funnel trap madeof plastic bottle tops (depending on thequality the bottle).

The studies on the trap designs were con-tinued with modifications incorporated inthe Brocatrap to make it comparable in ef-fectiveness with the multiple funnel trapsmade of plastic bottle tops. These studiesindicated that a modified Brocatrap with 6vertical windows of 3-inch size was supe-rior to the standard Brocatrap and other

designs, but not as effective as the multiplefunnel traps made of tapering plastic bottletops.

Evaluation of lures

A study was conducted on the lures usingthe Brocatrap. The chemical combinationsevaluated in the Brocatrap were:Ethanol + MethanolEthanol + Methanol + Methylene BlueIsopropanol + MethanolDiethyl Ether + MethanolEthyl Acetate + MethanolCarbon Tetrachloride + MethanolCoffee Fruit Extract in Ethanol - MethanolmixtureCoffee Fruit Extract in EthanolCoffee Fruit Extract in MethanolCoffee Fruit Extract in Diethyl etherCoffee Fruit Extract in IsopropanolCoffee Fruit Extract in Ethyl AcetateCoffee Fruit Extract in Carbon Tetrachlo-ride

The data is presented in Table 18. Thisstudy indicated that coffee fruit extract in1:1 combination of ethanol and methanol,followed by coffee fruit extract in metha-nol, were superior to the standard 1:1 com-bination of ethanol and methanol.

Evaluation of trap heights

To find out the optimum height for trapplacement, multiple funnel traps weretested at 3, 5 and 7 feet above the ground.Each treatment was replicated five timeswith a single trap per replication.

39

The results indicated no significant differ-ence in catch at different heights. There wasa slightly higher catch, though not statisti-cally significant, at 5 feet height, so furtherplacement of traps were made at this height.

Evaluation of trap colour

To study the preference of colour in combi-nation with the lure, Brocatraps werepainted orange, red, green, yellow, white, aswell as a transparent version. All versions

were evaluated with five replications pertreatment and 5 traps per replication. Theresults showed that a significantly highercatch was obtained in the transparentBrocatrap.

Trap spacing

To study the spacing or trap density per unitarea, multiple funnel traps at distances of20 feet (109 traps/acre), 40 feet (27 traps/acre), 80 feet (7 traps/acre) and 120 feet (4

40

40

trap/acre) were evaluated in a randomisedblock design. Each treatment was replicatedfive times. The study commenced in June,the time when the residual population ofCBB in the gleaning / leftover fruits migrateto the new crop.

Before imposing the treatments, the totalresidual fruits and total population of theborer were estimated by sampling the fruitsleft on the plant and on the ground. Num-ber of infested fruits left on the plant wasestimated by sampling all the fruits in 10randomly selected plants and the numberof fruits on the ground was estimated bysampling 10 sites at random in an acre us-ing quadrats of 1 square foot size. The num-ber of CBB beetles trapped was recordedafter a month, in July, and then again inSeptember. The weather parameters dur-ing the study were recorded. The data ispresented in Table 19.

The data indicated that more beetles aretrapped when the traps were set up at closerspacing. However, the percentage of beetlestrapped was very low compared to the esti-mated CBB population in the field and hencethe real impact of trapping on beetle popu-lation needs further investigation. Someprogress was made in the following study.

Evaluation of trap densityand effect on CBB incidence

The trial was conducted by installing thetraps in coffee field after harvest at 10, 20,40, 80 and 120 feet spacing correspondingto trap densities of 435, 109, 27, 7 & 4 re-spectively per acre. The post-harvest catchof CBB per acre and the fresh incidence ofCBB in the new crop were recorded, asshown in Table 20.

The data revealed that catch per acre wassignificantly higher with close spacing orhigher trap density, which is in conformitywith the result of the previous experiment.The higher trap density reduced the infes-tation considerably by around 67% to 73%in the new crop as compared to the control.But, considering economic factors, a trapdensity of 27 per acre seems to be optimal.From the studies on mass trapping con-ducted so far the following inferences couldbe drawn for further investigation:

The coffee fruit extract in 1:1 com-bination of ethanol and methanol, fol-lowed by coffee fruit extract in metha-nol, were superior to the standard 1:1combination of ethanol and methanol

41

The multiple funnel trap made ofplastic bottle tops is the most effec-tive trap, followed by the modifiedBrocatrap with 6 vertical windowseach of 3-inch size. Considering itssimplicity, economy and its effective-ness, the modified Brocatrap with 6vertical windows is preferable for fieldapplications

Higher trap density reduced theinfestation considerably by around67% to 73% in the developing new cropcompared to the control. However, atrap density of 27 per acre seems tobe optimal

Additional studies indicated that commonlyavailable alcoholic beverages could be usedin place of ethyl alcohol in the lure.

44

44

Despite some differences in CBB management between arabica and robusta the following calendar of op-

erations represents, ideally, the most impor-tant practices in CBB management in ro-busta coffee. Table 21 describes thesemonthly operations. As may be concludedfrom Table 21, there are some key monthsin CBB management, such as those from thebeginning of the year, and those from Au-gust to December.

By the start of the CFC/ICO/02 CBB projecta number of cultural control and other man-agement interventions were being promotedby the CBI in line with the above calendar;these were based on the earlier researchconducted on the CBB (e.g. see Appendix4). In order to test more fully the impact ofthe suggested interventions, particularlytheir integration, on-farm studies of IPMwere set up during the Project across thewhole coffee-growing region affected by theCBB.

A total of 52 such plots of approximatelyone hectare each were established in differ-ent agro-climatic zones. Small, medium andlarge-scale growers were all included in thestudy. The farmers or farm managers werefully engaged in the study in an attempt tomake the study as participatory as possible.

A systematic sampling technique wasadopted to assess the incidence levels in theon-farm plots by taking periodical countsand recording the data regularly. A samplesize of 10 plants in the case of robusta and20 plants for arabica plants was fixed forassessing the incidence level. The total num-ber of berries and the number of infestedberries on five randomly selected brancheson the selected plants were recorded beforesuggesting the measures or interventionsrequired to keep the pest under control. Thefollowing were the major activities sug-gested for the IPM plots depending on theconditions prevailing in each plot:

Timely harvestThorough and clean harvest

Collection of gleaningRemoval of infested berriesRemoval of off-season and left over

berriesUse of picking matsDrying coffee to the standard test

weightEarly disposal of the coffee pro-

ducedMaintenance of trap plants around

drying yardSpot spraying of endosulfan wher-

ever absolutely necessary, as a lastresort

The data on the borer incidence was col-lected at regular intervals and necessarymeasures were suggested accordingly. Un-til March 2000 the data collection was donebi-monthly and since April 2000 on monthlybasis. The monthly percentage incidencelevels for each plot was worked out andaverage levels of incidence of all IPM plotsfor three different regions are presented inTable 22.

The average incidence-level from August toDecember 2000 varied from 0.6% to 1.1% inIPM plots of Kodagu region, 1.0% to 1.8% inWayanad region and 5.9% to 7.4% in Pulneysregion. The level of incidence came downto less than 0.5% from December onwardsin both Kodagu and Wayanad regions, but

Picking mat used whilst harvesting

45

it continued to be as high as 5% in Pulneys.The level of inoculum in leftover berries wassignificantly low and stood at 0.1% to 0.35%during June and July 2000 in Kodagu re-gion, at around 0.5% in Wayanad and at 5.5%in Pulneys. The weighted average of the in-cidence level (worked out from June to Feb-ruary), indicated the monthly rate of inci-dence at 0.6% in Kodagu, 1.0% in Wayanadand 7.7% (excluding June/July incidence) inPulneys.

The data revealed that the CBB incidencecould be kept at low levels in Wayanad andKodagu by adopting IPM measures, particu-larly cultural and phyto-sanitary measures.

The incidence level on Pulney Hills was com-paratively higher, mainly due to the preva-lence of more favourable conditions, espe-cially multiple blossoms which allows theborer to have uninterrupted generations.

48

48

Losses due to CBB

In a study conducted by the CentralCoffee Research Station (2001), anestimation of crop loss due to CBB was

carried out. Crop loss was estimated at dif-ferent levels of infestation from 0% to 100%.The study included loss in weight, but notin quality, although it is known that CBBaffects quality as well. Unfortunately, up tonow, the internal coffee market in India doesnot have a clear standard of rules for bothso as to punish or to reward coffee depend-ing on quality. However, the study is re-quired from the point of view of yield loss.The data collected are: the loss in forlits andin percentage of clean coffee is shown inTable 23.

From this information a loss function hasbeen estimated, where the independent vari-able is the percentage of infestation causedby CBB, and the dependent variable the lossin percentage of clean coffee.

The model of loss obtained was of a qua-dratic type, (Probability > F = 0.0001) andhas a very high coefficient of determination(R-square = 0.9944; Adjusted R-square =

0.9916). So the model can forecast up to99% of the variations in percentage of weightlost due to different infestation levels ofCBB. The main features of the model appearin Table 24.

The model can be expressed mathematicallyas follows:

Where:

INF = Percentage of infestation

The following graph (Figure 11) shows themodel. This function represents an increas-ing return function, which means in thiscase that every successive increase in theinfestation level results in higher additionalloss.

From the farmers point of view this kind offunction is quite dangerous because thelosses will increase more than proportion-ally for a certain level of pest attack. So theyshould adopt the techniques and compo-nents needed to ensure infestation levels

49

that can be managed easily and to avoid sud-den high pest levels.

With reference to the model, a simulationof crop loss was carried out assuming anaverage yield of 468 kg of clean coffee peracre (see the section on coffee productionabove) and a coffee price of Rs 28.5 per kgof clean coffee. The simulation involved in-festation levels between 0% and 100%, andthe percentage of loss was calculated (Table25).

From Table 25 it is clear that when infesta-tion levels are low, expected losses are alsolow. So farmers should carry out those con-trol measures needed to keep the pest atthis level or below. However, at this point,it is quite possible that the willingness to

invest in pest control is more related to thepest level.

In Figure 12 are shown the potential lossesdue to different infestation levels, expressedin Rupees/acre.

Figure 12 shows that potential losses canbe severe and thus even a moderate infes-tation of CBB can make it more difficult forfarmers to reach the break-even point, letalone generate a profit.

Cost of CBB management

In the last year of the Project, an assessment was made of 97 farms/estatesinvolving both IPM plots (described ear-

Figure 11.Loss function

due to CBBattacks in

India

50

50

lier) and non-IPM plots. From a general pointof view the average cost for CBB manage-ment was 426 Rs/acre/year (approximatelyUS$9.06), which equates to aroundUS$22.60 per hectare/year. The maximumcost observed was about 2,344 Rs/acre,which equals US$124.00 a hectare. On av-erage the share of CBB management overthe total production cost was 3.8% - this islower than observed in other countries, likeColombia, where the share is about 7%.

However the CBB cost is quite variable ac-cording to variations in farm size. Table 26shows the CBB cost estimated for four farmsizes. As can be seen, the observed tendencyis for CBB management to be more costlywith increasing coffee farm size with theexception of the largest ones where the costwas lower than in categories 2 and 3. Thismight indicate that some economies of scaleare present. What is very clear is that small-holder farmers tend to invest less in CBBmanagement. If we assume that cost of aman-day is about 60 Rs/day, this would

imply that these small farmers are invest-ing the equivalent of 5.3 man-days per acreper year in pest control. Farmers belongingto category 3 are spending 10.3 man-days -almost twice the smaller farm sizes. Figure13 describes the frequency distribution ofCBB cost per acre/year.

According to Figure 13, the distribution isbiased to the right. It is evident that to findcoffee growers investing more than 1500Rs/acre when controlling CBB is rare. Themajority of farmers tend to spend up to 600Rs/acre, since 78.3% of the sample is in thatrange. Taking into account that the surveywas carried out in 2000-2001, when inter-national coffee prices were better than 2001-2002, it is likely that this investment capac-ity has been reduced. If this hypothesis istrue then the willingness to spend largeamounts of money when managing CBB willbe lower. Farmers will thus choose the mostadequate practices that they believe will re-duce production costs.

Figure 12.Simulation ofcrop lossesdue to CBB in-festation lev-els (Rupees/acre)

51

Another element of CBB management costis that when productivity is higher, the pestproblem tends to be more difficult to dealwith. Thus the investment required mightalso be higher. Table 27 describes coffeeproductivity according to holding size, in-dicating that when a holding is larger, pro-ductivity is higher.

Figure 13.Cost of CBB

management -histogram offrequencies

In this way the investment required to con-trol CBB should be higher. Figure 14 depictsthis tendency, despite the large scatter ofpoints.

From the data above it can be observed thatwhen productivity is above 700 kg of cof-fee/ha CBB cost tends to be higher, above

Figure 14.Relationship

between costof CBB man-

agement andholding size

52

52

Rs 600/acre. However, for the sample farmsin the study, there were both IPM and non-IPM plots. Table 28 shows the CBB costbreakdown for both types.

Although the costs are apparently different,a statistical analysis for mean differencesthe results show that the CBB cost is equal(P value = 0.3062), whether or not the plotwas in the Project.

In summary, in general terms, the cost ofCBB management/acre is relatively low (Rs426/acre). Given the steep increase in lossin revenue with increasing CBB infestations,farmers should consider investing in man-agement strategies at low CBB infestationrates.

53

56

56

The farmer participatorymethod (FPM)

The Coffee Board’s extension networkhas been unique in many ways fromthe viewpoint of working in close

proximity with the growers as field units arelocated in plantation areas. This enables afriendly rapport to be maintained with allgrowers in a Liaison Zone through personalcontact with extension staff. Conventionalextension methods have been successfullyfollowed for the past half a century, trans-ferring coffee cultivation technologies anddealing with the welfare of coffee growingcommunities.

With a view to strengthening the extensiondelivery system, Farmer Participatory Meth-ods (FPM) were adopted under the CFC/ICO/02 CBB Project in order to widen the scopeof dealing with CBB in relation to all aspectsof coffee husbandry. Under the auspices ofthe Project, Dr. Falguni Guharay of CATIE,Nicaragua, an expert in FPM techniques, vis-ited India during January 2000 and con-ducted master training sessions with 126research and extension personnel of theCoffee Board. These master trainees lateron conducted FPM programmes in their re-spective zones.

The FPM technique was adopted with thefollowing objectives:

To bring the farmer, researcherand extensionist together on ‘oneplatform’

To find out the adoption levels ofrecommended packages of prac-tices To improve the growers’ decision-

making abilities To identify constraints in adopting

technologies To identify innovative, locally

adopted, technologies To improve the productivity and

quality of coffee grown To improve the overall socio-

economic status of the farmer

FPM is a three way interactive processwherein researchers, extensionists andfarmers meet on a bi-monthly basis to dis-cuss not only CBB issues, but also all otheraspects of coffee cultivation. It involves acombination of conventional extensionmethods such as group gatherings andmeetings, as well as field visits to conductdemonstrations, in addition to FPM tech-niques. In the FPM mode, the active partici-pation of the farmer needs to be ensuredfor the successful adoption of technologies,unlike other conventional extension meth-ods.

Farmer-researcher-extensionist meetings

Farmer-researcher-extensionist meet-ings at periodic intervals, at pre-selected estates, were conducted. Partici-

pating farmers were divided into groups tovisit the estate and to identify problems.These groups collected specimens and madeobservations from the field. The leaders ofeach sub-group presented the group’s viewson the standard of maintenance by usingflip charts. Deliberations on the observa-tions and various technologies adoptedwere held to analyse the gap between lo-cally adopted and recommended practices.The facilitators and researchers then helpedthe groups todiscuss the problems identi-fied, and to find solutions using the basketof technologies available.Dr Falguni Guharay conducting

FPM workshop

57

The problems identified were ranked, basedon merit. The most urgent and need-basedproblems were then selected for discussion.Finally, feedback from all growers of a groupwere collected and analyzed for furtherimprovement.

In addition, bi-monthly workshops involv-ing researchers and extensionist were con-ducted at research centres to deliberate onthe feedback of FPM meetings and to em-power extensionists. Under FPM activities,24 regional technical workshops were heldat different research stations during thisProject.

In summary, FPM groups, consisting of 20-30 growers each, were formed in all the liai-son zones in the three states of Karnataka,Kerala and Tamil Nadu during the years2000 and 2001. Details are presented inTable 29.

Impact of the FPMprogramme

The various activities conducted underthis new extension method made thefollowing impressions on the exten-

sion programme, extensionists and coffeegrowers:

1. On the extension programme in gen-eral:Location specific technologies/practicescoming to the fore

Opportunity for verification of field va-lidity of different technologies/practicesContinuous feedback from the field forresearchers/extensionistsFPM as a new technique - a refreshingprocess

2. On extentionists:Providing an opportunity to exhibittheir talent and abilitiesImproving upon their communicationand other extension skillsSharpening their technical knowledgeand skillsInteracting at regional research work-shops and updating knowledge fre-quentlyFeeling better, to have first handfeedback from many farmersDeveloping more of a team-workattitudeUsing a wider variety of tools (like flipcharts) to put across their ideasOpportunity to develop new ideas toconvince the farmers

3. On growers:Opportunity to express their viewsfreelyChance to learn what other growersare doingVerifying field validity of differenttechnologies/practicesLearning latest techniquesFocusing more sharply on currentproblemsParticipating and learning continu-ouslyKnowing about cost reduction oppor-tunities

58

58

Thus, the FPM programme launched as apart of the CBB management activity underthis Project resulted in extension activitiesbeing made more visible, in motivatinggrowers to actively participate in such ac-tivities and it inspired extensionists to adoptnew extension tools made available to them.

Women empowermentprogramme (WEP)

The Indian women empowermentprogramme (WEP) came about as aresult of a visit by Dr. ST Murphy of

CABI Bioscience in April 2001, when it wasdecided to initiate special activities on theempowerment of women in CBB manage-ment and other coffee cultivation aspects.This was as a direct result of the fact thatmost women could not attend FPM activi-ties due to other chores. Two workshopswere held at Kalpetta and Somawarpet togauge the response of the women and thedegree of their involvement in managingcoffee plots. Encouraged by the positiveresponse from these meetings, similarprogrammes were organized in all CBI liai-son zones. A total of 26 meetings were heldin different areas between April and Octo-ber 2001 (Table 30).

The assessment reports received from fieldunits revealed that the knowledge ofwomen/spouses of estate owners, on cof-fee cultivation varied from 60% to 80%, butwith regard to technical aspects it variedbetween 20% and 30%. Their involvementin decision-making on the management ofestates varied from 10% to 20%, and theyhad expressed that men generally take de-cisions.

The WEP meetings gave women an oppor-tunity to get motivated and understand thatthey have a greater role to play in the man-agement of estates. They were also inter-ested to train on coffee cultivation, prefer-ably at local level and in the local language.

Summary of extensionactivities carried out during

1999 to 2001

The details of various extension activities conducted by the Coffee Boardof India to combat Coffee Berry Borer

between 1998 and 2001 are summarized inTable 31.

FPM-style groupgatherings at IPM plots

The FPM style was adopted to dissemi-nate the inferences of IPM observations in the IPM plots. FPM-style

group meetings at IPM plots were held in-

WEP participants

59

volving neighbouring farmers to dissemi-nate the knowledge generated at on-farmIPM plots. A total of 17 such meetings wereheld in different regions, eight in Kerala,five in Karnataka and four in Tamil Nadu.

Conclusions

The various extension programmescarried out over the last twelve yearshave been successful in creating an

awareness about the coffee berry borerproblem and motivating the growers to takeup control measures, which is evident fromthe low levels of CBB incidence reportedfrom many of the estates and the reducedrate of spread of the pest in the recent years.The incentive provided to the growers, es-pecially pesticides at subsidised rates dur-ing the early years, played an important rolein convincing the growers about the possi-bility of controlling the pest if control mea-sures are adopted on-time. Though pesti-

cide use was higher in the initial years, itsuse has now reduced considerably as grow-ers realize that strict adoption of phyto-sani-tary measures can bring down CBB pest in-cidence to very low levels. The establish-ment of IPM plots in growers’ fields underthe CFC/ICO/02 CBB Project has played asignificant role in bringing about thischange. The extent of adoption, and the cur-rent constraints to this, is considered in thenext chapter.

62

62

Methodology

A study was made of socioeconomicconstraints to the adoption of CBBmanagement interventions in 97 es-

tates including both IPM plots and non-IPMplots during the 2000 and 2001. This studywas conducted by the Coffee Board and aconsultant to the Project, Dr HernandoDuque of Cenicafé.

The ratio of IPM to non-IPM plots was 1:2,so as to include more plots that were notdirectly linked to project activities. In theselected plots several interventions hadbeen made under the guidance of research-ers and extensionists working on theProject. In non-IPM plots the extent of anyadoption of interventions was purely theresult of farmer decision-making. The maininterventions used in the IPM plots and be-ing recommended in general have alreadybeen referred to, and were listed above inthe chapter on ‘Testing, Validation and In-tegration of Components’. They are listedagain here for convenience:

Timely harvestingThorough and clean harvestGleaning collectionsRemoval of infested berriesRemoval of off-season and leftoverberriesUse of picking matsDrying coffee up to the acceptedstandardsEarly disposal of the coffee pro-duced (early selling)Spot spraying of endosulfan wher-ever necessary as last option

Biological control methodsUse of plans traps surrounding thedrying yardUse of CBB traps

All 97 estates were located in three statesinvolved in the Project, and distributed asshown in Table 32.

The following analysis is aimed at highlight-ing some of the results obtained during thisstudy.

Extent of adoptionof management interventions

The adoption of the interventions pro-posed for CBB management showedimportant differences. For instance,

the components such as gleaning collectionsand the use of picking mats were the mostadopted. However the fungus B. bassianawas the least adopted intervention by farm-ers, as was the use of sticky traps. Table 33summarizes the adoption of all the compo-nents comprising the IPM strategy for con-trolling CBB in India.

From Table 33, it is clear that the mostadopted components are those related tocultural control, such as the use of pickingmats and gleaning collections.The adoption of these components showeddifferent tendencies according to the stateanalyzed.

A statistical analysis was done in order totest for differences between proportions

63

according to the procedure suggested byWalpole et al. (1998) and Levin et al. (1994).

Firstly, for spot spraying, the ob-served adoption in the states of Keralaand Tamil Nadu was statisticallyhigher than in Karnataka, but none-theless appeared equal between them.Secondly, the adoption of blanketspraying was highest in Tamil Nadu,indicating that this region is charac-terized by a way of using of insecti-cides that is some distance from theIPM concept. Then there were thefarmers from Karnataka State and fi-nally the lowest adoption of blanketspraying was in Kerala. It is interest-ing to note that farmers from Keralahave adopted well the idea of spotspraying.

The adoption of hot water treatmentwas statistically equal betweenKarnataka and Kerala, and betweenKarnataka and Tamil Nadu. HoweverTamil Nadu showed a higher adoptionin this component than coffee grow-ers in Kerala State.

Sticky traps had a very low rate ofadoption, but this rate was similaramong all three states.

In general, the use of picking matshas been well adopted in all states.The highest adoption was inKarnataka. followed by Kerala withthe lowest rate in Tamil Nadu.

The adoption of B. bassiana was verylow across the board, as shown inTable 33.

Finally, the component with a highrate of adoption was gleaning col-lection, which was statistically simi-lar in all the states.

Constraints in CBBmanagement technology

adoption

The coffee farmers involved in the sur-vey comprised 30% IPM plots, and theother 70% were farmers close to these

plots but not taking an active part in theProject. Additionally 83% were owners while17% were paid managers.

Some constraints to the adoption of inter-ventions were identified during the study.For instance, in the case of spot sprayingthe coffee growers mentioned a number ofconstraints, which are shown graphically inthe next figure.

From Figure 15, it is clear that problemsrelated to labour is a major restriction. Fur-thermore, spot spraying operations are seenas costly. A low percentage of growers didnot know about the use of this practice.

The main constraints in the adoption ofblanket spraying are depicted in Figure 16.

64

64

Figure 16.Main con-straints in

adoption ofblanket

spraying

Figure 17.Main constraints inhot water treatmentadoption

In this case the main difficulty is the highcost. Of course blanket spraying requiresthe whole coffee plot to be covered and theamount of labour needed and the input cost(insecticide) is expensive to carry out thisoperation. Additionally, the lack of knowl-edge is another important factor acting asa barrier.

For hot water treatment the main problemswhen adopting this component were thecost of the activity and the lack of knowl-

edge to do it, as shown in Figure 17. As ex-plained above, gleanings collection is themost adopted component of the IPM strat-egy against CBB in India. The main con-straints to its adoption appear in Figure 18,where it can be concluded that the majorityof the coffee growers see this componentas a beneficial and effective intervention.However, gleaning collection is costly formore than 20% of coffee growers. But un-doubtedly this component is playing a keyrole in the control of CBB.

Figure 15.Adoption ofCBB compo-nents byState

65

In the same way the adoption of pickingmats, which are spread under the coffeetrees to reduce gleanings, was also verygood. Currently many coffee growers thinkthat this is very useful intervention becausein farms where it is used, new crops seemto become less infested. Figure 19 describesthe main barriers in the adoption of thiscomponent.

The answers were similar to the gleaningscase since 58% of the farmers did not seeany restriction in adopting this component.Nonetheless, some of them have the opin-ion that picking mats are costly.

In the case of B. bassiana, the main obstacles(Figure 20) are the lack of inputs, perhaps

the supply of the fungus itself, but alsomaybe another inputs such as mineral oiland spray equipment. As in the other com-ponents there is a lack of knowledge aboutthe technology, and in some cases it is seenas difficult to use and not practical at all asa control measure.

Awareness aboutCBB concepts

The socioeconomic study aimed to es-tablish the level of awareness of somebasic concepts related to IPM. Table

34 describes the results obtained. Despite

Figure 20.Main constraints inBeauveria bassianaadoption

Figure 18.Main con-straints in

gleaningcollectionadoption

Figure 19.Main con-straints in

picking matadoption

66

66

the effects of irrigation on the homogene-ity of the blossom, most of the farmers donot believe (73%) this operation has any re-sult in CBB management. In this instancesteps could be taken to teach farmers howimportant it is to have a single blossom in-stead of several flowerings when managingCBB.

A key factor that motivates the adoption ofany technology is the importance of theproblem it helps to solve. In this way more

than 96% of the farmers are aware of theeffects that CBB can have on coffee quality,which is very important since they shouldbe interested in producing good quality cof-fee, as prices are normally better. Addition-ally, the majority sees that this pest cancause damage on young berries. However,despite the fact that the majority think thatCBB can damage young coffee berries, thereis scope to emphasize this kind of loss inthose that are not aware of it.

67

70

70

At present, coffee berry borer ispresent in approximately 35% ofthe total coffee growing area in In-

dia. Taking into account the experience ofCBB in other countries, further spread ofthis pest to other coffee growing areas islikely. Hence, there is every need to continuewith the programme of CBB control in Indiaand to use the experiences gained so far toimprove strategies in the future. Some keypoints arising out of the CFC/ICO/02 Projectare outlined below.

In general there is a good level of aware-ness among farmers about CBB and its im-plications. Farmer participatory methodsadopted during the Project have helped withthe dissemination of information to farm-ers, and have also been educational for ex-tension workers and researchers as well. Forinstance, coffee farmers are clear about thetype of damage CBB can cause and some ofthe methods that exist to manage the pest.However, they are not very clear about howfactors such as irrigation can affect CBB in-cidence.

With respect to the adoption of the avail-able IPM components outlined in the chap-ter above, it is clear that those related tocultural control (such as gleaning collectionand the use of picking mats) have been suc-cessfully adopted in many areas. Spot spray-ing and blanket spraying have been lessadopted largely because of high costs;labour costs are a particularly importantconstraint. However, in the IPM context, spotspraying is clearly preferable, and shouldbe promoted as such.

The most common constraint identified bythe farmers was the high cost when imple-menting the IPM components for CBB man-agement. This problem is clearly linked tocurrent low coffee prices - and these lowprices are the principal problem faced byIndian coffee farmers at present. Nonethe-less, it should be highlighted that in the caseof gleaning collection and use of pickingmats, the majority of coffee growers did notidentify any real constraints in adoptingthem.

For the sample of farms analyzed duringthe Project, the average total productioncost per acre/year was about Rs 15,952 (ap-proximately US$339.40). Fixed costs make-up 34.7% of total production costs whilevariable costs contribute 65.3%. From a gen-eral point of view, the fixed cost percent-age is high. While the average yield was 468kg of clean coffee per acre, the break-evenpoint has been estimated at 559 kg at cur-rent (2002) prices.

Many Indian coffee growers are simply notreaching this point, and are thus facing avery difficult economic situation. From thesample analyzed, some 60% of farmers werenot reaching this break-even point. Twopossible ways for the farmers to reach thebreak-even point have been identified. Thefirst is to get a price of Rs 35 per kilogrammeof clean coffee. The second is to improvecoffee productivity. However, both of theseare hard to attain. A key aspect here is toavoid any yield reduction as a result of CBB.

The average cost for CBB management wasabout Rs 426 per acre, which is a relativelylow cost. However some farmers are invest-ing more than Rs 1,000 per acre, and insome cases CBB management costs reachedUS$ 124 per hectare. CBB management coststend to increase as coffee productivity in-creases – a tendency that can be seen inother countries, e.g. Colombia.

As high costs are the main barrier for tech-nology adoption, and most of the compo-nents are necessarily linked to use of labour,the future strategy for CBB managementshould be based on management compo-nents that are less labour dependent. In thiscontext, more emphasis should be placedon biological control.

Work on the development of an artificial dietfor rearing CBB and its parasitoids is un-derway in different laboratories.Cephalonomia stephanoderis has shownsome promise in the evaluation tests andthis parasitoid is now being distributed inmany CBB affected areas. Also a culture ofPhymastichus coffea has now been estab-

71

lished in India and release and assessmentstudies are underway. Any further develop-ment of Beauvaria bassiana as a biocontrolagent will have to address critical issuessuch as mass production techniques andquality control management. The timing ofapplications and the right local climate con-ditions are important factors for successand thus these factors combined could limitthe usefulness of this agent.

More generally, farmers have a marked dif-ficulty in assessing crop losses due to CBBattacks. A participatory approach is neededto devise farmer-friendly ways of samplingand calculating losses as this will help en-sure the long-term stable adoption of an IPMstrategy

72

72

REFERENCES

Central Coffee Research Institute, “Coffee berryborer in India”, Central Coffee ResearchInstitute, Coffee Research Station,Karnataka, India, 2001, 112 p.

International Coffee Organisation, “Monographon Indian Coffee”, London, InternationalCoffee Organisation, 1997, 28 p.

Kay, R., “Farm Management: Planning, Control &Implementation”, Texas A & M University,McGraw Hill Company, United States ofAmerica, 1981, 370 p.

Leach, A., “Technical Report: Collection of Eco-nomic and Management Data for Model-ling the Coffee Berry Borer in India”, Un-published, Imperial College, Ascot, UK,1998, 38 p.

Levin, R. I., Rubin, D. S., “Statistics for manage-ment (6th edition)”, Prentice Hall, New Jer-sey, 1994, 918 p.

Menon, P., Krishnakumar, R., Subramanian, T.S., “A round-up from States”, Frontline, Vol.18, No.2, 2001, pp. 4 –6.

Muralidharan, S., “The Farming Crisis”, Frontline,Vol. 18, No.2, 2001, pp. 4 –6.

Pant, G. B., Rupa Kumar, K., “Climates of SouthAsia”, John Wiley & Sons, England, 1997,320 p.

Walpole, R., Myers, R., Myers, S., “Probabilidad yestadistica para ingenieros”, PearsonEducación, México, 1998, 739 p.

PUBLICATIONS

The following is a list of Indian publications onthe ecology and management of the CBB thathave arisen out of the Project, and earlier workon the CBB by the Coffee Board of India.

Abdul Rehiman, P., and Vijayalakshmi, C.K., “Cof-fee berry borer in fruits of tea”, KisanWorld, July 1996, p. 15.

Abdul Rehiman, P., and Vijayalakshmi, C.K.,1999, “Influence of rain on the mortalityof coffee berry borer”, Insect Environment,Vol. 4, Jan –March 1999.

Abdul Rehiman, P., and Vijayalakshmi, C.K.,1999, “Kerosene as a synergist of endosul-fan”, Insect Environment, Vol. 4, Jan-Mar1999.

Abdul Rehiman, P., and Vijayalakshmi, C.K.,1999, “Evaluation of low volume and highvolume application of endosulfan for thecontrol of coffee berry borer,Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari), in India”,Insect Enviroment,Vol. 5, Oct-Dec 1999.

Abdul Rehiman, P., and Vijayalakshmi, C.K.,2000, “Rearing technique of the berryborer parasitoids imported from Colom-bia”, Indian Coffee, March 2000.

Abdul Rehiman, P., and Vijayalakshmi, C.K.,1998, “Efficacy of varying dosages of in-secticides against coffee berry borer”, In-sect Environment, Vol. 49 (3), 1999.

Balakrishnan, M.M., Sreedharan, K., and Bhat,P.K., 1994, “Occurrence ofentomopathogenic fungus Beauveriabassiana on certain coffee pests in India”,Journal of Coffee Research, 24 (1), pp. 33-35.

Balakrishnan, M.M., Sreedharan, K., and Bhat,P.K., and Naidu, R., 1994, “Possible use ofBeauveria bassiana as a biopesticideagainst the coffee berry borer”, IndianCoffee 58 (8), pp. 43-44.

Balakrishnan, M.M., Sreedharan, K., and Bhat,P.K., 1995, “New fungal associates of cof-fee berry borer”, Journal of Coffee Re-search, 25 (1), pp. 52-54.

Balakrishnan, M.M., Prakasan, C.B., andSreedharan, K., 2000, “Biocontrol of cof-fee berry borer in India”. Paper presentedat the International Scientific Symposiumon Coffee held at Bangalore, 4th Decem-ber 2000.

Balakrishnan, M.M., and Sreedharan, K., 2001,“Evaluation of Metarhizium anisopliaeagainst coffee berry borer and shot holeborer”, Proceedings of the Second National

73

Symposium on Integrated Pest Manage-ment in Horticultural Crops: New Mol-ecules, Biopesticides. 17th-19th October2001, Bangalore, India, p. 202.

Balakrishnan, M.M., Prakasan, C.B., andSreedharan, K., 2000, “Introduction andestablishment of Cephalonomiastephanoderis (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae)for the biocontrol of coffee berry borer,Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera:Scolytidae)”, Paper presented at thePLACROSYM XIV International Conferenceon Plantation Crops, 12th-15th December,2000, Hyderabad, India.

Bheemaiah, M. M., and Dhruva Kumar, H. K.,1997, “Spread of coffee berry borer andconsequential extension programmes”,Indian Coffee, LXI (7), pp. 20-93.

Bheemaiah, M.M., Sreedharan, K., Ananda Rao,L.V., and Dhruva Kumar, H.K., 1997, “Polymat as one of the tools in the integratedmanagement of coffee berry borer”, IndianCoffee, LXI (11), pp. 19-20.

Kumar, P.K.V., Prakasan, C.B., and Vijayalakshmi,C.K., 1990, “Coffee berry borer,Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera:Scolytidae): first record from India”, Jour-nal of. Coffee Research, 20 (2), pp. 161-164.

Kumar, P.K.V., Prakasan, C.B., and Vijayalakshmi,C.K., 1994, “Record of entomopathogenicfungi on Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari)from South India”, Journal of Coffee Re-search, 24 (2), pp. 119-120.

Prakasan.C.B., Sreedharan, K., and SambamurthyReddy, A.G., 2000, “Trap - a promising toolin the integrated management of coffeeberry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Co-leoptera: Scolytidae)”, Paper presented atthe PLACXROSYM XIV, International Sym-posium on Plantation Crops, 12th-15thDecember, 2000, Hyderabad, India.

Prakasan, C.B., Sreedharan, K., SambamurthyReddy, A.G., and Gokuldas, M., 2001, “Masstrapping- a new component in the IPM ofcoffee berry borer”, Presented at the Sec-ond National Symposium on IntegratedPest Management in Horticultural Crops:biopesticides and new molecules. 17th-

19th October 2001, Bangalore, India, 117-118.

Ramaaiah, P.K., and Krishanmoorthy Bhat, P.,1992, “Coffee berry borer in India”, IndianCoffee, Vol. LVI (1), pp. 33-35.

Sreedharan, K., Balakrishnan, M.M., Prakasan,C.B., Bhat, P.K., and Naidu, R., 1994, “Bio-ecology and management of coffee berryborer”, Indian Coffee, 58 (8), pp. 5-13.

Sreedharan, K., Balakrishnan, M.M., 1999, “Cof-fee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei, inIndia - Current status and integrated man-agement strategies”, Paper presented atthe Colloquium on Post-harvest Technol-ogy of Coffee, held at Mangalore Univer-sity, Mangalore, India.

Sreedharan, K., Prakasan, C.B., Balakrishnan,M.M., Samuel, Stephen D., Vinod Kumar,P.K., Rehiman, P.Abdul., andVijayalakshmi, C.K., 2000, “Developmentof an Integrated Management Programmeagainst coffee berry borer in India”, Paperpresented at the PLACROSYM XIV Inter-national Symposium on Plantation Crops,12th-15th December, 2000, Hyderabad,India.

Vijayalakshmi, C.K., Abdul Rehiman, P. andReddy, A.G.S., 1994, “A note on the alter-native shelters of coffee berry borerbeetles”, Journal of Coffee Research, 24 (1),pp. 47-48.

Vijayalakshmi, C.K., Abdul Rehiman, P., andVijayan, V.A., 1997, “Cultural Methods - aneffective component in the managementof coffee berry borer”, Insect Environment,Vol. 5 (3), pp. 70.

Vijayalakshmi, C.K., Abdul Rehiman, P., SureshKumar, V.B., and Reddy, A.G.S., 1999, “In-cidence of coffee berry borer and controlmeasures in India”, 9th Swadeshi ScienceCongress, Kerala, 5th – 7th November,1999.

Vijayalakshmi, C.K., Abdul Rehiman, P., 1999,“Trapping of Hypothenemus hampei(Ferrari) by retaining coffee crop near dry-ing yard”, Insect Environment, Vol. 5, Oct-Dec. 1999.

74

74

Vijayalakshmi, C.K., Abdul Rehiman, P.,Prakasan, C.B., and Sreedharan, K., 1999,“Record of a new species of Hypothenemuson Gliricidia maculata”, Insect Environ-ment, Vol. 5, Oct-Dec.1999.

Vijayalakshmi.C.K., Abdul Rehiman, P., andVijayan, V.A., 2000, “Observation on theposition of attack of coffee berry borer,Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari)”, InsectEnvironment, Vol. 6 (3).

Ph.D. Theses

Prakasan, C.B., “Economic threshold and eco-friendly management of coffee berry

borer”, registered under the University ofCalicut, Kerala.

Vijayalakshmi, C.K., “Bio-ecology and manage-ment of coffee berry borer in India”, de-gree awarded by the University of Mysore,Mysore, Karnataka.

Video documentaries

Short video film on CBB in English and vernacu-lar languages (Kannada, Malayalam and Tamil).

75

78

78

In the early 1940s the Indian Board forthe Expansion of the Coffee Market wascreated and later renamed the Coffee

Board of India, renamed again in 1955 asthe Coffee Board (ICO, 1997). The CoffeeBoard has several functions:

To promote sales and coffee con-sumption in India and around theworld To commercialise coffee through a

common fund (this function has re-cently changed) To research coffee with the aim of

developing new production tech-nologies

To offer technical advice in orderto improve coffee farming with em-phasis on smallholders To improve coffee quality To manage and lead the coffee sec-

tor at both national and interna-tional levels

After the market liberalisation the CoffeeBoard reduced its role in coffeecommercialisation. Thus coffee farmers arenow free to sell their coffee in whatever waythey want. However, the Coffee Board has aset of responsibilities that it carries out tobenefit the coffee sector.

The president is the executive director ofthe board and he reviews all structuralchanges resulting from the opening of the

coffee market. This liberalisation requiresthe Board to focus on research and devel-opment, quality control, market informa-tion, promotion, extension and developmentof a free market.

Extension offices are dispersed throughoutall coffee regions giving technical adviceaccording to the farmers’ requirements. Intotal there are 45 extension units coveringan average of 5,800 ha each. Most exten-sion activities are related to technical sup-port, farm visits, transfer of technical knowl-edge through rural meetings and other me-dia. The extension service has a set of modelcoffee plots to carry out demonstrationsabout correct practices and new technolo-gies. Other services provide seeds of newvarieties, link farmers with research, fore-cast harvests, as well as estimating the inci-dence and importance of pests and diseases.

The research studies on the CBB were initi-ated during 1990 at the Regional CoffeeResearch Station, Chundale, which is situ-ated in the berry borer affected region inKerala State. Later on, studies were con-ducted at the Coffee Research Sub-Station,Chettalli, Kodagu District, Karnataka andthe Regional Coffee Research Station,Thandigudi, Tamil Nadu as the CBB spreadto these regions. The personnel involved invarious studies are as follows:

APPENDIX 1:

Coffee Board of India infrastructure and mainpersonnel engaged in the Project

79

APPENDIX 2:

Overseas visits to attend meetings, training andconferences on CBB

80

80

APPENDIX 3:Visits of consultants to India under

the CFC-ICO project

81

Cultural and phytosanitary measuresare known to be effective in the man-agement of CBB in various countries.

Hence, experiments were conducted toevaluate the effect of various componentsof cultural and phytosanitary measuressuch as timely harvest, gleaning collection,etc., on CBB ecology. Some of this work isreported here.

Effect of delayed harvest on the popu-lation build up of CBB

CBB infestation in the field was enumeratedat fortnightly interval from December toFebruary (i.e. until harvest) on an estate inKodagu and the pest build up recorded untilthe coffee was harvested. The data re-corded are presented in Table A4-1.

APPENDIX 4:Earlier Indian studies on CBB ecology and

cultural control

The data showed that a 26-day delay in har-vesting (beyond the period when 60% of thefruits were ripe) caused about a 35% in-crease in CBB incidence.

In another study in Kodagu, the effect ofdelayed harvest on the coffee berry borerbuild up (‘flare-up’) on the standing crop wasstudied by comparing the infestation incrops harvested on time, and in standingcrops allowed to over ripen and dry on theplant (in the same estate). A 17-day delayin harvesting resulted in about 6-fold in-crease of fruit infestation. In a study inWayanad, the level of infestation on newcrop, and berry drop due to CBB, were re-corded from timely and delayed harvestedestates. The data are presented in TableA4-2.

82

82

The data indicated that the percentage berryinfestation and fruit drop due to coffeeberry borer was higher in late harvestedestates than in timely harvested estates.

Study on CBB build-up on a non-har-vested estate

A study was carried out on Rippon estate,Arappatta, where harvesting was not doneuntil May 1996, due to unavoidable reasons,to assess the build up of incidence. Differ-ent types of berries, i.e. berries from theplant, fallen berries and off-season berries,were collected from the infested field at dif-ferent locations and examined in the labo-ratory.

The counts of the infested and non-infestedberries were recorded. Among the threetypes of berries examined, the highest per-centage of coffee berry borer infestation wasrecorded on fallen berries (97.60%) followedby the berries on the plant (70%) and off-season berries (13%). Furthermore, thecounts of different stages of coffee berryborer were also recorded by cutting open25 berries of each type. The observationsshowed that the maximum number of adults

were evident in fallen berries, followed byberries on the plant. Further, the off-sea-son berries showed more number of eggscompared to other types of berries. Theseobservations revealed that CBB infestationcould build up to very high levels if harvest-ing is not completed on time.

Field study on the impact of gleaningon the build up of CBB

A replicated field trial was conducted tostudy the impact of infested fallen berrieson the build up of CBB in the new crop, byplacing different numbers of infested ber-ries under caged plants. The resultant in-festation in the new crop was recorded af-ter one month. The experiment was con-ducted for three seasons and the results arepresented in Table A4-3.

It is evident from the data that the incidenceof CBB in the new crop significantly in-creases with increase in the number of in-fested fallen berries present on the ground(gleaning).

In another study, data on percentage fruitinfestation by CBB in the new crop was re-

83

corded from ungleaned and gleaned estates.In this study, three ungleaned plots werecompared with a gleaned plot. In each testplot 10 plants and four branches per plantwere taken to arrive at the infestation level.There was a marked difference in infesta-tion level in gleaned and ungleaned estates.The average infestation on the threeungleaned estates was 13.56% compared tothat of 1.49% on gleaned estates.

Use of picking/harvesting mats

Removal of fruits that fall on the ground(gleaning) and those remaining on the plant(left over) after harvest is the most impor-tant practice for the management of CBB.

Manual gleaning is often laborious and ex-pensive. In this context, harvesting coffeewith mats spread under the plants wasthought to be an effective method to reducegleaning in coffee fields. This method wasdemonstrated in Kodagu in 1993. The Cof-fee Board supplied picking mats to all thesmall growers in Byrambada village, Kodagu,

on an experimental basis, and it resulted inreduction of pest incidence in the new cropin the village. As a result of this, use of pick-ing mats gained wider acceptance amongthe growers and the Coffee Board contin-ued to supply the picking mats at subsidisedrate.

In order to quantify the effect of using pick-ing mats on CBB incidence, a replicated trialwas carried out at four locations inWayanad. At each location, two sets of treat-ments, i.e. harvesting with picking matsspread under the plant and without pick-ing mats, were imposed. The number offallen berries on the ground after the har-vest in the treatment plots was assessed bytaking counts of fallen berries in a quad-rate of one-foot size. Counts of 5 quadrateseach was taken from 20 sites in each loca-tion and the mean number of fallen fruitsin a square foot area was calculated. Theresults are presented in Table A4-4. Further,the infestation of CBB in the new crop inthe experimental plots was assessed, andthe data is given in Table A4-5.

84

84

The data showed that the use of pickingmats helped in collection of fruits fallingon the ground thereby reducing the glean-ing by 72.13%. This has resulted in the re-duction of CBB infestation in the new cropby 71.47% compared to that in the plot har-vested with out picking mats.

Finally, the data on the picking efficiency,quantity of gleaning collected and the labourrequirement for gleaning with and withoutthe use of picking mats were collected fromthe above mentioned trial locations and thesame are given in Table A4-6.

The use of picking mats increased the pick-ing efficiency of workers by 48.56%. Theamount of gleaning was reduced by about58% when the harvest was done using thepicking mat. As a result the manpower re-quired for gleaning was also reduced by43.33%.

Beetle population in left over berries

Berries left on coffee plants after the har-vest are found to harbour large numbers ofbeetles, which can then infest the new crop.

In order to quantify the beetle populationin the left over berries, a study was con-ducted on three estates on Pulney Hills,Tamil Nadu for two years. From each plot,100 left over berries each were collectedfrom five sites in May and the berries clas-sified, based on the number of beetlespresent in each berry. The percentage ofberries containing different ranges of beetlepopulations (e.g. zero, 1-5, 6-10) was workedout. Results are presented in Table A4-7.

The data show that beetles were present inall the berries except in one case in a plotduring the year 2000 in which beetles wereabsent in 1% of the berries examined. Thepopulation level of more than 10 beetles perberry was recorded from 72.00% and 89.67%of berries examined during 2000 and 2001respectively. The percentage of berries con-taining more than 50 beetles per berry was13% and 28.33% during the years 2000 and2001 respectively. It is evident from thisstudy that the left over berries harbour largenumbers of beetles, which could form themain source for carrying over the inoculumto the new crop. Hence, removal of theseberries is essential to reduce pest build up.

85

Effect of hot and cold water treatmentof infested berries on CBB

Hot water treatment

The studies were conducted at RCRS,Chundale during 1994. Infested fruits weredipped in boiling water for 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,2.5 and 3.0 minutes. There were six treat-ments and each treatment was replicatedthree times with 25 kg of fruit per replica-tion. Mortality was calculated after cuttingopen 500 treated fruits from each replica-tion. The data are presented in Table A4-8.The data revealed that dipping infestedfruits in boiling water for a period of 2.0

minutes was sufficient to kill all the stagesinside the berry.

Cold water treatment

An experiment was conducted to study theeffect of immersing infested berries in wa-ter for 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours. Each treat-ment was replicated four times with 5 kg offruit per replication. The percentage mor-tality was assessed after cutting open 250treated fruits per replication. The data arepresented in Table A4-9. The results indi-cated that 100% of adult and larvae werekilled in 48 hours of immersion in cold wa-ter.