Horticultural Oil

Horticultural Oil

Oil-based pesticides

Oil-based pesticides are an efficient and ecologically pleasant method to deal with many garden insect pests or even some diseases. The majority of pest regulate oils are some type of mineral oil, a refined petroleum product. There are a couple of vegetable oils which are additionally effective pesticides, equivalent to cottonseed oil and soybean oil. The oil is usually combined with some type of emulsifying agent so that it may be combined with water and used as a twig.

Dormant oil

Oils first become well-liked in an effort to control pest problems on fruit timber. Fruit bushes posed a singular drawback as a result of they had been so pest-prone and but you couldn’t simply spray with any insecticide, because it’s an suitable for eating product, and you couldn’t kill off all of the insects, since you wanted the good guys for pollination or there could be no crop. So an oil based insecticide used to be advanced to be used all over the dormant-season ahead of the flower buds began to open. This ‘dormant oil’ killed off over-wintering insects equivalent to aphids, mites and scale.

The first dormant oils were heavy and also you couldn’t safely use them on actively rising plants or it’s worthwhile to injury the foliage. Dormant oils had been further delicate to supply lighter-weight oils that can be carried out during the rising season, without harm to many plants. When the time period dormant oil is used now, it typically refers to the application timing, all the way through the dormant season, slightly than one of those oil.

Summer or All-Season oils

    Summer or All-Season oils are a lighter version of dormant oil which may be implemented to vegetation all the way through the rising season. You nonetheless want to use warning when making use of summer time oil. Oil treated plants will burn in the sizzling sun and lots of vegetation can’t handle oil at all. But summer time oil is now being mixed with further pesticides for even broader control with much less risk of plant damage.

    Superior oil

    So although there was once a undeniable difference between summer season and dormant oils, most products sold commercially are categorised normal goal horticultural oil. To confuse issues additional, the term “superior oil” was used to describe the enhanced, extra highly delicate oils which can be safer when carried out to leaves all the way through the rising season. All horticultural oils now bought are awesome oil. Application charges vary consistent with the season, however “horticultural oil” has turn into the average usage time period.

    How Horticultural Oils Work as Insect Control

    The primary means horticultural oil kills bugs is by way of suffocating them. The oil blocks the spiracles by which bugs breathe.

    Hort oils also disrupt the metabolism of insect eggs and the facility of some bugs to feed, inflicting them to starve to demise. Not a lovely image, however understand that bugs, like aphids, carry diseases from plant to plant by means of feeding.

    How Safe Is Horticultural Oil

    Horticultural oil is a labeled pesticide and will have to always be used consistent with the label’s directions. Good insects, in addition to unhealthy, will also be affected by spraying horticultural oil, so use only when absolutely essential.

    Hort oils need to be sprayed directly on the pests, to be efficient. The extra oil evaporates and dissipates quickly, so there is no poisonous residue and horticultural oil is regarded as safe to use round humans and pets.

    When to Apply Horticultural Oil

    If ‘dormant oil’ is recommended, practice just prior to both leaves or plants show indicators of swelling or breaking open. You don’t wish to observe too early even though, because the bugs need to be energetic and respiring, with a view to be affected.

    Summer programs are more straightforward to time. Horticultural oils are most efficient on younger, comfortable and slow-moving insects and no more so on mature insects. You will want to stay watch for when the bugs first appear.

    When Not to Use Horticultural Oil

    During Extremely High Temperature: Do not observe horticultural oil when temperatures are about 100 levels F. (38 degrees C.) Stressed crops, particularly drought-stressed vegetation are extra liable to hort oil harm.

    During Freezing Temperatures: Do no longer observe horticultural oil in freezing temperature because the emulsion doesn’t grasp together and protection is uneven.

    When Plants are Wet or During High Humidity: Applying horticultural oil in damp prerequisites decreases the velocity of evaporation and puts the foliage at risk of burning.

    During the Fall: For some reason why, spraying with horticultural oil within the fall puts vegetation at increased chance for wintry weather damage and dieback.

    Where Sulfur or Pesticides Containing Sulfur have Been Used within the Past 30 Days. Sulfur and hort oil blended is a toxic aggregate for crops.

    On Plants Known to be Sensitive to Horticultural Oil. You will normally find a just right record at the back label of the ​package deal.

    What Pests Are Controlled With Horticultural Oil?

    Adelgids, aphids, caterpillar eggs, leafhoppers, mealybug, mites, scale, spider mites, thrips, and whiteflies are the commonest targets of horticultural oil.

    Hort oil may be effective against powdery mould. The fashionable do-it-yourself baking soda recipe includes horticultural oil as an lively factor.

    And since hort oil is effective towards aphids, which unfold viruses by means of feeding on crops, hort oil may be something of a pandemic keep an eye on.

    Spinosad as Organic Pesticide

    Some microbes can be fermented to produce an insecticide such as abermectins, a fermented product of Streptomyces avermitilis (Dybas 1989) used in baits for household insect pests. The best known home gardening product of this type is spinosad. Metabolites of Saccharopolyspora spinosa, a soil-inhabiting bacteria that is fermented, are the basis for this new class of insecticide. The fermentation process has been industrialized to produce commercial insecticides.

    Spinosad can act on a susceptible insect’s stomach and nervous system.

    Spinosad. Spinosad is composed of spinosyns A and D. The fermented product is very toxic to caterpillar pests such as cabbageworm, cabbage looper, diamondback moth, armyworm, and cutworm, as well as fruit flies such as spotted wing drosophila. Spinosad can act on a susceptible insect’s stomach and nervous system.

    It is primarily ingested by feeding insects but can have some efficacy when sprayed directly on insects. Affected pests cease feeding and undergo partial paralysis within minutes upon exposure to spinosad, but it may take up to two days for the insects to die (Salgado et al. 1998).

    Spinosad is selectively toxic for many pest species and relatively safe to nontarget species, spinosad has become highly desirable as an organic insecticide

    Spinosad is systemic in some plants.  Depending on the fermentation process and formulation, some spinosad insecticides are considered organic. Spinosad has low toxicity to many beneficial insects that prey on pests, and is nontoxic to mammals and other vertebrates, with the exception of some fish (e.g., slightly toxic to trout). Spinosad is toxic to bees for three hours after application, so do not apply to blooming plants during the day.

      Because it is selectively toxic for many pest species and relatively safe to nontarget species, spinosad has become highly desirable as an organic insecticide. However, its popularity raises concerns about the development of pest resistance. Therefore, alternate the use of spinosad with other products.

      Use of Mineral for Pest Management in Organic Gardening

      Mineral

      Insecticides developed from elemental (mineral) sources mined from the  earth are classified as natural products and often cost  less than other processed or harvested insecticides. The toxicity of mineral-based insecticides depends on  the  chemical properties of the  mined ele- ments. Some  mineral insecticides such as sulfur are regis- tered for organic use and have relatively low toxic effects on  people and nontarget organisms. In contrast, lead arsenate is a natural mineral product that was cancelled as a pesticide in 1988  due  to its toxicity and persistence in the  environment.

      Diatomaceous Earth

      Diatomaceous earth is a fine particle  dust comprised of fossilized diatoms that is effective against slugs and soil-dwelling insects. Diatoms are small, usually single-celled phytoplankton commonly found in aquatic or moist environments. Diatoms are encased in- side a cell wall made of silica,  the  same  compound used  to make glass. Diatomaceous earth works  as a fine abrasive that disrupts the  exoskeleton cuticle of a slug or insect and causes  it to desiccate (dry out).

      Insecticides developed from elemental (mineral) sources mined from the  earth are classified as natural products and often cost  less than other processed or harvested insecticides.

      Use diatomaceous earth only in landscape areas  that do not contain edible plants (e.g., ornamental gardens) ;To create an effective barrier for slugs,  apply diatomaceous earth in a 3-inch wide,1-inch thick band around the  habitats that slugs use. Repeat applications after  periods of rain. Note, however, that diatomaceous earth can  also be toxic to beneficial insects such as predatory ground beetles and is highly toxic to bees if applied to blooms.

      Elemental Sulfur

      Elemental sulfur is a finely ground powder that can  be applied either as a dust or a spray. This mineral is one  of the  oldest pesticides known, and reported pest  resistance is rare.  Sulfur  acts as a metabolic disruptor (interferes with a chemical reaction, digestion, or the  transport of substances into or between cells) to in- sects such as aphids, thrips, and spider mites. Most  sulfur formulations have low toxicity to people but  can  be an eye and skin  irritant. Sulfur  is highly toxic to fish, so it is important to keep  it away  from water (ExToxNet n.d.).

      Do not use sulfur on  a crop  just  before harvest if you plan to preserve it; sulfur can  produce off-flavors in canned products, and sulfur dioxide can  form, which may  cause  containers to explode. In addition, sulfur is phytotoxic to most crops if applied two  weeks  before or after  the  application of a horticultural oil.

      Iron Phosphate

      Iron phosphate is very effective at managing slugs and snails when combined with bait. Baited  iron phosphate usually comes in pellet form. Scatter the  product around the  crop  in need of protection and areas  where slugs seek refuge, such as garden bed  borders and rocks.  Liquid formulations are also available. Follow  label  suggestions for subsequent applications.

      Insecticidal soaps  are very effec- tive  for managing soft-bodied insects like aphids, scales, whitefly, mealybugs, thrips, and spider mites.

      Slugs that feed on  iron phosphate will stop  eating, usu- ally seek a hiding place, and then die of starvation. Iron phosphate is considered relatively nontoxic and does not affect  insects, birds, or mammals when applied in the recommended amount. Avoid  over-application, as there is some evidence that iron phosphate baits  can negatively affect  earthworms (Edwards et al. 2009). Because  iron phosphate is nontoxic only in the  labeled ap- plication amounts, be sure  to store  it in a safe place  away from pets  and children. Most  brands of iron phosphate are approved for organic production by the  National Organic Program.

      Kaolin

      Kaolin is a fine  clay that is sprayed on  plant foliage or fruit  to deter feeding and egg laying of insect pests  such as apple maggot, codling moth, and leafhop- pers.  It can  also have some repellant properties that cause  irritation to insects upon contact (Stanley 1998).

      The effectiveness only lasts as long as the  clay film cov- ers the  fruit  or foliage to mask  its chemical, visual, and tactile cues.  Reapplication is necessary if rain  washes the  product off. Kaolin’s  toxicity to pests  is additionally dependent on  the  insect being on  the  fruit  or foliage during the  entire time of pest  susceptibility. You will need to monitor insect activity to be sure  that plants are protected during the  required times. Kaolin is an  organi- cally-approved material.

      Soap

      Natural soaps  are derived from plants (coconut, olive, palm, cotton) or animal fat (whale oil, fish oil, or lard) and have been used  since  the  1700s to control certain soft-bodied insects such as aphids (Olkowski et al. 1993). Soaps  are fatty acids  that can  degrade or dissolve the protective layers  of the  insect cuticle, causing the  insect to desiccate. Insecticidal soaps  are considered nontoxic to humans and many beneficial insects, but  selectively kill certain pest  insects. Some  soaps  are approved for use in organic agriculture.

      Insecticidal Soaps

      Insecticidal soaps  are very effec- tive  for managing soft-bodied insects like aphids, scales, whitefly, mealybugs, thrips, and spider mites. The soap must contact the  insect’s outer skeleton to be effective. Leaf-feeding insects are often found on  the  undersides of leaves, so be sure  to fully  cover  plant foliage. Results from the  application of soap  are usually seen  in 1–3 days. Multiple applications are often needed to be effective. Insecticidal soaps  are usually diluted with water before applying.

        Do not use household soaps  as insecticides. Household soaps  vary  tremendously in composition, purity, and effectiveness, and thus have the  potential to harm crops.

        For example, household soaps  can  be phytotoxic to some plants, resulting in leaf burn. Only use soaps  that are specifically registered and sold  for use as insecticides. Be sure  to read  the product label  for known phytotoxic effects  and always test  the  product on  a small portion of the  plant to see if leaf burn occurs. Leaf burn symptoms usually develop within two  days.

        Homemade Organic Pesticide for Vegetables

        Homemade Organic Pesticide for Vegetables

        Growing greens supplies contemporary produce for you and your family whilst providing you with complete control over what’s used within the care and maintenance of the vegetables. Pest regulate is essential in vegetable gardens to stay hungry insects from feasting at the vegetation. However, insecticides steadily comprise harsh toxins that can go away chemical residue on greens. Thankfully, homemade organic insecticides are the more secure selection and can be created from affordable pieces that most people have of their home.

        Oil Spray

        For those aggravating sap-sucking bugs — akin to aphids, thrips, spider mites and whiteflies — create a do-it-yourself oil spray the usage of 1 tablespoon of dish cleaning soap and 1 cup of cooking oil from a newly open bottle of oil. This concentrated liquid must be mixed with water sooner than use with a ratio of 4 teaspoons of oil combination to 1 pint of water. Until you are ready to use it, retailer the concentrated oil mixture in a glass jar in a depressing, dry and cool location. Apply a liberal mist of the do-it-yourself oil spray to the vegetables once each and every seven days to entirely regulate the pests.

        Baby Shampoo Spray

        Baby shampoo is delicate and incorporates few, if any, pointless chemical substances. It can be used in a sprig to help keep watch over common garden pests on each indoor and out of doors crops, including aphids, whiteflies, scale, thrips and spider mites. Make child shampoo pesticide spray through combining 2 tablespoons of baby shampoo with 1 gallon of water. Thoroughly spray the answer at the vegetable plants and allow it to stick on for a number of hours prior to gently rising it off with a water hose. Do now not use this spray in the solar or on vegetation with furry leaves or a wax-like coating, akin to squash.

        Garlic Spray

        The strong smell of garlic assists in keeping certain pests from feeding in your vegetables. For this organic pesticide, mix 10 to 12 garlic cloves with 1 quart of water in a blender. After blending, allow the mixture to set for 24 hours. Then pressure it via cheesecloth overlaying the outlet of a glass jar and upload 1 cup of cooking oil. This concentrated combination may also be saved for several weeks till able to make use of. For an much more powerful do-it-yourself pesticide, upload 1 tablespoon of cayenne pepper to the concentrated mixture and let it soak for any other 24 hours ahead of straining the liquid once again. When ready to make use of, dilute half of cup of the liquid with 1 gallon of water.

        Red Pepper Spray

        Known for its ability so as to add spice and flavor to recipes, crimson pepper powder may also be used to create a do-it-yourself pesticide this is safe to use in vegetable gardens. Combine 1 tablespoon of pink pepper powder, 6 drops of dish soap and 1 gallon of water and blend the components totally. Pour the pink pepper aggregate in a lawn sprayer and carefully cover the vegetables with the spray. If wanted, reapply the spray as soon as a week to keep garden pests comparable to leafhoppers, spittlebugs, beetles and loopers off the crops.

        Considerations

        Always check just a little of any organic spray mixture you make on a leaf earlier than spraying all of the plant to verify it doesn’t burn or damage the foliage. Do this step the day ahead of you plant to use the combination on your vegetable vegetation. It’s also best possible to spray your plant early within the morning earlier than the solar is hot or past due in the afternoon. Some produces, particularly those containing oils can burn vegetation if used right through the sunny and scorching portions of the day.

        Organic management of pest insects in stored wheat

        FOOD safety has always been the most strategic purpose of the countries, worldwide. Food security is a complementary module due to losses persevered by a number of biotic and abiotic components throughout production, handling and garage. The extent of such losses relies on post-harvest management machine and pest regulate measures.

        [woo_product_slider id=”64262″]

        Among destructive brokers, pest insects play a significant role in post-harvest system of perishable and semi-perishable agricultural products. Wheat is a staple meals of the folks and meals security-cum-safety plans include its manufacturing and coverage.

        Wheat manufacturing fluctuates round 20 million tons which is enough to accomplish our meals, feed, and seed requirements for few years. By 2010, our wheat requirement will be about 25.five million tons. Presently, any deficit in home production is compensated with imports.

        According to scientists, post-harvest wheat losses range from 2.5 to 15.three according to cent depending upon the dealing with and storage prerequisites as those are top in non-public sector because of the unawareness about pest control protocols and uncertain garage and advertising gadget.

        Presently, food grains are secure from pest insects by the usage of artificial insecticides and fumigants. In early 90’s, the Punjab Food Department controlled insect pests of stored-wheat with one pill of Aluminum Phosphide consistent with cubic meter volume which now is being carried out with three drugs for controlling the resistant lines of insects.

        a Large Amount Of foreign currency is spent on the import of insecticides which can be have shyed away from via utilising our domestic herbal resources. Moreover, Codex Alimentarius Commission of the WTO beneficial natural regulate of insect pests to make food merchandise consistent with the International Standards Organization. Keeping in view the demands, it was decided to orientate the analysis towards natural control of pest insects in saved wheat and decided on native botanicals.

        In the new previous, insecticidal properties including toxicity, feeding-repellence, floor protection and oviposition deterrence had been confirmed by means of other researchers in opposition to the insect pests of stored grains in laboratory studies. Accordingly, oils of those botanicals had been used in the natural control of pest-insects with the mixing of asepsis, disinfestations, and other packing fabrics below herbal prerequisites within the warehouses. This used to be achieved to increase an IPM protocol for protected storage system at farm level by means of replacing the artificial pesticides.

        Insect-free jute and cotton luggage made from the material of various densities (mesh sizes) had been sprayed-over with 4 other concentrations from each of the botanical oils and combinations in 3 sets for three garage classes (30, 60 and 90 days) every, with 3 replications.

        Infestation unfastened wheat of recent crop was packed in the luggage, handled with other concentrations of take a look at materials to evaluate their antixenosis and antibiosis. The experimental units were placed in ventilated warehouses of flourmills beneath beneficial conditions for the multiplication of stored product bugs.

        The concentrations appearing considerable efficacy have been attempted as mixtures to note their effects. Absolute knowledge, regarding mortality, penetration into the treated bags and insect inhabitants construct had been gathered at specified intervals. After finishing touch of the experiment, rheological exams were applied to the flour constructed from the treated and untreated wheat to note adjustments in dough-development and sensory analysis of chapatti.

        On the research of knowledge, other concentrations, storage periods and packing fabrics showed an important effect upon penetration of insects into the baggage and mortality of insects because of their frame touch with botanical oils. The stage of antixenosis and antibiosis confirmed a favorable correlation with the focus of the botanicals however adverse with the garage periods.

        Penetration into bags was once inversely proportional and bug mortality directly proportional to the density of packing fabrics. Mixture of 3 botanical oils with 10 in step with cent concentration of each and every gave effective regulate of the objective bugs for 2 months with a superb cotton material packing which diminished gradually in the 3rd month.

        Farinographic studies confirmed no important changes in dough development houses of the flour made out of the wheat saved in bags handled with the botanicals. Moreover, sensory evaluation proved that there used to be no distinguishable style or taint present in chapatti made out of the flour of the wheat packed in the handled luggage.

        Recommendations: Farmers can save grain, environment and capital through the usage of the oil of castor seeds, neem seeds and rhizomes of candy flag plant to control insect pests. Oils will have to be jumbled together equivalent percentage and sprayed over jute/cotton luggage for use for packing of wiped clean/insect free wheat.

        The mixture could also be sprayed with the help of a fine sprayer. New crop wheat will have to be unfold on steel sheets or cemented flooring in the sun as much as the temperatures at 55ºC for approximately 4 hours.

        These sun-heated wheat grains having moisture contents not more than 8 in line with cent may be packed in treated baggage to get a protected garage for 2 to 3 months best. If wheat is to be stored for more than 3 months then repeat the botanical software after each two months. Insect loose new crop wheat with new handled baggage and proper sealing may give better effects.

        Moreover, appropriate restore, cleansing and treatment of godowns/packing containers are also a supplement for the good fortune of the steered insect pests control measure.

        Ecofriendly management of thrips in capsicum under protected condition

        Abstract
        Over 35 species of insects and mites are reported as pests of capsicum among which thrips is the major pest infesting both under protected and open field conditions. The warm, humid conditions and abundant food under protected conditions provide an excellent, stable environment for pest development. Escalated public concern over extensive pesticide use and high pesticide residue levels in vegetables demanded the use of integrated pest management approaches in high pest attractive vegetable crops. In the backdrop of severity of thrips in capsicum in the recent past under protected conditions, studies were carried out during 2016 and 2017 on the management of capsicum thrips with promising insecticide molecules and solar light trap. The treatments with Solar light traps + insecticide molecules (Spinosad 45SC @ 0.1ml/l and Emamectin Benzoate 5%SG@0.25g/l) were found significantly superior over the treatments with insecticides alone. The combination of solar light traps and insecticides also resulted in significantly highest yield of capsicum, highest net returns and C:B ratio.
        Keywords: Capsicum, Thrips, Ecofriendly pest management, Solar light traps
        Authors: SunithaND andNarasamma
        Introduction
        Capsicum (Capsicum annuu L: family-Solanaceae), which is also known as sweet pepper, bell
        pepper or green pepper is one of the most popular and highly remunerative vegetable crops grown throughout the world. China, Spain, Mexico, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, USA, India, Europe and Central and South America are the major countries of capsicum production. (Roopa 2013) [1].
        In  India,  it  is  intensively cultivated  in  Karnataka,  Maharashtra,  Tamil  Nadu,  Himachal Pradesh and hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh. The fruits of capsicum have a variety of names depending on place and type. Common names include chilli pepper, capsicum, red and green pepper, or sweet pepper in Britain, and typically just capsicum in Australia. The colour of the bell peppers can be green, red, yellow, orange, and more rarely white, purple, blue, brown and black, depending on time of harvest and the type of cultivar. It is broadly classified into sweet and hot pepper based on the level of pungency. It is a cool season tropical crop and lacks adaptability to varied environmental conditions. It is produced in India for consumption as vegetable and also for export. It differs from hot chilli in size, fruitshape, capsicin content and usage. Nutritionally, it is rich in vitamins particularly, vitamins A and C. Hundred gram of edible portion of capsicum provides 24 k cal of energy, 1.3 g of protein, 4.3 g of carbohydrate and 0.3 g of fat (Kaur and Singh 2013) [2].
        Capsicum cultivation under  protected condition is  gaining popularity especially coloured hybrids in peri-urban production system because of easy access to urban markets. The warm, humid conditions and abundant food under protected conditions provide an excellent, stable environment for pest development. Often, the natural enemies that keep pests under control outside are not present under protected environment. For these reasons, pest situations often develop in the indoor environment more rapidly and with greater severity than outdoors.
        Over 35 species of insect and mite pests are reported as pests of pepper (Sorensen, 2005) [3], According to the reports by Ananthakrishnan (1971) [4], Krishna Kumar (1995) [5], Krishna Kumar et al. (1996) [6], Vasicek et al. (2001) [7], and Eswara Reddy and Krishna Kumar (2006) [8], the thrips Scirtothrips dorsalis is a serious pest of chilli and sweet pepperin India. Similarly
        Eswara Reddy (2005) [9], reported that thrips, S. dorsalis is the major pest infesting sweet
        pepper both under protected and open field conditions. Sunitha (2007) [10], has also revealed the occurrence of aphids, thrips and mites as major pests in capsicum.
        According  to  Sanap  and  Nawale  (1987)  [11],  adults  and nymphs of S. dorsalis suck the cell sap of leaves, causing rolling of the leaf upward and leaf size reduction. Thrips feed on new leaves and developing flowers, causing misshapen, twisted and cupped pepper leaves feeding by larvae causes scarring and discoloration in developing fruit. (http://www.seminis-us.com/resources/disease-guides/pepper- eggplant/thrips-2/)[12]
        Over   use   of   synthetic   organic   insecticides   results   in destruction of natural enemies, pest resurgence and failure of control strategies and simultaneous development of resistance against insecticides. Escalated public concern over extensive pesticide use and high pesticide residue levels in vegetables demanded the use of integrated pest management approaches in high pest attractive vegetable crops. In the backdrop of severity of thrips in capsicum in the recent past under protected conditions studies were carried out during 2016 and 2017 on the management of capsicum thrips with eco friendly pest management strategies
        Materials and methods
        The studies on the management of thrips in capsicum were
        conducted during 2016 and 2017 in Vijayapura district under protected conditions (shade net)(Fig 1).  The variety under study  was  Indra.The  experiment  was  conducted  in randomized block design with an area of 0.25acre/treatment. First spray of insecticides was given at 45 days after transplanting  when  the  thrips  population  was  sufficient enough to impose the treatments. Second spray was given at
        15 days interval after the first spray. Solar light traps were installed at the centre of the experimental area on the day of application of insecticides.(Fig 2) Observations on the number of thrips on two leaves each selected from top, middle and bottom  portions  of  a  plant  was  counted  separately.  The average population per six leaves was calculated and recorded one day prior to the implementation of treatments and at 3, 7 and 10 days after treatment. Percent reduction in the thrips population was calculated using formula by Henderson and Tilton (1955)[13]
        agrinfobank.com.pk
        Where,
        Ta= Number of insect after treatment in treated plot Tb= Number of insect before treatment in treated plot Ca= Number of insect in untreated check after treatment
        Cb= Number of insect in untreated check before treatment
        The analysis of variance was computed after subjecting the data in to angular transformation. Yield of capsicum fruits was recorded at each picking and finally yield/acre was worked out. C:B ratio was worked out by considering annual management expenditures incurred  in  management of  one acre area of capsicum field under protected condition other than insecticides, cost of insecticides, cost of solar light trap and market selling price of capsicum fruits.
        Results and Discussion
        Effect of various treatments on thrips in capsicum under net house is presented in table (1). Data represents pooled values of first and second spray given during each trial.
        Trial 1(2016)
        Significant  difference  was  not  found  between  the  various treatments at 1 day before treatment. At 2 days after treatment the treatments consisting of Solar light trap + Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1 ml / lit and Solar light trap + Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @0.25gm/ lit were found significantly superior and on par by recording 80.18 and 80.75% reduction in thrips respectively. The treatment Spinosad 45 SC 0.1 ml/lit and Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm/lit were found next best treatments and on par by recording 72.30 and 71.00% reduction in thrips population respectively. Solar light trap alone   was   found   significantly  superior  over   UTC   and recorded 62.5% reduction in thrips population. Same trend was observed at 5  days after treatment and 10 days after treatment
        Trial 2(2017)
        At 1 day before treatment no significant difference was found among various treatments in thrips population. At 2 days after treatment thrips population recorded showed significant difference between the  various treatments. Solar light trap combined with Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1 ml/lit and Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm/lit were found significantly superior over other treatments and recorded 77.15 and 76.00 percent reduction in thrips population respectively. Spinosad @ 0.1ml/lit alone recorded 64.45% reduction and was found on par with Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25 gm/lit which recorded 67.15% reduction in thrips population.The trend was similar at 5 days after treatment also.The treatment in which Solar light trap were combined with insecticides were found significantly superior over Solar trap alone and insecticides without solar trap. At 10 days after treatment the treatment with solar trap + Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml/ lit and Solar trap + Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm /lit recorded 98.10 and  96.85% reduction in  pest  population respectively and were   at   par   and   significantly   superior   over   all   other treatments. Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml/lit and Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm /lit recorded 82.55 and 79.35 % reduction in thrips population respectively and were found at par with solar trap alone. (72.25%). Untreated check recorded 0.95% reduction in thrips population.
        Yield of Capsicum
        The pooled data of 2 years trial on yield of grapes as affected
        by various treatments is presented in table 2.Significant difference was recorded between all the treatments. Significantly highest yield of 29011.25 kg /acre was recorded in treatment solar trap+ Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml /lit Solar light trap + Emamectin Benzoate 5%SG @ 0.25 gm/lit recorded 28358.75kg/acre. The next best treatment only Emamectin Benzoate 5%SG @ 0.25 gm/lit (24525.13kg/ha) which was found significantly superior to Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml /l(22911.68kg/ha).Solar light trap was found significantly      superior      over      UTC      and      recorded 18689.25kg/acre. UTC recorded significantly lowest yield of 10685.25kg/ha.
        Cost benefit ratio
        The  data  on  C:B  ratio  obtained  in  the  present  study  is presented in Table3. Cost effectiveness of each treatment was analyzed based on net returns. Among the different treatments Solar light trap+ Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml/lit  registered the maximum net return (Rs 670681.25). This was followed by Solar light  trap+ Emamectin Benzoate 45%SG@0.25gm/lit(Rs  654158.75),  Emamectin  Benzoate. 5%SG                @0.25gm/lit(562318.25), Spinosad 5SC@0.1ml/lit(522202.00).Solar light trap alone registered net returns of Rs 413231.25 which is twice as that of UTC(Rs 217131.25).  C:B  ratio  was  highest  in  Solar  light  trap+Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml/lit(12.28).This was followed by Solar  light    trap+    Emamectin    Benzoate    @0.25gm/lit(11.93), EmamectinBenzoate5%SG @ 0.25gm/lit(11.06),Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml(10.32). Solar light trap alone registered C:B ratio of Rs 7.65 which is followed by UTC(4.34).

         

        Table1:Efficacyofvarious treatments onthrips in Capsicumunder nethouse

         

         

         

        Trial1

        Trial2

         

         

        Treatments

        No ofthrips

        /6leaves

        Percentreduction inthrips population(I andIISpraypooled)

        No ofthrips

        /6leaves

        Percentreductioninthrips population(I andII Spraypooled)

         

         

        1DBT

        2DAT

        5DAT

        10DAT

        1DBT

        2DAT

        5DAT

        10DAT

        1

        Solar lighttrap

        46.00

        62.5

        (52.24)

        65.38

        (53.91)

        66.50

        (54.63)

        36.00

        61.00

        (51.35)

        66.50

        (54.63)

        72.25

        (58.18)

         

        2

        Solar lighttrap+

        Spinosad

        45SC(0.1ml/lit)

         

        46.00

        80.18 (63.51)

        83.13 (65.73)

        93.50 (75.23)

         

        39.00

        77.15 (61.41)

        87.60 (69.38)

        98.10 (82.08)

         

         

        3

        Solar light

        trap+Emamectin

        Benzoate

        5%SG(0.25gm/lit

         

         

        44.00

         

        80.75 (63.94)

         

        81.25 (64.30)

         

        93.43 (75.11)

         

         

        34.00

         

        76.00 (60.67)

         

        88.75 (70.45)

         

        96.85 (79.86)

         

        4

        Spinosad

        45SC(0.1ml/lit)

        45.00

        72.30

        (58.24)

        73.50

        (59.02)

        78.70

        (62.50)

         

        36.00

        64.45

        (53.43)

        77.75

        (61.82)

        82.55

        (65.27)

        5

        EmamectinBenzoate

        5%SG(0.25gm/lit

        45.00

        71.00

        (57.42)

        71.38

        (57.00)

        79.85

        (63.29)

        38.00

        67.15

        (55.06)

        77.53

        (61.68)

        79.35

        (62.94)

        6

        UTC

        42.00

        0.10

        (1.81)

        0.10

        (1.81)

        1.05

        (5.74)

        39.00

        0.10

        (1.81)

        0.95

        (5.44)

        0.95

        (5.44)

         

        CD (0.05%)

        NS

        6.49

        6.86

        10.38

        NS

        5.09

        8.93

        10.02

         

        Sem±

         

        2.16

        2.28

        3.46

         

        1.69

        2.97

        3.34

        Figuresintheparenthesesarearc sinetransformedvalues

         

        Table 2:YieldofCapsicumundervarious treatments undernethouse

         

        Sl.No.

        Treatments

        Yield(kg/Acre)Trial1

        Yield(kg/Acre)Trial2

        Yield(kg/Acre)Pooled

        1

        Solar lighttrap

        18839.00e

        18539.50e

        18689.25

        2

        Solar lighttrap+Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

        29100.00a

        28922.50a

        29011.25

         

        3

        Solar lighttrap+EmamectinBenzoate

        45%SG(0.25gm/lit

         

        26781.25b

         

        27936.25

         

        28358.75

        4

        Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

        22974.18d

        22849.18d

        22911.68

        5

        EmamectinBenzoate 5%SG(0.25gm/lit)

        24587.63c

        24462.63c

        24525.13

        6

        UTC

        10760.25f

        10610.25f

        10685.25

         

        CD (0.05%)

        890.39

        987.79

        991.30

         

        Sem±

        296.99

        329.48

        334.70

         

        Table 3:Returns andC:Bratio undervarioustreatments ofcapsicumthrips management.

         

        Sl.No.

        Treatments

        Gross returns(Rs/acre)

        Netreturns(Rs/acre)

        C:Bratio

        1

        Solar lighttrap

        467231.25

        413231.25

        7.65

        2

        Solar lighttrap+Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

        725281.25

        670681.25

        12.28

        3

        Solar lighttrap+EmamectinBenzoate 45%SG(0.25gm/lit)

        708968.75

        654158.75

        11.93

        4

        Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

        572792.00

        522202.00

        10.32

        5

        EmamectinBenzoate 5%SG(0.25gm/lit)

        613128.25

        562318.25

        11.06

        6

        UTC

        267131.25

        217131.25

        4.34

        The efficacy of insecticides studied in the present experiment is reported by many authors in green chilli and capsicum and the present results are in agreement with the reports by Roopa (2013) [1]  who reported that lowest populations, highest per cent reduction of S. dorsalis was recorded with the treatment Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.01% in capsicum and it also resulted in maximum fruit yield (30,050 kg/ha) followed by Fipronil (27750 kg/ha), Imidacloprid (27150 kg/ha) and Emamectin benzoate (27000 kg/ha). Similarly Vanisree et al. (2017) [14] reported that Spinosad 0.015% was found most effective in reducing the population of S.dorsalis as well as in increasing yields in chilli and it attains highest cost benefit ratio.
        The reports on use of solar light traps under protected conditions are scanty and discussion is made in comparison with available reports on solar light traps.
        The results of present study on the use of solar light traps are in agreement with reports of Reddy et al. (2015) [15]  who reported   that   the   pest   control   with   LED   lights   could effectively reduce the dosage of pesticides as well as their pollution on the agricultural products, soil and water. The solar LED light is easy to use and can be applied to various crops. During the day, energy from the solar panels will be stored in the storage batteries at night, the electrical energy from the battery could drive circuit of LED light to control pests. Similarly Sunitha and Rajasekhar (2015) [16] studied the effect of solar light trap in capsicum under net condition and reported that on an average number of insects trapped ranged between 600-700 /night which included whiteflies, thrips, hoppers, termites, cutworms and fruit borers and number of insecticides   are   reduced   from   3   to   1/week   and   by
        70.00%.Along with reduction in number of sprays, it also resulted in the conservation of many natural enemies. Prabhu (2016)  [17]  reported that solar  powered insect trap  captures many sucking pests thereby reducing the dependence on biopesticdes usage to the tune of 50%. It is perhaps the most environment friendly practice as the source of light for trapping insects is sun and device operates automatically turning on the light during dusk (6.00-7.00pm) and turns it off after five hours using a micro controller chip.
        Though insecticides are found be the most promising tools of insect pest management, there is a need to integrate other safe methods of pest management to overcome the ill effects of insecticides. Insect light traps are the most widely used visual traps for the agricultural insect pests, and have been particularly important in surveillance and monitoring of the seasonal appearance of many species. Reducing and controlling the pest population using light traps is an age old practice in crop sector. Solar light traps can be used alone or integrated with other tools of IPM especially under protected conditions. The  result  of  present experiments conclusively revealed that Solar light trap+ Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml/lit and Solar  light  trap+  Emamectin  Benzoate@0.25gm/lit can  be effectively used  in  the  management of thrips in  capsicum under protected conditions.
        Conclusion
        The adoption of IPM is practically low because the method is tedious, time consuming, requires new skills. The failure and complexities  of  practical  IPM  systems,  particularly monitoring and determination of crop loss and economic thresholds by  small  and  marginal  farmers  discourages the adoption of the IPM approach and again encourage over reliance on the use of pesticides. In this regard solar traps can be a boon for farming community. Solar trap catches all types of insects like flying adults and  young ones belonging to various taxa of insects which cause various types of damages to crop plants. This trap is solar chargeable, with automatic timer device turn on by sunset and turn off after few hours continuous  operation.  It   is   portable  across  the   various cropping areas including shade houses and other protected cultivation areas without any changes with no major mounting or installation efforts required and easy to operate. Also no electricity and manpower required to operate once installed in the field. Though initial investment appear to be heavy for some models, in long run it is economical, helps to reduce the number of pesticide sprays and thereby cost of production. Above all it is ecofriendly. Hence they can be incorporated in IPM practices.
        Acknowledgement
        The author is thankful to Deputy Director of Agriculture 1,
        State Department of Agriculture, Vijayapura-586101, Karnataka for extending the help during the study period.
        References
        1.    Roopa   M.   Pest   complex,   screening   of   cultivars andevaluation of new insecticide molecules against major insect pests of capsicum sp. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru (India),
        2013.
        2.Sandeep   Kaur,   Subash   Singh,   Efficacy   of   some insecticides and botanicals against sucking pests on capsicum under net house. Agriculture for Sustainable Development, 2013; 1:39-44.
        3.Sorensen   KA.   Vegetable   insect   pest   management. www.ces.ncsu.edu/deptes./ent/notes/vegetables/veg37.ht m1-11k, 2005.
        4.Ananthakrishnan     TN.     Thrips     (Thysanoptera)     in agriculture, horticulture, forestry -Diagnosis, bionomics and control. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 1971; 30:113-146.
        5.Krishna Kumar NK. Yield loss in chilli and sweet pepper due to Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Pest Management in Horticulture Ecosystem. 1995; 1:61-69.
        6.Krishna Kumar NK, AradhyaM, Deshpande AA, Anand N,  Ramachandar  PR.  Screening  of  chilli  and  sweet pepper germplasm for resistance to chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood. Euphytica. 1996; 89:319-324.
        7.Vasicek A, Rossa, F-De-La, Paglioni A. Biological and populational aspects of Aulacorthum solani (Kalt), Myzus persicae (Sulz) and Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) on pepper under laboratory conditions.  Boletin  de  Sanidal  Vegetal  Plagas,  2001; 27:439-446.
        8.Eswara  Reddy SG,  Krishna  Kumar.  A  comparison of management  of  thrips  Scirtothrips  dorsalis  Hood  on sweet pepper grown under protected and open field cultivation. Pest Management in Horticulture Ecosystem. 2006; 12:45-54.
        9.Eswara Reddy SG. Comparison of pest incidence and management strategy on capsicum and tomato grown under protected and open field cultivation. Ph D Thesis University of Agricultural Sciences. Bangalore (India), 2005.
        10. Sunitha TR. Insect pests of Capsicum annum var. frutescence (L.) and their management. M. Sc(Agri) Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (India), 2005.
        11.  Sanap  MM,  Nawale  RN.  Chemical  control  of  chilli thrips,  Scirtothrips  dorsalis.  Vegetable  Science.  1987; 14:195-99.
        12.  Quickresolvingtablets. http://www.seminis-us.com/resour ces/disease-guides/pepper-eggplant/thrips-2
        13.  Henderson CF, Tilton EW. Tests with acaricides against brown  wheat  mite.  Journal  of  Economic Entomology. 1955; 48(2):157-161.
        14.  Vanisree  K,  Upendhar  S,  Rajasekhar P,  Ramachandra Rao G. Effect of newer insecticides against chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis (Hood). Journal of Entomology and Zoology studies. 2017; 5(2):277-284
        15.  Harsha  Vardhan  Reddy  L,  Ashok  Kumar  Reddy  V. Hemanth  S,  Durga  Prasad  PJ.  Modelling  and Optimization of Solar Light Trap for Reducing and Controlling the Pest Population. International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences. 2015; 3(4):224-234
        16.  Sunitha  ND,   Rajasekhar  DW.   Solar   light   traps   in capsicum reduce the pesticide sprays. Book of Abstracts. 2nd International conference on environment and ecology. Bharathiyar  Univeristy,  Coimbatore.  TN.  India,  2016; 230.
        17.  Prabhu MJ. Easy to carry effective solar powered insect trapper. The Hindu, 2016.

         

        Impact of botanical pesticides against sucking insect pests and their insect predators in brinjal crop

        Abstract
        Sucking pests of brinjal cause significant losses to its yield. Considering the negative impacts of synthetic
        pesticides, field studies were conducted to evaluate the impact of neem Azadirachta indica, tobacco Nicotina tabbacium, trooh Citrullus collocynthus, Movanto (Spirotetramat) against sucking insect pests of brinjal and their predators during 2016-2017. Two sprays were done during the study. Observations were taken for population reduction of insect pests due to the application of pesticides using Abbot’s formula. All the botanical pesticides especially neem showed potential to cause population reduction of aphids, whitefly, jassid and thrips. Trooh also showed significant mortality of aphid and thrips, whereas tobacco caused more mortality of whitefly and jassid. Comparatively neem showed less persistency in comparison to trooh and tobacco as mostly pest populations started rebuilding after 72 hours of its application. In comparison to Movanto, botanical pesticides particularly trooh were less toxic against the coccinellid predators i.e., C. septempunctata, B. suturalis and M. sexmaculatus recorded in the study.
        Keywords: sucking pests, predators, brinjal, botanical pesticides
        Authors: SaifullahKunbhar,LubnaBashirRajput,ArfanAhmedGilal,Ghulam Akber Channa and Jam GhulamMustafa Sahito
        Introduction
        Brinjal  (Solanum  melongena  L.)  is  one  of  the  commonly  consumed  vegetable  in  many countries of the world, especially in Asia [1]. It belongs to Solanaceae family and is the native of India and Pakistan [2]. It is grown on a fairly-wide scale in China, Japan India and Pakistan during all seasons [3]. The brinjal fruit is a rich source of iron, phosphorous, calcium and vitamins like A, B and C. Normally, its fruit is consumed as vegetable, however, it is also used in the manufacturing of pickles and other by products [4]. Brinjal is cultivated round the year due to the availability of water, therefore, it is very susceptible to be damaged by many pests including insects throughout its growth period [5]. Among the major insect pests infesting brinjal are shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis), whitefly (Bemesia tabaci), leafhopper (Amrasca biguttula biguttula), aphid (Aphis gossypii), thrips (Thrips tabaci) and non-insect pest i.e., red spider mite, (Tetranychus macfurlanei) [6]. Sucking pests of brinjal cause significant losses to crop directly by sucking the cell sap using their piercing and sucking mouth parts and indirectly by transmitting viral diseases or developing sooty mould on their honey dews [7]. Some sucking pests are cosmopolitan, polyphagous and widely distributed in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions and are also serving as vectors for a number of viral diseases in diversified plant species [8]. As a result of pest attack, considerable damage has been recorded to the yield and quality of the brinjal crop on regular basis [9, 10].
        Among predators observed on sucking pests of brinjal, the lady bird beetles hold the key importance. The adults and larvae of ladybird beetles attack aphids, whiteflies, psyllids, scales and many other soft bodied insects and found to be effective predators in brinjal fields. The green lacewings and hemipteran bugs also perform significant contribution in lowering the sucking pest population by predating various life stages of these pests [11].
        Mostly, insect pests are controlled by synthetic insecticides for their quick knock down effect [12].  However,  careless  and  indiscriminate  use  of  these  chemicals  leads  to  a  number  of problems like contamination of food, soil, ground water, lakes, rivers, oceans, and air with toxic residues which carry side effects on non-target insects and other organisms. Moreover, injudicious use of pesticides may also develop resistance among pests against these pesticides and thus, pest resurgence occurs frequently in recent years [13]. In addition, many non-lethal and lethal accidents occur among human beings due to mishandling of highly toxic synthetic products. Because of these hazards of the pesticides, there is a growing awareness among the people, not only in developed but in developing countries for the safe use of synthetic pesticides [14]. Biopesticides or biological pesticides based on plants or pathogenic microorganisms  and specific to the target pest, offer an ecologically sound and effective solution to pest problems [15]. Moreover, use of these pesticides is safe to the humans and their environment [16]. Accordingly, the use of bio and botanical pesticides offer potential benefits to agriculture and public health programmes are considerable [17]. Therefore, in recent years, focused has been shifted towards the use of potential  botanical  plants  to  manage  the  pest  populations below the threshold levels. Neem, tobacco, eucalyptus, castor, hing and dhatura are some of the widely tested plant materials against insect pests [18]. However, evaluation of botanical pesticides on the population and effectiveness of insect predators has yet not been exhaustively studied, especially in Sindh province. Moreover, the utilization of natural enemies effectively as the basis of an IPM program, it is crucial to put in place strategies and techniques that can establish and concentrate the predators in crop system followed by integration of natural enemies with other control tools that are least disruptive to the natural enemy activity [19]. Therefore, the  research  was  conducted  to  evaluate  the  impact  of botanical pesticides against insect pests of and their associated predators in brinjal crop under field conditions with the following objectives.
        Materials and Methods
        Study location
        The study was conducted at the Experimental Field, Entomology    Section,     Agriculture    Research     Institute,
        Tandojam, Sindh during the cropping season of 2016-2017.
        Cultivation of Brinjal
        The brinjal variety (Janak) was obtained from Horticulture
        Institute, Agriculture Research Institute, Mirpur Khas and transplantation   in   the   field   was   carried   out   @   the recommended rate (120 grams / acre). All the agronomic practices were done as recommended.
        Treatments
        Following treatments were used in the experiment at their prescribed recommended rate as given against each pesticide:
        T1 = Neem (Azadirachta indica A.Juss.) @ 4 kg/acre
        T2 = Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L) @ 3 kg/acre T3 = Trooh (Citrullus colocynthus L) @ 4 kg/acre T4 = Movento 240 SP (Spirotetramat 240 g/L)
        T5 = Control
        Preparation of Botanical Extracts
        One kg seeds of Neem, 500 kg leaves of tobacco and 1kg fruit
        of trooh were collected and processed to get plant extracts. Each plant material was kept in water i.e., the neem seeds in 2 liters of water, tobacco leaves in 4 liter of water and trooh in 2 liter of water and were left for an overnight. On the next day, the prepared stock solutions were filtered through the muslin cloth  to get  the  desired  plant  extracts. The  different plant extracts thus, obtained were stored in glass bottles till their application  in the field. The different plant extracts and a pesticide  were  applied  using  a  hand  operated  knapsack sprayer at the following rates:
        Neem @ 4 kg / acre (88 ml/plot)
        Tobacco @ 3kg / acre (196 ml/plot) Trooh @ 4 kg/acre (222 ml/plot) Movento 240% SC @ 0.5 ml/plot
        During the study, two sprays were carried out keeping in view the threshold levels of various sucking pests in brinjal.
        Experimental Design
        The experiment was conducted in a Randomized Complete
        Block Design (RCBD). Each treatment used in the study was replicated five times. Size of each replicated unit was 402 sq.
        ft., resulting in the total experimental area size of 10,057sq/ft.
        Data collection and analysis
        Five plants were randomly selected from each replication for
        the observations. The data for insect pests of brinjal was collected by direct observation from five leaves of each selected plant (two leaves from top and middle, whereas one leaf from bottom of plant). The entire plant was looked into to observe the population of insect predators of insect pests. Pre- observation was taken just before the application of individual treatments. The subsequent observations were recorded after
        24, 48, 72 and 96 hour and finally at the end of one week after pesticide   application.   Data   for   second   spray   was   also collected as mentioned above. The collected data was checked for normality and was square root transformed to normalize the data before statistical analysis, where necessary. Analysis of Variance using SAS 9.4 computer software was used to analyze the data whereas means with significant difference was separated using Least Square Difference (LSD) at 0.5 probability level. Moreover, percentage reduction in pest population after the application of individual pesticide was collected by using Abbots (1925) formula as given below:

        Where Pt = Corrected population, Po = Observed population, Pc = Control population.
        Results & Discussion
        During   the   study,   among   sucking   pests,   population   of whitefly, jassids and aphids were recorded during the both
        spray schedules, whereas, thrips population was only recorded during  the  time  of  1st   application  of  botanical  pesticides.
        Among predators, during pre-observations, population of coccinellid   (0.04±0.04   predators   /   plant)   and   spiders
        (0.08±0.04 spiders / plant) were recorded. However, during
        the 2nd spray, population of various coccinellid were recorded and  affected  due  to  the  application  of  various  botanical
        pesticides.
        The results regarding the percent reduction of whiteflies due to the application of botanical pesticides indicated at 24 and
        48 hours intervals, no significant reduction was recorded due to the application of botanicals. However, afterwards significant  reduction  was  recorded  in  whitefly  population
        especially due to the application of Neem (59.05%) at 72
        hours after application that reached to 62.42% at 96 hours. After Neem, Movanto application cause the population reduction percentage of 26.14% at 72 hours of application, but the population started rebuilding afterwards in the treatment. After 72 hours, percentage population reduction in Tobacco and Trooh treatments were 22.79% and 15.44%, respectively that increased in tobacco to 35.90% at 96 hours intervals, whereas, showed a declining trend in trooh (Fig. 1). The percentage population reduction of whiteflies due to the
        application of various pesticides indicated that up to 24 hours, no significant reduction in population was recorded in any of the treatment. However, at 48 hours of application, the highest reduction percentage in population of whiteflies was recorded with  the  application  of  Movanto  240  SC  (69.86%)  that reached upto 80.62% at 96 hours of application. The highest reduction   percentage   in   Neem   (61.90%)   and   Tobacco (68.25%) was recorded at 72 hours after their application, whereas,   Trooh   treatment   showed   66.21%   population reduction of whiteflies after 96 hours of application (Fig. 2).
        Fig 1: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 1: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 2: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field condition
        Fig 2: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field condition
        Fig. 3 gives the percentage population reduction of jassids after 1st  spray. The results indicated that the application of Neem showed the highest population reduction percentage (77.62%) after 48 hours of application but the same declined afterwards and reached to 66.80% after seven days of the application. Application of Movanto exhibited 58.50% population reduction after 48 hours that reached to 59.06% at
        72   hours   of   application   but   showed   declining   trend afterwards.  Among  the  botanicals,  Tobacco  showed  the lowest population reduction percentage 59.43% after 72 hours
        of application that further reduced to 43.66% after 7 days. The corrected  percentage  population  reduction  results  after  2nd
        spray indicated that all the applied chemicals started reducing the population after 24 of exposure. The highest reduction percentage after 48 hours was observed in Movanto treatment (54.69%) that peaked (61.85%) at 72 hours of exposure. Among the botanical pesticides used, application of neem reduced up to 56.09% of jassids population after seven days, Tobacco (54.94%) after 72 hours and trooh (54.00%) after seven days of application (Fig. 4).
        Fig 3: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 3: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 4: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 4: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        The percentage population reduction results indicate that in comparison to movanto, various botanical pesticides showed greater efficiency against the aphids as the highest reduction percentage   of   aphids   was   recorded   in   neem   treatment (60.84%) after 48 hours of application followed by tobacco (54.56%) and trooh (51.82%) after 72 hours after application. Movanto reduced the population upto 48.42% after 72 hours of application. However, efficacy of various pesticides started reducing after 72 hours of application against aphids (Fig. 5). Fig. 6 shows the percentage population reduction of aphids after second spray. The results indicated that the highest reduction percentage of aphid population was recorded with the application of movanto (75.29% after 96 hours) followed by neem (71.56% after 48 hours), trooh (65.87% after 96 hours) and tobacco (61.81% after 96 hours), respectively.
        Fig 5: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 1st spray application of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 5: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 1st spray application of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
         Fig 6: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 6: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Efficiency of various botanical pesticides in the percentage population reduction of thrips at various intervals is given in Fig. 7. The results indicated that maximum population reduction of thrips (88.46%) was recorded in Movanto and tobacco treatments after seven days, followed by trooh (84.62% after seven days) and neem (80.00% after 48 hours).
        Fig 7: Corrected percentage reduction in population of T. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Fig 7: Corrected percentage reduction in population of T. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
        Populations of whiteflies, jassids and aphids were observed throughout the study period, whereas thrip population was recorded only at the time of first spray. Although a minimal population of coccinellid predators was recorded during the
        1st  spray; however, a significant population was recorded at the time of second spray, especially in the botanical pesticide treatments. Finding of the study indicated that among all the
        pests observed, Neem extracts showed significant reduction in
        the population of various pests observed and was either higher or in accordance with the synthetic pesticides used i.e., Movanto. Other botanicals, especially trooh also showed a considerable impact against the population of sucking pests especially thrips and aphids. Many previous studies confirmed the significant role of botanical pesticides in the population reduction of sucking insect pests of various crops. Among the botanicals  used  against  the  sucking  insect  pests,  neem, tobacco, garlic, trooh and others were found to be effective but, less persistence than the synthetic pesticides used [20, 21, 22,
        23, 24, 25]. It was also observed in the study that application of botanicals especially trooh were less determinant against the natural   enemies   i.e.,   coccinellid   predators.   Moreover,
        although the application of Movanto significantly reduced the
        population of sucking pests but it was also more dangerous and reduced the population of coccinellid predators. Experiments has showed that synthetic pesticides insecticides have  showed  comparatively  higher  toxicity  against  insect
        sucking pests of cotton and brinjal, however, botanical pesticides   were   not   found   less   hazardous   against   the predators, but also enhanced their population in some incidences [6, 26].
        Conclusions
        All the botanical pesticides showed potential in the management of sucking insect pests of brinjal. Neem showed
        comparatively more effectiveness against the sucking pests
        followed by Tobacco and Trooh. Trooh showed more effectiveness in population reduction of aphids and thrips than whiteflies and jassids. All the botanicals were found less persistant especially Neem, followed by Tobacco and Trooh. Although, a minimum population of coccinellid was recorded at the time of first spray, their population showed a rising trend during second spray. All the botanicals showed less toxicity against the predators observed, with the highest population of predators recorded in Trooh treatment, followed by Neem and Tobacco. Movanto showed the highest toxicity against the predators.
        References
        1.    Harish  DK,  Agasimani  AK,  Imamsaheb  SJ,  Patil  S.
        Growth and yield parameters in brinjal as influenced by organic nutrient management and plant protection conditions.  Research  Journal  of  Agricultural  Sciences.
        2011; 2(2):221-225.
        2.    Lohar  MK.  Applied  Entomology,  2nd   Edition.  Kashif
        Publications Hyderabad Sindh. 2001, 31-34.
        3.Hanson PM, Yang RY, Tsou SCS, Ledesma D, Engle L, Lee TC. Diversity in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) for superoxide scavenging activity, total phenolics and ascorbic acid. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis.
        2006; 19:594-600.
        4.Singh S, Krishnakumar S, Katyal SL. Fruit culture in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. 1963, 412.
        5.Regupathy    A,    Palanisamy    S,    Chandramohan    N, Gunathilagaraj K. A guide on crop pests. Sooriya Desk Top Publishers, Coimbatore. 1997, 264.
        6.Dutta  NK,  Alam  SN,  Mahmudunnabi  M,  Amin  MR, Kwon YJ. Effect of insecticides on population reduction of  sucking  insects  and  lady  bird  beetle  in  eggplant field. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. 2017;
        42(1):35-42.
        7.Srinivasan R. Insect and mite pests on eggplant: a field guide for identification and management. AVRDC-The
        World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. 2009, 10-13.
        8.    Satar  S,  Kersting  U,  Uygun,  N.  Development  and
        fecundity of Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae) on three Malvaceae hosts. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 1999; 23(6):637-644.
        9.Karim  KNS,  Das  BC,  Khalequzzaman  M.  Population dynamics of Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae) at Rajshahi, Bangladesh Journal of Biological Sciences. 2001; 1:492-495.
        10.  Yarahmadi F, Rajabpur A, Shabazi A. Investigations on toxic effects of some insecticides on population of Aphis gossypii    Glover    and    its    parasitoids    Hibiscusrosa
        chinensis in Ahwaz’s groon landscape. Proceedings of
        the 1st   Congress of  Modern Agricultural Sciences  and
        Technology, Zanjan, Iran, 2011.
        11.  Ali A, Rizvi PQ, Pathak M. Reproductive performance of Coccinella transversalis Fabricius (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)       on       different       aphid       species.
        Biosystematica. 2009; 3:37-41.
        12. Naranjo SE. Conservation and evaluation of natural enemies in IPM systems for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Protection. 2001; 20:835-852.
        13.  Miller GT. Sustaining the Earth, 6th  edition. Thompson
        Learning, Inc. Pacific Grove, California, 2004.
        14.  Uversky  VN,  Li  J,  Bower  K,  Fink  AL.  Synergestic effects of pesticides and metals on the fibrillation of α- synuclein: implications for Parkinson’s disease. Neurotoxicology. 2002; 23:527-536.
        15. Gupta S, Dikshit AK. Biopesticides: an ecofriendly approach for pest control. Journal of Biopesticides. 2010;
        3(1):186-188.
        16. Kalra A, Khanuja SPS. Research and Development priorities for biopesticide and biofertilizer products for sustainable  agriculture  in  India.  Business  Potential  for
        Agricultural   Biotechnology.   Teng   PS   (Ed.),   Asian
        Productivity Organisation, 2007, 96-102.
        17. Thakore  Y.  The  biopesticide  market  for  global agriculturaluse.  Industrial  Biotechnoogy.  2006;  2:194-
        208.
        18.  Iqbal MF, Maqbool U, Perveez I, Farooq M, Asi MR.
        Monitoring  of  insecticide  residues  in  brinjal  collected from market of Noshera Virkan, Pakistan. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2009; 19(2):90-93.
        19.  Mensah   RK.   Development   of   an   integrated   pest
        management programme for cotton. Part 2: Integration of a  lucerne/cotton  interplant  system,  food   supplement sprays with biological and synthetic insecticides. International    Journal    of    Pest    Management. 2002;
        48(2):95-105.
        20.  Ali SS, Ahmed S, Ahmed SS, Rizwana H. Siddiqui S, Ali S, Rattar IA, Shah MA. Effect of biopesticide against sucking insect pest of brinjal crop under field condition. Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2006; 12:4-49.
        21.  Ursani TJ, Malik S, Chandio JI, Palh ZA, Soomro NM, Lashari  KH  et  al.  Screening  of  biopesticides  against insect pests of brinjal. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology. 2014; 1(6):918-931.
        22. Solangi BK, Sultana R, Suthar V, Wagan M. Field evaluation of bio-Pesticides against Jassid, Amrasca biguttula  biguttula  (ishida)  in  okra.  Sindh  University
        Research Journal (Science Series). 2013; 45(2):311-316
        23.  Jarwar AR, Abro GH, Khuhro RD, Dhiloo KH, Malik MS.  Efficacy  of  neem  oil  and  neem  kernal  powder against major sucking pests on brinjal under field conditions.    European    Academic    Research.    2014;
        2(6):7641-7658.
        24.  Khuhro RD, Rajput IA, Ahmad F, Lakho MH, Khuhro
        SN, Dhiloo KH. Efficacy of different IPM techniques for suppression of sucking pests of okra. European Academic Research. 2014; 2(8):10738-10752.
        25. Iqbal J, Ali H, Hassan MW, Jamil M. Evaluation of indigenous plant extracts against sucking insect pests of okra crop. Pakistan Entomologist. 2015; 37(1):39-44.
        26.  Baker MA, Makhdum AH, Nasir M, Imran A, Ahmad A, Tufail F. Comparative efficacy of synthetic and botanical insecticides against sucking insect pest and their natural enemies   on   cotton   crop. Journal   of   Mountain   Area Research. 2016; 1:1-4.

        Control of Chilli Thrips with Botanical Insecticides

        Chilli thrips are important pests of roses and other ornamental plants causing feeding damage that results in characteristic leaf and bud scarring, discoloration, and deformation. The objective of this test was to compare efficacy of foliar spray applications of five experimental botanical extracts [GWN-9996, GWN-10285, GWN-10300, GWN-10301, GWN-10302], and AzaDirect (1.2% vol/vol azadirachtin) to that of a commercial standard, Conserve TM (spinosad) against mixed life stage infestations of chilli thrips on container-grown Knock Out ® roses.

        [woo_product_slider id=”64262″]

        The trial was conducted at the University of Florida’s Mid Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, Florida, from August to September 2014. The study was set up in an RCB design with four replicates (blocks). Plants were grown in 3 gal pots spaced at 0.5 m and watered using a micro irrigation system and fertilized every other month with Osmocote Plus 15:9:12 slow release pellets at the recommended rate. Plants were artificially infested with laboratory reared insects at a rate of 20 per plant, two weeks before insecticide treatments. Applications were made using a 1.75 l, pump action Flo-Master sprayer with a hollow cone nozzle calibrated to deliver 200 gpa. Plants were sprayed to run-off; sprays were directed at foliage terminals, buds and flowers and some runoff made it to the potted soil media. Most of the experimental formulations were not readily miscible in plain water; a wetting agent (Triton X-100) at a concentration of 0.02% vol/vol was used in all treatments. Check plants were sprayed with water alone or water with Triton X-100, to distinguish any effects of the wetting agent. A total of five applications were made at 0, 6, 13, 20, and 27 days after first treatment (DAT). Insect counts were made before the first application and approximately weekly (before each spray) until 35 DAT. Counts were made on thrips life stages extracted in 50 ml ethanol (70% vol/vol) from two randomly selected plant terminals (3–5 leaflets each) per plant. Pest injury in each treatment was assessed by visual inspection of five foliar terminals per plant to identify thrips feeding scars and/or characteristic deformation. Data were subjected to ANOVA and when appropriate, means separated by Tukey’s HSD test at P  < 0.05.

        No treatment differences were observed in the pre-spray thrips counts. Only spinosad significantly reduced thrips numbers on plants. Compared with water checks, the number of thrips numbers was reduced by ≥92% in spinosad treatment plants at 6–34 DAT ( Table 1 ). The proportion of foliar terminals with visible thrips damage was also significantly lower in spinosad treatments plants at 12–34 DAT ( Table 2 ). There were no significant differences in the number of thrips or the level of plant injury among the GWN experimental compounds or AzaDirect and the check treatments in this test. The wetting agent did not have a significant effect as the number of thrips and the level of plant injury were similar between water only and water plus wetting agent treated plants. No phytoxicity was observed in this study.

         

        Table 1
        Treatment/formulation  Rate/100 gal  Application  # thrips lifestages/two terminals


         
        Pre  6 DAT  12 DAT  19 DAT  27 DAT  34 DAT 
        Water check  —  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  23.3  30.3b  51.8bc  56.0bc  87.5b  50.8b 
        Water/Triton-X 100  0.02% vol/vol  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  25.0  31.0b  53.8bc  25.5b  48.5b  67.5b 
        GWN-9996  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  26.0  19.3b  37.0b  49.8bc  33.5b  31.3b 
        GWN-10285  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  41.3  45.0b  48.8bc  68.5bc  80.0b  30.0b 
        GWN-10300  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  9.3  25.5b  24.3b  66.8bc  58.3b  29.5b 
        GWN-10301  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  31.0  33.3b  40.8bc  49.0bc  37.5b  42.8b 
        GWN-10302  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  39.5  37.0b  129.8c  131.8c  126.3b  59.5b 
        AzaDirect (1.2%)  16 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  56.5  33.0b  48.8bc  32.5bc  64.8b  23.8ab 
        Conserve SC  6 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  24.0  2.3a  0.3a  3.5a  3.0a  2.5a 

        Column means with different letters were separated via Tukey’s HSD at P  < 0.05 after log n  + 1 transformation.

        Table 2
        Treatment/formulation  Rate/100 gal  Application  Proportion of foliar terminals with damage


         
        Pre  6 DAT  12 DAT  19 DAT  27 DAT  34 DAT 
        Water check  —  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  1.00  0.90ab  0.90b  1.00b  1.00b  0.90bc 
        Water/Triton-X 100  0.02% vol/vol  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.90  0.90ab  0.75b  0.95b  0.95b  1.00c 
        GWN-9996  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.90  0.80ab  0.75b  0.95b  0.95b  0.65abc 
        GWN-10285  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.85  0.90ab  1.00b  1.00b  1.00b  0.90bc 
        GWN-10300  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.95  0.65ab  0.95b  0.90b  0.95b  0.90bc 
        GWN-10301  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.80  1.00b  0.90b  0.95b  1.00b  0.85bc 
        GWN-10302  12 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.95  0.95ab  1.00b  1.00b  1.00b  0.90bc 
        AzaDirect (1.2%)  16 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.95  0.95ab  0.95b  0.95b  0.85b  0.60ab 
        Conserve SC  6 fl oz  0, 6, 13, 20, 27 DAT  0.90  0.55a  0.00a  0.10a  0.15a  0.05a 

        Column means with different letters were separated via Tukey’s HSD at P  < 0.05 after arcsine transformation.

        Authors: Gary. L. Leibee  Moh Leng Kok-Yokomi  Luis F. Aristizabal  Steven P. Arthurs Celso Morales-Reyes

        Use of Neem in Pest Control

        Neem can be used against the following pests (clicking on underlined pests takes you to pests’ page): African armyworm, African bollwom, Aphids, Banana weevil, Cabbage looper, Cabbage moth, Cabbage webworm, Coconut mite, Cutworms, Diamondback moth, Giant looper

        [ads-pullquote-left]Scientific name: Azadirachta indica[/ads-pullquote-left]

        The neem tree has over 100 compounds with pesticidal properties. The best known is azadirachtin. This substance is found in all parts of the tree, but it is much more concentrated in the fruit, especially in the seeds.

        [woo_product_slider id=”64262″]

        Neem is unique among plants with pesticidal properties since it has so many different effects on pests. It acts as a broad-spectrum repellent, insect growth regulator (it causes deformities in the insects’ offspring) and insect poison. It discourages feeding by making plants unpalatable to insects or suppresses the insect’s appetite (anti-feedant effect); if they still attack, it inhibits their ability to moult and lay eggs. Unlike most botanical insecticides, neem also has a somewhat “systemic” effect. This means that plants can take up neem extracts through their roots and leaves, spreading the material throughout the plant tissues. For this reason neem can help control pests like leafminers, which feed within leaves and are normally not affected by sprays that only cover the outer parts of the plant.

        Farmers and scientists have also observed a certain preventive effect of neem oil or seed extract against plant diseases such as mildews and rusts.

        Neem products are effective against a wide range of pests; about 400 species of crop pests are known to be affected by neem extracts. In spite of its broad-spectrum action, neem products generally, would not harm natural enemies (like wasps, ladybird beetles, spiders, etc.). This is explained by the special mode of action of neem compounds, and by the feeding behaviour of natural enemies as well as the relatively low contact effect of neem products. The degree of effects on natural enemies is largely dependent on the type of formulation, and time, frequency and methods of applications.

        Adults of predatory insects are apparently not affected by dosages of neem products recommended for effective pest control. However, their activity, fecundity and longevity may be negatively affected with high dosages. Hoverflies are one of the most sensitive groups to neem applications. Parasitoids are in general less sensitive to neem products than predators. However, especially in very small species of parasitic wasps, treatment of the developmental stages of the host (for instance eggs or puparia of whiteflies) may have negative effects on the emergence rate, walking ability, searching ability, longevity and fecundity of the natural enemy.

        In general, neem products based on neem oil or with high oil content have more or stronger side effects on non-target organisms than oil-free preparations. Thus, their application should be avoided or restricted on crops where natural enemies play an important role in pest control.

        Some neem products, especially the ones with high oil content, are phytotoxic to some plants, this means plants may be burned when neem extract is used at a high dosage. Therefore, the extracts should be tested on few plants before going into full scale spraying.

        Neem based pesticides are suitable for organic farming and for use in developing countries because leaf or seed extracts can easily be prepared without the use of expensive and complicated equipment. However, neem extracts are rapidly ‘destroyed’ when exposed to sunlight (UV, ultra-violet rays), which means they will loose their efficacy. For this reason, commercial products usually contain a sunscreen, which protects the extract from sunlight, allowing a longer exposition to sunlight.

        The effect of neem as a pesticide depends on the concentration of the active principles, on the formulation, on the pest type and on the crop.

        Neem pesticides can be prepared from the leaves or from the seeds. The leaves or seeds are crushed and steeped in water, alcohol, or other solvents. For some purposes, the resulting extracts can be used without further refinement. Ground neem seeds or neem kernel powder (before or after oil extraction) is used as a soil amendment, and it is effective for control of nematodes. It is also used for control of stalk borers, and to prepare water extracts, which are then sprayed onto plants. See more information on stemborer datasheets

        Neem has also been used to protect stored roots as well as tubers against the potato moth. Small amounts of neem powder are said to extend the storage life of potatoes for 3 months. See more information on the potato datasheet

        Neem oil, extracted from the seed kernels, gives effective protection to stored beans, cowpeas, and other legumes.

        In recent years, there have been a number of studies conducted to investigate the particular effects of neem extracts on malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. There are indications that the most effective way to use neem is to apply seed extract to breeding sites when population numbers are low, during the dry season, in order to eradicate as many immature mosquitoes as possible and reduce the population available for breeding when conditions become more favourable. Once the rainy season commences, regular applications of seed extract should continue to prevent immature mosquitoes from emerging as adults (Gianotti et al. 2008).

        Use as an insecticide: The seeds are the primary source of insecticides. They can be used in the form of simple aqueous extracts or as a basic raw material for formulated pesticides. The leaves are also used as simple aqueous (water) extracts.

        Use as a nematicide: The neem cake, a by-product of oil extraction from the seeds, worked into the soil has shown to reduce to a considerable extent the reproduction and population density of numerous plant pathogenic nematode species.

        Use as a fungicide: One of the latest discoveries is neem’s potential application in the control of fungi that cause diseases to plants. Neem oil based emulsions have proven to be the most effective.

        Use as a molluscicide and acaricide (miticide): These pests are only controlled on to a limited extent with neem. Neem showed deterrent effects on land snails. Alcoholic extracts, in particular, have a negative effect on the reproduction of spider mites.

        The susceptibility of different groups of pests to neem products is shown in the table below.

        Pests  Level of control Recommended neem formulation
        Beetle larvae, butterfly and moth caterpillars excellent aqueous neem extracts
             
        Stalkborers good aqueous neem extracts and neem cake, neem powder 
        True bugs, plant- and leaf- hoppers grasshoppers good neem oil, neem kernel extracts
        Grasshoppers good neem oil
        Adult beetles good/fair aqueous neem extracts, neem cake powder, leaves, neem oil 
        Thrips, fruit flies, scale insects, mealybugs fair/poor neem oil, aqueous neem extracts
        Mites fair/poor alcoholic extracts 
        Aphids and whiteflies good/fair neem oil
        Plant parasitic nematodes good neem cake, neem leaves
         

        Standard Procedures for the Preparation and Application of Neem Extracts

        Select healthy neem leaves that are free from diseases.
        When storing the plant parts for future usage, make sure that they are properly dried and are stored in an airy container (never use plastic container), away from direct sunlight and moisture. Make sure that they are free from moulds before using them.
        Use utensils for the extract preparation that are not used for your food preparation drinking and cooking water containers. Clean all the utensils properly before and after use.
        Do not have direct contact with the crude extract while in the process of the preparation, and during the application.
        Make sure that you place the neem extract out of reach of children and house pets while leaving it overnight.
        Harvest all the mature and ripe fruits on the crop to be sprayed before neem application.
        Always test the plant extract formulation on a few infested plants first before going into large scale spraying. When adding soap as an emulsifier, use a potash-based one such as gun soap (Kenya).
        Wear protective clothing while applying the extract.
        Wash your hands after handling the plant extract.

        Neem water can be stored and will remain effective for 3 to 6 days if it is kept in the dark.

        1. Collect fallen neem fruits from underneath the trees.
        2. Remove the flesh from the seeds and wash away any remaining shreds. In some regions in Africa such as the Indian Ocean Coast in Kenya and Tanzania the seeds need not be taken off the tree or pulped when collected, as large colonies of fruit bats pluck the ripe fruit off the tree, during the night, suck off the sweet outer skin and then spit out the seed, which can be found lying under the trees the next morning.
        3. Dry the seeds in airy conditions (in sacks or baskets) to avoid formation of mould.
        4. When needed, shell the seeds, grate them finely, and soak them overnight in a cloth suspended in a barrel of water. Dosage: 50g of neem powder per litre of water. This solution is then sprayed on infested plants.

        Detailed recipe to prepare 10 litres of Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE):

        1. Grind 500 grams (g) of neem seed kernels in a mill or pound in a mortar.
        2. Mix crushed neem seed with 10 litres of water. It is necessary to use a lot of water because the active ingredients do not dissolve easily. Stir the mixture well.
        3. Leave to stand for at least 5 hours in a shady area.
        4. Spray the neem water directly onto vegetables using a sprayer or straw brush. Neem water can be stored and will remain effective for 3 to 6 days if it is kept in the dark.

        Precautions in using Neem Extracts/Formulations:

        1.) Neem is almost non-toxic to mammals and is biodegradable. It is used in India as an ingredient in toothpaste, soap, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and cattle feed. The leaves are used for tea. See datasheet on neem as a medicinal plant for more information. However, the seeds and extracts of both neem and chinaberry trees are poisonous if consumed. Neem trees are very often confused with the Persian lilac or chinaberry tree a relative of neem, which thrives a in high altitudes, whereas neem thrives at low altitudes (up to 1200 m).
        2.) Because neem’s chemical structure is so complex (the tree has many different compounds, many functioning quite differently and on different parts of an insect’s life cycle and physiology), scientists believe it will take a long time for insects to develop resistance to it. However, to minimise the chance of affecting beneficials (natural enemies) and discouraging development of pest resistance, use neem sprays only when absolutely necessary, and only on plants you know are affected by pests.
        3.) Neem extracts do not kill insect pests immediately. They change the feeding behaviour and life cycle of the pests until they are no longer able to live or reproduce. Effects are often not visible before 10 days after application. Consequently, severe pest attacks will not be controlled within time. For a reliable and satisfying control, neem extracts must be applied at an early stage of pest attack.
        4.) Neem products break down fairly quickly, usually within 5 to 7 days in sunlight and in the soil, so you may need to repeat the application during the growing season to deal with new pests that arrive from outside during this time.
        5.) Neem works fastest during hot weather. Heavy rains within a few days of application may wash off the protective cover of neem on plants. Reapply if pests are a problem.
        6.) If crops have to be watered, water should be targeted to the soil because water running over the leaves of sprayed plants may wash off the neem water extract.

        References:

        Ellis, B.W. and Bradley, F.M. (1992). The Organic Gardener’s Handbook of Natural Insect and Disease Control. Rodale Press. ISBN:0-87596-753-1
        HDRA. Leaflet The Neem tree, see also online under www.gardenorganic.org.uk
        Hellpap, C. (1995). Practical results with neem products against insect pests, and probability of development of resistance. Pest of selected field crops. Corn. In The Neem tree- Source of Unique Natural Products for Integrated Pest Management, Medicine, Industry and Other Purposes. Ed. by H. Schmutterer. pp 385-389. ISBN: 3-527-30054-6.
        Lemmens, R.H.M.J., Soerianegara, I., Wong, W.C. (1995). Plant resources of Southeast Asia No. 5 (2). Timber trees: minor commercial timbers. Leiden, Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers.
        Maundu, M. and Tangnas, B. (2005). Useful trees and shrubs for Kenya. World Agroforestry Center.
        Schmutterer, H. (Ed.) (1998). The Neem tree- Source of Unique Natural Products for Integrated Pest Management, Medicine, Industry and Other Purposes. pp 385-389. ISBN: 3-527-30054-6.
        Siddiqui, K.M. (1995). Neem, its occurrence, growth and uses. Peshawar, Pakistan: Pakistan Forest Institute.
        Tewari D.N. (1992). Monograph on neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.). Dehra Dun, India: International Book Distributors.
        Gianotti, R. L.; Bomblies, A.; Mustafa Dafalla, M. Issa-Arzika,I., Duchemin, J-B and Eltahir, E. AB. (2008). Efficacy of local neem extracts for sustainable malaria vector control in an African village. Malaria Journal 2008, 7:138 doi:10.1186/1475-2875-7-138. www.malariajournal.com

        Scale Insect

        These sap-sucking pests attach themselves to the twigs, leaves, branches and fruits of host plants. Learn least-toxic methods of scale control here.

        Common on backyard trees, ornamental shrubs, greenhouse plants and houseplants, over 1,000 species of scale insects exist in North America. They are such oddly shaped and immobile pests that they often resemble shell-like bumps rather than insects. In many cases, heavy infestations build up unnoticed before plants begin to show damage. Large populations may result in poor growth, reduced vigor and chlorotic (yellowed) leaves. If left unchecked, an infested host may become so weak that it dies.

        Scale insects can be divided into two groups:

        Armored (Hard) – Secrete a hard protective covering (1/8 inch long) over themselves, which is not attached to the body. The hard scale lives and feeds under this spherical armor and does not move about the plant. They do not secrete honeydew.

        Soft – Secrete a waxy film (up to 1/2 inch long) that is part of the body. In most cases, they are able to move short distances (but rarely do) and produce copious amounts of honeydew. Soft scale vary in shape from flat to almost spherical.

        Life Cycle

        Adult females lay eggs underneath their protective covering which hatch over a period of one to three weeks. The newly hatched nymphs (called crawlers) migrate out from this covering and move about the plant until a suitable feeding site is found. Young nymphs insert their piercing mouthparts into the plant and begin to feed, gradually developing their own armor as they transform into immobile adults. They do not pupate and may have several overlapping generations per year, especially in greenhouses.

        Note: Males of many species develop wings as adults and appear as tiny gnat-like insects. They are rarely seen and do not feed on plants. Females often reproduce without mating.

        Control

        • To get rid of scale insects prune and dispose of infested branches, twigs and leaves.
        • When scale numbers are low they may be rubbed or picked off of plants by hand.
        • Dabbing individual pests with an alcohol-soaked cotton swab or neem-based leaf shine will also work when infestations are light.
        • Commercially available beneficial insects, such as ladybugs and lacewing, are natural predators of the young larval or “crawler” stage.
        • Organic pesticides, like insecticidal soap and d-Limonene can also be used to kill the larvae. However, these products have very little persistence in the environment, so several applications during egg-hatching will be required for effective control.
        • Azamax contains azadirachtin, the key insecticidal ingredient found in neem oil. This concentrated spray is approved for organic use and offers multiple modes of action, making it virtually impossible for pest resistance to develop. Best of all, it’s non-toxic to honey bees and many other beneficial insects.
        • Horticultural oils and other safe, oil-based insecticides work by smothering insects and will control all pest stages, including adults which are protected from most other insecticides by their armor coverings.
        • Fast-acting botanical insecticides should be used as a last resort. Derived from plants which have insecticidal properties, these natural pesticides have fewer harmful side effects than synthetic chemicals and break down more quickly in the environment.

        Tip: Ants feed on the honeydew that sucking insects produce and will protect these pests from their natural enemies. An application of Tanglefoot Pest Barrier to the stalks of woody plants or to the trunks of trees will help get rid of ants naturally.