Cotton is potentially one of the most lucrative crops for the
developing countries, particularly sub-Sahara Africa, allowing both
governments and locally based commercial organisations to develop
textile industries for a welcome boost to foreign earnings.
Indeed, such is the value of cotton to all concerned that farmers
are offered levels of support and subsidy not generally available
for other crops. With such rewards on offer, many farming
communities, encouraged by their governments, have moved into
cotton with relish only to have their hopes and their farm
economies dashed time and time again due to failure to manage
insect pests.
Cotton is bombarded with insects in sequence from the appearance of
the cotyledons through the soil until the bolls are safely gathered
in. No other crop, with perhaps the exception of rice, is
attacked by so many different insect types and species and with
such ferocity and no other crop, including rice, has sealed the
commercial fate of so many insecticides.
Indeed, cotton is a graveyard for insecticides as new product after
new product is tried and tested only to fall foul of natural enemy
destruction and/or insecticide resistance. The fact that
almost all conventional insecticides belong to only four distinct
chemical groups – organochlorines, organophosphates,
carbamates and pyrethroids – and that the natural enemies of
insect pests are largely, like their prey and hosts, insects
themselves only serves to exacerbate the problem.
Pesticide Over-use
In spite of this “ insect plague” which appears to
follow cotton wherever it is grown, the root of the control problem
and its solution lies in ways in which insecticides are delivered
and applied and a more detailed understanding of pest and crop
biology.
In the past, there has been a tendency only to point the nozzle and
spray, with higher volumes and dosages perceived to offer the best
option; there was nothing more reassuring for a farmer than to put
an extra spoonful of insecticide into the spray tank for good
measure and to see the spray dripping from the leaves.
The net result was the application of too much active too often and
at the wrong time with the inevitable consequences of natural enemy
destruction, pest resurgence and insecticide resistance.
In many parts of the arid tropics notably sub-Sahara Africa, most
cotton farmers did not spray at all before the advent of CDA if for
no other reason than that the low water resources were unable to
fulfil the high volume demands of LOK (lever operated knapsack) and
pneumatic (pump-up) shoulder-slung sprayers.
Arrival Of CDA
The single most important invention to ease this cotton-spraying
nightmare was the hand-held spinning disc sprayer which produced
droplets by rotary atomisation from the teeth of a rapidly rotating
disc. Liquid fed onto the disc formed ligaments of liquid at
the points of the teeth from which small droplets of uniform
diameter were formed and spun-off by centrifugal forces.
The first hand-held spinning disc CDA sprayers were designed to be
used with custom-designed pre-formulated and pre-packed Ultra Low
Volume (ULV) formulations based on non-aqueous and low evaporation
potential carrier liquids, used at total application volumes of 1-3
litres/hectare. This, technique ensured non-evaporation of
spray's transport, improved longevity of deposits and, with
pre-packed chemicals, improved operator safety (by minimising
chemical handling) and improved accuracy of dosage (by minimising
errors in calibration). ULV cotton spraying for smallholder
farmers swept East and West Africa in the 1970s, resulting in
substantially increased yields, with the support and co-operation
of the agrochemical industry. However, while some
agrochemical companies, notably Hoechst and Ciba Geigy, took on
board this machinery development and provided farmers with the
required formulations, availability was limited, meaning that not
all farmers were able to apply the full spectrum of products.
Some countries attempted to overcome this constraint by mixing
products in locally available vegetable oils, for example
cottonseed oil in Tanzania, or by adding anti-evaporants, such as
molasses in Zimbabwe.
Gambian researchers started to examine the use of water alone as a
carrier but the design of older sprayers, such as the Micron Ulva 8
and Micro Ulva, were inappropriate to deal with the higher flow
rates of water required and the electric motors used in these
models were not sufficiently robust.
Very Low Volume Development
It was the development by Micron Sprayers, originator of CDA, of
the dual purpose ULV/VLV (Ultra Low Volume/Very Low Volume) CDA
sprayer, aptly called the ULVA+, that brought the benefits of
Controlled Droplet Application and the use of proprietary
formulations of insecticide together within a single application
system.
Armed with a brand new, specially designed disc, a more robust
motor and a backpack reservoir system for higher volumes, the ULVA+
was designed to be able to produce droplets of 120 µm
diameter from water based formulations (to compensate for
evaporation) and still cover one hectare of cotton with only 10
litres of total spray liquid – very low volume (VLV)
spraying.
The single biggest and immediate bonus for farmers was that they
could now mix their own sprays using water as a carrier and thus
tap into mainstream proprietary formulations (Emulsifiable
Concentrates, Flowables etc) of all insecticides recommended and
used for cotton insect pest control.
Other benefits included the facility to “mix and match”
actives, thus broadening the activity spectrum of a single spray
and sequencing actives so that the threat of insecticide resistance
is minimised.
In the final analysis, the only way to determine whether or not a
particular spray method will perform the task in hand and better or
worse than an alternative, for a specific insect pest, is to study
the biology of the pest on the crop so that it can be pin-pointed
for spot-on control, both in time and space with the highest degree
of accuracy.
Helicoverpa armigera (the Old World bollworm), the most difficult
to control insect pest of cotton, illustrates the case in
point. The pests are polyphagous with robust larval instars
and the adult moths are strong fliers, so that there is only one
realistic window of control opportunity – when the larvae are
both small and exposed.
The larvae of H. armigera are most susceptible, spatially and
toxicologically, just after hatching from the egg. In this
first to second instar larval stage, they have a very small body
mass and can therefore be killed using small droplets carrying
correspondingly small doses of insecticide.
At this time they are known to feed at the branch tips on young
emerging leaves and squares (flower buds), fully exposed to
droplets drifting in from rotary atomiser sprayers, before
“diving” deeper into the canopy to satisfy their later
instar dietary requirements in the form of large flower buds and
bolls.
Availability Of Water
The whys and wherefores of spray applications in a crop like cotton
with all economically to play for are fiercely fought but, in the
end, choice of spray application may be governed by much simpler
factors than insect ecology, for example the availability of
water.
Some traditional cotton growing areas like Africa in and around the
Sahel have had to cope with poor water resources since time
immemorial, which is why most cotton in this region was not sprayed
at all until the advent of CDA: ULV/VLV. Other regions of
Africa – East and Southern – and South East Asia are
just now beginning to experience long and unseasonal droughts. r
re‘