IPM is simultaneously highly complex and brutally simple. Labuschagne prefers the latter definition, as her objective for The Real IPM Company illustrates. “We are going to teach people how to mass rear bugs. We don’t want to make money out of bugs, we want to get rid of pesticides - there is a subtle difference. We are doing pretty much the same as any other biocontrol company in the world, but no other IPM company actively trains growers to breed their own bugs. We feel that by doing that we will be making a real difference, in Kenya and around the world.”
Labuschagne was instrumental in setting up the first mass-rearing project in Kenya, before going independent with husband Henry Wainwright, a former Writtle College professor. “Now we are a completely independent company we can sell this technology to whoever we want. I am fed up of hearing people saying ‘you can’t do this’ and ‘you can’t do that’ - we can and we will.”
The over-riding aim of Real IPM is to reduce the incidence of pests in a crop to such a low level that there is no need to take action against it with chemicals. While the initial costs are reasonably high, a few rudimentary calculations show the long-term financial benefits. “Some Kenyan growers have to spend 50 per cent of their annual budget on pesticides - I know of one that spends £500,000 a year to control spider mite in its rose crop,” says Labuschagne. Once the good bugs are established, though, they move into a wider environment. Eventually, the pest will be eradicated and there is no reason to take any action. So while the outlay is high initially, it will be reduced to zero.
“The initial aim is to regain the balance of nature on farms that the grower messed up in the first place. There is no legal definition of IPM, which means people can easily abuse the term. I’m not saying we are against spraying per se. But if you say you are practising IPM and you are not trying to get rid of bugs, all you are doing is public-relations IPM.
“The supermarkets have promoted IPM and created the demand for it without actually having it and probably not understanding entirely what it is they are asking for.”
Despite the desire to include IPM in their expectations of producers being based on apparently false pretences, Labuschagne does not deny that European customers have created a climate in which her company can succeed. “I am very excited about the next 12 months and where we can go with this,” she says. “The environment is exactly right for IPM to take off. We’ve got the technology here that people have been reluctant to take up, but they have little option now. Can you go on a proper IPM course in the UK? No, but we have a whole suite of courses available to the Kenyan industry and soon, through the website, the rest of the world.”
The Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP) has been very supportive of Real IPM, working closely with the company and funding people in the Kenyan horticultural sector to go on its courses. PIP is also funding the development of its website. The site will facilitate distance learning, which will be available to all ACP growers and indeed producers in nations outside of the regions.
Closer to home, the first field project for Real IPM has been carried out at Indu Farms, a firm that is jointly owned by Dutch-based Safari, to eradicate leafminer from the company’s mangetout crop.
Leafminer was causing substantial yield and quality reduction of up to 30 per cent, resulting in the need for increased pesticide spray application without providing much control. European Union (EU) plant health authorities have also intercepted leafminer larvae in produce exported to the EU, which results in instant rejection and destruction of the consignment in question.
Biological control of leafminer is possible with an indigenous natural enemy, Diglyphus, introduced to replace pesticides. At Indu Farms, Diglyphus was already present in the crop, but because its importance was not recognised, the spraying regime was killing it before it could make a full contribution to crop protection.
Real IPM has worked with Indu’s technical staff to establish a mass-rearing system to harvest Diglyphus from parasitised crop debris. Harvested Diglyphus has been applied to young crops to protect crops from leafminer without using pesticides.
The impact of the project has been immediate. In the first five weeks, Diglyphus worth £11,795 on the open market was harvested. There was minimal crop damage from leafminer and an anticipated increase in yield and quality.
DOING THINGS PROPERLY
Joshua Nyalita, farm manager, has been involved in the project from day one. He admits that it has necessitated a complete transformation in attitude from him and all other staff at the company, but adds that the results have been astonishing. “We haven’t bought any Diglyphus into the farm at all since the project began - we have simply harvested from what was already there.”
Training was provided to ensure that if a pest or disease was recorded during scouting, Indu only used compatible chemicals that were friendlier to the environment and to both Diglyphus and man. The objective was to control all other pests and diseases without harming the Diglyphus. Naomi Kahurani of Real IPM adds: “After training in identification and revising the scouting system to quantify the actual numbers of leafminer and Diglyphus present in the crop, the farm managers quickly learned to measure risk of crop damage.
“If the balance of Diglyphus to leafminer adults was observed to be less than 1:5 (i.e. for every five leafminer, there was one Diglyphus) - then the risk of crop damage was small and no further action was required.”
Nyalita says: “We are not looking to achieve zero leafminer. Once we can reach a ratio of 1:1 the leafminer is under control completely naturally. We are also scouting for thrips, red spider mites and other pests, as this process can be adapted to eradicate them too.
“One of the lessons we have learned here is that it is not just the Diglyphus, it’s the M in IPM that is the most important part. It is a logical and fairly simple process.” Kahurani adds: “Within five weeks, Joshua has become an expert. This project has shown that if you are going to do something, make sure you do it properly.”
HOW WAS ACHIEVEMENT MEASURED?
• The crop under IPM has had significantly lower pesticide applications compared to a similar (same age) crop under the previous pesticide programme. No pesticides at all have been applied for leafminer.
• The bi-weekly scouting data was transferred to a graph that showed the trends in numbers, both leafminer and Diglyphus, in the block. The managers were trained to use this information to measure the risk of crop damage.
• The managers were trained to assess, record and compare the damage to the crop from leafminer, in both the new IPM blocks and the older ‘chemical programme’ blocks. This will enable Indu to objectively measure the improvements in crop protection.
• However, observations by the farm managers, already confirm that the new IPM blocks are dramatically less damaged by leafminer than the same age crops had been under the chemical programmes.
• Farm managers have measured the retail savings on the cost of Diglyphus inputs, by calculating what the costs would have been if the Diglyphus had been purchased from commercial sources compared to re-cycling their own Diglyphus from crop debris.
• Over a period of four weeks Indu farm was able to recycle up to Ksh.1,647,879.45 (£11,745.47)* worth of Diglyphus.