MULTAN, July 20: Latest reports and data about the ‘attack’ of pests in cotton fields show that the extensive ‘awareness’ campaign of the provincial agriculture department launched against the ‘infestation’ of pests is baseless.

For the last few days messages-cum-advertisements from the provincial agriculture department are appearing in print and electronic media, warning the cotton growers against the attack of pests and abnormal vegetative growth of the plants in the wake of rains. The advertisements are also suggesting pesticides and their respective dose to combat the menace.

The campaign has aroused questions about the ground position of pest infestation, if there any, and the select number of pesticides being prescribed through the official advertisements. Moreover, the print media advertisements are full of misleading names of pesticides and their dosages.

For instance, there is no registered pesticide in liquid form with the name of ‘Imidacloprid 200 SL’ available in the market. Similarly, in the footnote of one of its advertisements the department mentions a corrigendum in the previous advertisement regarding strength and dose of pesticides ‘Imidacloprid’ and ‘Emamecton’, but same advertisement has the same error repeated in its original message.

A source in the agriculture department said the mistakes showed that the ‘awareness campaign’ had been launched without consulting the Directorate of Pest Warning and Quality Control of Pesticides (PWQCP).

According to a recent report of the directorate of PWQCP, there are only 4.61 per cent hot spots of White Fly in the province, 4.96 per cent of Jassid, 0.59 per cent of Thrips, 1.19 per cent of Spotted Bollworm, 0.3 per cent of Pink Bollworm, 0.74 per cent of American Bollworm, 0.1 per cent of Army Bollworm as late as on July 15 last.

The pest pressure in the core cotton areas of Multan, Lodhran, Vehari, Khanewal, Dera Ghazi Khan, Rajanpur, Muzaffargarh, Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar and Rahim Yar Khan is even less as compared to the non-core cotton areas of Sahiwal, Okara, Pakpattan, Toba Tek Singh, Jhang, Layyah, Bakhar and Faisalabad. It may be mentioned here that 90 per cent of the cotton production in the province comes from the core areas.

When contacted, PWQCP director Dr Ijaz Pervez said the situation in the field was not alarming. He said rather the recent rains would have washed away the eggs, larva and pupa of the pests from the cotton plants. He said unnecessary sprays of pesticides and that too of high strength could damage the ‘friendly pests’ (predators) of cotton crop.

On the other hand, the chemicals/pesticides recommended by the agriculture department have created unrest among the stakeholders in the pesticides business, which has an annual volume of Rs 12 billion to Rs 14 billion. Of which, the pesticides worth Rs 9 billions are used only for the cotton crop. A senior official of a reputed pesticides firm, who did not want to be named, said the recommendations seemed to be only choosy, biased and raised a lot of questions in the minds of cotton growers, the crop protection industry and the public at large.

He said the agriculture department was repeatedly mentioning only four pesticides in its propaganda campaign while there were a number of other pesticides available in the market having same or even better efficacy as compared to the recommended ones. He pointed out that the son-in-law of a top official in the Punjab agriculture department had the distribution of some of the chemicals/pesticides being projected officially as panacea to all the ills of cotton crop. “This is a case of harbouring nepotism at the cost of farmers and those who sell quality products,” he remarked, admitting, there was no pest pressure that warranted for an extensive campaign (for the publicity of a few items) through the public exchequer.

Chief coordinator of an NGO, Farmers Vision Forum, Khwaja Muhammad Shuaib said the agriculture department’s campaign was not in the benefit of the cotton growers. He alleged that the department was encouraging excessive use of pesticides to the benefit of a few pesticides firms. He said the elimination of ‘friendly insects’ would increase the pressure of economically pernicious pests on the crop.

He said two of the chemicals being recommended by the agriculture department especially to deal with the menace of American Bollworm were in the clause I and II of World Health Organization’s list of extremely hazardous chemicals.