Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge Vol. 9 (3), July 2010, pp. 536-543

An appraisal of the traditional post-harvest pest management methods in Northeast Indian uplands

Bikramjit Sinha North Eastern Region Community Resource Management project for Upland Areas (a joint venture of IFAD & GoI), Sympli Building, Dhankheti, Shillong 793 001, , (Presently at National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, Pusa Gate, Dr KS Krishnan Marg, New Delhi 110012) E-mail: [email protected] Received 17 April 2008; revised 20 November 2009

There has been a paradigm shift in recent years towards the use of natural, reliable, and sustainable products in grain protection; from the conventional use of synthetic toxic substances. The role of traditional knowledge in storage protection is being increasingly realized across the globe. The age-old traditional post-harvest pest management methods practiced by 6 indigenous communities in three hill districts of Meghalaya and of Northeast , Garo, Mao, Maram, Poumai, Thadou and Tangkhul have been described. Applicability of the traditional methods in ensuring food security through reduction of post-harvest loss is discussed. It is opined here that due recognition should be given to traditional methods of an area in the post-harvest protection programme of that area. Continuous use of these methods by the indigenous communities through generations reflects a potential management option of grain protection for subsistence farmers, otherwise these could have perished long back soon after their development.

Keywords : Post-harvest, Traditional knowledge, Repellent, Rodenticide, IPC Int. Cl. 8: A61K36/00, A01F25/00, C05G3/00, A01M1/00, A01M5/00, A01M31/00, A01N3/00

The extent of post-harvest loss caused by pests and Perhaps the most appealing credibility of the diseases in the storage and its impact on food security traditional practices is their efficacy in controlling one particularly among marginal farmers in the tropics is or more types of insect pests, especially at the small well known. Sometimes this proportion is reported to farm level as well as for the relative safety in the form supersede the loss incurred in the production stage 1. in which they are used 18-22 . Further, some of these Reduction of the post-harvest loss assumes criticality, methods can even be applied in large scale storage 23 . as this loss negates all the efforts that have been made Studies on traditional storage practices would narrow to produce the crop. Use of chemical grain protectant down the priority areas of research and development has been the most dominant strategy applied so far for in post-harvest protection, thus, may pave the way for post-harvest protection. However, human health faster development of safer and sustainable storage implications and non-sustainability of chemical grain protection methods. protectant have attracted the attention of researchers, Though studies on traditional storage protection and policy planners for quite some time. Further, have already gained momentum across the world as large scale operations like fumigation and cold well as the rest of India, similar studies from storage are of little significance to small and marginal Northeast India, particularly the upland areas is nearly farmers most of whom are engaged in subsistence non-existent. However, there are few recent studies farming. This section of farmers comprises more than from the valley areas of 24-26 . These studies also 70% of the global farming community 2. It is, thus, failed to provide a comprehensive view of the crucial to focus the search and development of post- traditional post-harvest management practices; their harvest protection methods on economically less efficacy, and applicability in a wider scale. It is, demanding and consumer friendly alternatives for therefore, critical to document and assess the ensuring food security to millions of people. The application potential of the traditional post-harvest advantage of traditional post-harvest pest methods, especially those practiced in the fragile management methods in addressing the issue of farming areas like Northeast India. Given the rich storage loss is being increasingly appreciated 3-17 . cultural and biological diversity of this region, SINHA: TRADITIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT METHODS IN NORTHEAST INDIA 537

possibilities are there for the existence of knowledge Results and practices, which may hitherto have remained To protect valuable agricultural harvest from pests undocumented till date. The study reports the and diseases in the storage containers, indigenous traditional post-harvest pest management methods tribes practice traditional methods using easily practiced by 6 upland communities of Northeast available local resources. For example, dried India. The anticipated usefulness of these methods/ leaves/branches of A. vulgaris are put in and around materials was analysed based on the perceived granaries for repelling insects as well as rats. Pulses efficacy of a particular method among the are rubbed/coated with pork oil and dried before respondents, earlier reports of similar traditional storing as a post-harvest protection measure. Fused practices from India and/or the world. This was electric bulbs are ground and mixed with ground rice supported further by comparing the perceived mode and the mixture is used as rodenticide. Altogether, 15 of action and rationale behind the effectiveness of a methods are reported in this communication, a higher particular plant/material with the already known proportion of which are carried with plant materials physiological effects of either the crude plant extract, (67%), and around 27% of the methods are based on isolated chemical compounds from it, or related miscellaneous substances (Table 1). Some of the species. Besides, application potential of these plants like C. khasianus and E. blanda are used to methods in ensuring food security through reduction repel insect pests while others such as D. sinuata of post-harvest losses is also highlighted. (Fig.1) and E. purseatha (Fig.2) are used as rodenticide. Further, few plants like C. tomentosa and Methodology S. parasitica are used for trapping rats. In addition to The study was carried out in 3 hill districts of use of plants, different types of indigenously designed Northeast India namely, West Garo Hills (WGH) in traps (Figs.3 & 4) are also used for catching rats. Meghalaya, and Ukhrul in Manipur Storing grains in the kitchen is one of the most (21.57˚N-29.30˚N and 88.29˚E-97.30˚E). Due to the common methods of post-harvest protection among altitudinal range of 40 msl in WGH to 3114 msl in the indigenous tribes, be it for their own consumption Ukhrul, the districts show subtropical to temperate (Figs.5 &6) or maintaining seeds for next year sowing climatic conditions with wide variation in temperature ˚ (Figs.7 &8). It is perceived that the smoke of the (1-34 C) as well as in annual precipitation Chullah (cooking place) protects the grains from the (67-330 cm). Six ethnic tribes, Garo in WGH, Mao , attack of insects and fungus and also increases the self Maram , Poumai and Thadou in Senapati and Tangkhul life. Further, most of the tribes’ store the grains in in Ukhrul were covered during the study period. All traditional granaries, usually built in an open place a these tribes are of Mongoloid origin except the Garos little away from the house. This is to ensure proper who are descendants of Tibeto-Burmese and follow a aeration and different materials like tins, wooden matrilineal society. In each community, 5 relatively sheets are put in the poles as rat barriers (Fig.9). backward villages were selected and in each village, 5 Overall, around 40% of the traditional methods are households (respondent) were selected through simple found to be based on the principle of repellency. random sampling. All the persons of a house were considered as a single respondent unit, instead of When the usage frequency is seen across the treating them individually. The logic being storage studied communities, only 3 miscellaneous methods, protection is not an individualistic responsibility; rather use of indigenous traps, indigenous granary, storing of it is a collective effort of all the members of a house to grains in the kitchen, are practiced by all the ensure protection of their harvest. More emphasis was households. The use of Artemisia vulgaris leaves for given to women for their reported greater involvement repelling insects (46.7%) is common among three sub in both the production as well as post-harvest stages of tribes of Nagas , namely Mao , Poumai and Tangkhul . farming in this region 27 . With the assistance of a Likewise, the uses of Cyathula tomentosa (28%) and separate interpreter for each community, information Cymbopogon khasianus (32%) are also common on traditional post-harvest pest management methods between two sub tribes of Nagas . One of the was collected through informal interactions and interesting observations is the commonness of the use participatory manner. Plants used in traditional of Entada seeds as rodenticide (31.3%) among Garo methods were collected and identified by Botanical and Poumai . The Garos belong to the Bodo family of Survey of India, Eastern Regional Circle, Shillong. the Tibeto-Burman race while the Poumai are a sub 538 INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, VOL. 9. No. 3, JULY 2010

Table 1 Traditional post-harvest pest management methods of the ethnic tribes

Plant name Local name Procedure Rationale Tribe/Area

Plant based

Artemisia vulgaris L. Maharna (Tn) For repelling insects and Rats, put fresh or Aroma of the shrub is Tn/UK, Mo, Pu/SP dried branches/leaves in and around granaries intolerable Azadirachta indica Crush and put fresh or dried leaves in and Leaves posses an aroma Tn/UK Juss. around granaries to repel insects Cannabis sativa L. Crush and put fresh or dried leaves in and Insects are repelled due Tn/UK around granaries to repel insects to the smell Cyathula tomentosa Changha kakhra Branches with inflorescences are put in and Inflorescence stick to Mo, Pu/SP Moq. (Mo) around granaries to repel rats rat’s body Cymbopogon Shupuh (Pu), Crush and put fresh or dried leaves in and It has an aroma that Pu/SP, Tn/UK khasianus Stapf ex Harvashe (Tn) around granaries to repel insects repel insects Bor Dendrocnide sinuata Gilmat (Ga) Place fresh leaves in between two layers of Leaves contain a toxic Ga/WG (Bl.) Chew boiled rice; after 24 hrs, put treated rice in substance possible rat runways as rodenticide Elsholtzia blanda Kholo (Mo) Crush and put fresh or dried leaves in and Shrub posses an aroma Mo/SP Benth around granaries to repel insects Entada pursaetha Kah (Pu), Sui Mix equal proportion of ground seed kernel The seeds are toxic to Pu/SP, Ga/WG DC (Ga) and ground rice and put in possible rat rats runways as rodenticide Melia composita Thoso (Pu) Crush and put fresh or dried leaves in and Leaves are repellent to Pu/SP Wild around granaries to repel insects insect pests Scorulla parasitica Chithi thou (Mo) Prepare gum from the fruits, fix in sticks and Rats get stuck to the Mo/SP L. put in possible rat runways for trapping gum Animal based NA Pork oil Rub pulses with pork oil before storing to Protects pulses from Tn/UK protect from insects and fungi post-harvest damage

Miscellaneous methods

NA Electric bulbs Mix crushed electric bulbs and ground rice in Rats die after Mo/SP equal proportion and put in possible rat consuming the mixture runways as rodenticide NA Indigenous traps Different types of indigenous traps made NA All tribes from locally available resources are put in possible rat runways for trapping rats NA Kitchen storage Pulse, maize, onion etc. are kept in the Kitchen smoke drives All tribes kitchen around 2-3 m above the ground at an away insects and angle of 45 0 from the chullah (cooking place) reduces fungal attack NA Indigenous Harvested grains are stored in special It prevents the entry of All tribes granary granaries, constructed outside the house for insect pests and rats into proper aeration and tin sheets or holed the granary wooden plates are provided as rat barriers in the pillars

Ga-Garo, Tn-Tangkhul (Naga), Mo-Mao ( Naga ), Ma-Maram ( Naga ), Pu-Poumai ( Naga ), Th-Thadou ( Kuki ), WG, West Garo Hills, UK-Ukhrul, SP-Senapati, NA-Not available tribe of Naga which are known to be Mongoloid in miscellaneous practices which have 100% usage origin. The finding is more exciting because the frequency, only the practices of using A. vulgaris as two tribes inhabit two far away districts namely, repellent (46.7%), use of C. khasianus as repellent Garo Hills of Meghalaya and of (32%) and use of E. purseatha (31.3%) have more Manipur, respectively, but they share exactly than 30% usage frequencies across the studied similar use of a particular plant. Besides the 3 tribes. However, if the usage frequency is SINHA: TRADITIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT METHODS IN NORTHEAST INDIA 539

considered within the particular tribe(s) practicing a pests. This effectiveness may be through a mode of particular method, as many as 12 of the indigenous action which is different from the presently methods have 100% usage frequency (Table 2). documented one. For instance, in the study, A. Around half of the households believe that the vulgaris was found to be used as a repellent which is methods are at least 50-70% effective in reducing otherwise known to possess insecticidal properties 28 . storage loss while around a quarter of them claim Besides, around 27% of the traditional methods are these practices are more than 70% effective (Table 3). common with those of the other communities of the However, the range of variation in the perception of region (Table 5). In the study, it is found that E. efficacy in the former is 50 (30-80), which is almost blanda is used for repelling insects by the Mao tribe double than those in the later, i.e. 26 (12-38). This of Senapati district in Manipur, while earlier reports indicates that the percentages of households who indicate that the Khasis of Meghalaya also use this believe in higher efficacy of the practices are likely to plant for the same purpose. Similarly, the use of E. be more accurate in their assumption. Further, around purseatha as rodenticide is found to be common 40% of the traditional post-harvest pest management between the Poumai and Garo (present study) and the methods recorded in the study are reported to be Mizos of (earlier report). The remaining effective (Table 4) in controlling one or more types of 33% of the methods are unique to one or the other 540 INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, VOL. 9. No. 3, JULY 2010

Table 2  Frequency distribution of the use of traditional post-harvest pest methods

Traditional method Frequency of use (%) Garo Mao Maram Poumai Thadou Tangkhul Total (n=25) (n=25) (n=25) (n=25) (n=25) (n=25) (n=150) A. vulgaris as rat/insect repellent -- 100 -- 80 -- 100 46.7 A. indica as insect repellent ------100 16.7 C. sativa as repellent ------100 16.7 C. tomentosa for rat catching -- 100 -- 68 -- -- 28 C. khasianus as insect repellent ------100 -- 92 32 D. sinuata as rodenticide 100 ------16.7 E. blanda as repellent -- 100 ------16.7 E. pursaetha as rodenticide 100 -- -- 88 -- -- 31.3 M. composita as repellent ------92 -- -- 15.3 S. parasitica for rat catching -- 92 ------15.3 Pork oil as grain protectant ------100 16.7 Electric bulbs as rodenticide -- 100 ------16.7 Use of indigenous rat trap 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Storing grains in the kitchen 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Indigenous granary 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 3 Percentage frequency of the efficacy of traditional post-harvest pest management methods according to respondents (households)

Traditional method Do not know (culture) Less effective a Effective b Very effective c A. vulgaris as repellent (n = 45) -- 22.2 44.4 33.3 A. indica as repellent (n = 25) -- -- 80 20 C. sativa as repellent (n = 25) -- 12 60 28 C. tomentosa for rat catching (n = 42) 11.9 16.7 47.6 23.8 C. khasianus as repellent (n = 48) -- 12.5 56.3 31.3 D. sinuata as rodenticide (n = 25) # -- -- 72 38 E. blanda as repellent (n = 25) -- 40 48 12 E. pursaetha as rodenticide (n = 47) # -- -- 80 20 M. composita as repellent (n = 23) 8.7 21.7 43.4 26.1 S. parasitica for rat catching (n = 23) * 13 26.1 39.1 21.8 Pork oil as grain protectant (n = 25) 20 28 36 16 Electric bulbs as rodenticide (n = 25) # -- 12 64 24 Use of indigenous rat traps (n = 150) 10 31.3 42.7 16 Storing grains in the kitchen (n = 150) 12 28 33.3 26.7 Indigenous granary (n = 150) 23.3 27.3 30 19.3 Average 14.1 23.2 51.8 23.8 a <50% efficacy, b 50-70% efficacy, c > 70% efficacy, # efficacy after rat eats the mixture, * efficacy after rat sticks to the gum

Table 4  Traditional post-harvest pest management methods community of the study area (Table 6) i.e. these five found to be effective (earlier scientific studies) methods are not reported even if any other communities of this region or rest of the world may Traditional method Effect be practicing one or more of the methods. Materials in A. vulgaris as repellent Insecticide 28 both these categories are also known to possess Azadirachta indica as repellent Insect repellent 29 properties worth to be used as insecticide or repellent. C. sativa as repellent Insect repellent 30 For example, E. blanda leaves contain luteolin, M. composita as repellent Insecticide 9 friedelin while C. khasianus leaves contain geraniol, Use of indigenous traps Trapping 31 which are known to have either insecticide or Storing grains in the kitchen Protectant 9 repellent abilities. SINHA: TRADITIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT METHODS IN NORTHEAST INDIA 541

Table 5 Traditional post-harvest pest managemen t methods deliverables and close proximity of the communities with unknown efficacy with nature might have triggered accumulation and

Traditional method Other reports Remarks continuance of this knowledge base. The non- Use Tribes/Area accessibility to modern deliverables may be bliss in disguise to them who are mostly marginal and E. blanda as repellent Rep 32 Kh/MGL Luteolin, friedelin 33 economically poor, and large scale storage practices E. pursaetha as Rep 34 Mz/ MZM Triterpenoid are not suitable for them. In addition, the reported rodenticide saponin 35 human health implications associated with chemical S. parasitica for Trap 36 An/ NGL Strong grain protectants is probably avoided with the use of catching rats adhesive these traditional methods. Storing grains in Prot Many Physical traditional granaries tribes barrier It is also apparent that the indigenous tribes are aware of the different agents causing post-harvest Rep-Repellent, Trap-Trapping, Prot-Protectant, Kh-Khasi , Mz- Mizo , An-Angami ( Naga ), MGL-Meghalaya, MZM-Mizoram, damage namely, insects, rodents and fungi. While the NGL- former two are clearly mentioned in the practice details, the idea of the later is explicit in the practices  Table 6 Traditional post-harvest pest management methods of storing grains in the kitchen and traditional unique to the studied communities (unknown efficacy and not reported from other tribes) granaries. Grains stored in the kitchen are reported to have less fungal attack because of the heat treatment 9. Traditional method Unique to Remarks In the type of traditional granary, the rat barriers C. tomentosa Mo/Pu Spiky inflorescence prevent entry of rats and the sufficient aeration (due to inflorescences for bamboo structures) would discourage fungal catching rats 37 infestation or attack. There is no significant variation C. khasianus leaves as Pu/Tn Geraniol in the technical procedure of the methods among the insect repellent D. sinuata leaves as Ga Formic acid in genus practicing communities of a particular method except rodenticide in the few mechanical methods. Both Garo and Pork oil as stored Tn Pungent smell Poumai use E. purseatha seeds as rodenticide. Both grain protectant the tribes mix ground seeds and ground rice (1:1) and Electric bulbs as Mo Corrosive rodenticide put in possible rat runways. Whereas, in case of some mechanical practices like use of indigenous rat traps Ga-Garo , Tn-Tangkhul , Mo-Mao , Pu-Poumai differences can be seen both in the type of material Discussion used as well as in the design of the traps, even within The demand for food is increasing with each day. the same tribe. The additional food has to come from intensification An analysis of the traditional post-harvest methods of agricultural production, as the available land for documented in the study from the point of view of the cultivation is almost static. However, agricultural percentage frequency of use, percentage of the intensification has its own limitations. The best perceived effectiveness, earlier reports reveals that complementary way to increase food grain some of the traditional methods may be of immense production, therefore, appears to be through the significance in terms of seed protection, even though reduction of losses in the storage as the cost of bulk of the methods (12 out of 15) have less than 50% preventing post-harvest loss is relatively less than the overall usage frequency across all the 6 studied tribes cost for producing the same amount of food. Farmers or localities. As for instance use of A. vulgaris has an in tropical countries like India store approximately overall 46.7% frequency of use. But the percentage 70% of the potential yield for consumption and as frequency of use within the tribes practicing the seed, of which around 10-40% is lost due to pests and particular method is as high as around 93%. It also diseases 38 . Reduction of this storage loss through has a highest percentage of perceived effectiveness improved storage technologies and practices would and most importantly it has been scientifically proved 28 help in enhancing food security 39 . The study indicates to be a potent insecticide . Similarly, the percentage the prevalence of a substantial number of traditional frequency use of the remaining 11 traditional methods post-harvest pest management methods in the upland within the practicing tribes ranges from 68-100%; has areas of Northeast India. Lack of access to modern comparatively higher perceived effectiveness and 542 INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, VOL. 9. No. 3, JULY 2010

earlier studies support their effectiveness or at the the study and to Dr D Choudhury of ICIMOD, Nepal least reported to contain active principles having for arousing curiosity to work on important and potential application as post-harvest protectant. For interesting aspect. Thanks are also due to the Director, instance, triterpenoid saponin from the seed kernel of NISTADS for infrastructural facilities. Financial Entada phaseoloides is reported to cause haemolysis support accorded by NERCRMPUA (a joint venture in cattle erythrocytes and high mortality in fish 40. As of IFAD & Government of India) is also gratefully far as the traditional methods having 100% usage acknowledged. frequency are concerned, the use of indigenous granary as a potential post-harvest protection measure References seems a little doubtful because only 30% of the 1 Pantastico EP, Minimizing post-harvest losses , Proc SEARCA Professorial Chair Lecture' College, Laguna, households believe it is effective to the extent of 70% Philippines, 1999, 19. and there is no supporting scientific study. 2 Anonymous, Supplement to the Report on the 1990 World Nevertheless, some unique practices documented in Census of Agriculture , FAO Statistical Development Series the study are the use of electric bulbs for killing rats 9a, (FAO, Rome), 2001, 111. and use of pork oil as grain protectant. In the former, 3 Varisco DM, Dubaie AR, Jazm M, Mahyub M & Khuleidi AW, Indigenous plant protection in Yemen , 1992, Online, it is perceptible that the pieces of glass will damage available at http://www.aiys.org the internal structure of rats, if ingested along with the 4 Parrish AM, Indigenous post-harvest knowledge in an Egyptian offered rice. The usage of vegetable oils in stored oasis, Indigenous Knowledge Dev Monitor , 2 (1994) 2. grain protection is well known but application of oils 5 Sardana V, Indigenous technical knowledge of farmer’s since ancient time, Indian Fmg, 51 (2001) 13. of animal origin is very rare to see and needs special 6 Isman MB, Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents attention. Most importantly scientifically established in modern agriculture and an increasingly regulated world, efficacy of 40% of the practices suggests that at least Annu Rev Entomol , 51 (2006) 45. some of the remaining methods would also be 7 Lancaster PA & Coursey DG, Traditional post-harvest effective as claimed by the traditional farmers. technology of perishable tropical staples , FAO Agri Ser Bull, No 59, (FAO, Rome), 1984, 26. Traditional methods using indigenous plants with 8 Dales M, A review of plant materials used for controlling insecticidal properties are being found to offer a safe, insect pests of stored products, NRI Bulletin 65, (Natural low cost, and more dependable method of storage Resources Institute, Chatham, UK), 1996. protection, technically feasible, compatible with 9 Anonymous, Traditional procedures and methods of storage protection , (GTZ, Eschborn, Germany), 1997, 8. internal resources of the household and widely used in 10 10 Belmain SR, Golob P, Andan HF & Cobbinah JR, other parts of the world . An in-depth analysis of the Ethnobotanicals–future prospects as post-harvest traditional practices would be useful in developing insecticides, Agro Food Ind Hi-tech , 10 (1999) 34. low-cost post-harvest management technologies, 11 Golob G, Moss C, Dales M, Fidgen A, Evans J & Gudrups I, which are friendly with the producer (farmland) as The use of spices and medicinals as bioactive protectants for grains , FAO Agricultural Service Bulletin 137, (FAO, well as the consumers. As the traditional practices are Rome), 1999. the products of intellectual investigations of people 12 Levinson H & Levinson A, Pest control of stored grain in who have had the opportunity to validate their antiquity, Informatore Fitopatologico , 49 (1999) 13. practices for hundreds of years that too in practical 13 Belmain SR & Stevenson PC, Ethnobotanicals in Ghana: reviving and modernizing age-old farmer practice, Pestic conditions, due recognition and importance must be Outlook , 12 (2001) 233. given to these methods. It is needless to mention here 14 Arjjumend H, Indigenous practices of post harvest storage that these traditional validations may be trustworthy among tribal communities of central India, Low External as the traditional farmers take utmost care for the Input Sustainable Agriculture Newslett , 6 (2004) 8. success of their processes. Nevertheless, a series of 15 Natarajan M & Govind S, Indigenous post harvest management technologies, Low External Input Sustainable scientific validation of the traditional methods is Agriculture Newslett , 6 (2004) 12. strongly desirable especially to establish the level of 16 Sinha B, Evaluation of indigenous insect pest management residual effect, if any; before these are actually practices among certain ethnic upland communities of recommended for incorporation in the formal storage northeast India , PhD Thesis, (Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam), 2007. protection packages. 17 Narayanasamy P, Traditional knowledge of tribals in crop

protection, Indian J Traditional Knowledge , 51 (2006) 74. Acknowledgement 18 Misra HP, Effectiveness of indigenous plant products against Author is grateful to the indigenous tribes of the the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis on stored black study area for their cooperation and hospitality during gram, Indian J Entomol , 62 (2000) 218. SINHA: TRADITIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT METHODS IN NORTHEAST INDIA 543

19 Boeke SJ, Baumgart IR, van Loon JJA, van Huis A, Dicke M 30 Blackwell WH, Poisonous and Medicinal Plants , (Prentice & Kossou DK, Toxicity and repellence of African plants Hall, New Jersey), 1990, 767. traditionally used for the protection of stored cowpea against 31 Rajasekaran B, Indigenous technical practices in a rice- Callosobruchus maculatus , J Stored Prod Res , 40 (2004) 423. based farming Systems , http://www.ciesin.org/ [accessed on 20 Jayasekara TK, Stevenson PC, Hall DR & Belmain SR, 2003]. Effect of volatile constituents from Securidaca 32 Rao RR, Ethnobotany of Meghalaya: medicinal plants used longepedunculata on insect pests of stored grain, J Chem by the Khasi and Garo tribes, Econ Bot , 35 (1981) 4. Ecol , 31 (2005) 303. 33 Chen HY, Zhou CX, Lou YJ, Duan ZH & Zhao Y, Chemical 21 Kestenholz C, Stevenson PC & Belmain SR, Comparative constituents from Elsholtzia blanda , Zhongguo Zhong Yao study of field and laboratory evaluations of the Za Zhi , 30 (2005) 1589. ethnobotanical Cassia sophera L. (Leguminosae) for 34 Lalramnghinglava JH, Ethnobotany of Mizoram-A bioactivity against the storage pests Callosobruchus preliminary survey, J Econ Tax Bot Addl Sr , 12 (1996) 439. maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and Sitophilus oryzae 35 Tapondjou AL, Miyamoto T, Mirjolet JF, Guilbaud N & (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), J Stored Prod Res , 43 Lacaille-Dubois MA, Pursaethosides A-E, triterpene (2007) 79. saponins from Entada purseatha , J Nat Prod , 68 (2005) 22 Belmain SR, Neal GE, Ray DE & Golob P, Insecticidal and 1185. vertebrate toxicity associated with ethnobotanicals used as 36 Rao RR, Indigenous people and forests: perspectives of an post-harvest protectants in Ghana, Food Chem Toxicol , 39 ethnobotanical study from Nagaland, Northeast India, In: (2001) 287. Ethnobiology in Human Welfare , edited by Jain SK, (Deep 23 Fields PG, Xie YS & Hou X, Repellent effect of pea ( Pisum Publications, New Delhi), 1996, 367. sativum ) fractions against stored-product pests, J Stored Prod 37 Choudhury PA & Leclercq SN, Essential oil of Cymbopogon Res , 37 (2001) 359. khasianus (Munro ex Hack.) Bor from Northeastern India, J 24 Deka MB, Saikia RM & Das MD, Rice farming and storage: Essential Oil Res , 7 (1995) 555. Indigenous practices of Assam, J North Eastern Council Soc 38 Shukla BD & Patil RT, Overview of grain drying and Sci Res , 25 (2001) 37. storage problems in India, In: Research and development 25 Tarat SK, Bordoloi RK, Medhi D & Thakur PK, issues in grain post harvest problems in Asia , GASGA Documentation of indigenous technical knowledge (ITK), J Executive Seminar Series No 2, (Deutsche Gesellschaft für North Eastern Council , 22 (2002) 16. Technische, Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn, 26 Deka MK, Bhuyan M & Hazarika LN, Traditional pest Federal Republic of Germany), Online, available at management practices of Assam, Indian J Traditional http://www.fao.org/ wairdocs/X5002e00.htm, Accessed on Knowledge , 51 (2006) 75. 6th June 2008. 27 Anonymous , Regional Consultation on Farmers’ Issues - 39 Gurung AB, Indigenous knowledge of storage pest Mission 2007: Hunger-Free India , National Commission on management in Nepal , Dissertation of Doctor of Natural Farmers , Shillong, 3-4 November, 2004, 8. Sciences (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), 2002. 28 Duke JA, Godwin MGB, duCellier J & Duke PAK, 40 Siddhuraju P, Becker K, Paul H & Makkar S, Chemical Handbook of Medicinal Herbs (CRC Press Inc, Florida, composition, protein fractionation, essential amino acid USA), 2002, 896. potential and antimetabolic constituents of an unconventional 29 Chopra RN, Badhwar RL & Nayar SL, Insecticidal and legume, Gila bean ( Entada phaseoloides Merrill) seed piscicidal plants of India, J Bombay Nat Hist Soc , 42 (1941) 854. kernel, J Sci Food Agric , 82 (2001) 192.