Agri-input Marketing - Case Submission

The Gall-Fly Attack

Submitted by: Hum Beer Hai! (Section A)

Jehan Charle P39022, Kathan Shah P39025, Preyanshu Saini P39042, Priya Agarwal P39043,
Rajat Saini P39044, Shubham Saket P39051

Problem Statement:
The major problem identified from the case was the unwillingness of the villagers to accept
Raghu’s proposal to spray insecticides in their fields to protect the crop from the detrimental
effects of Gall-Fly. Despite continuous efforts from Raghu, villagers were not convinced to
spray the insecticide. They were rather convinced that performing puja on field and spraying
holy water would be helpful and that there was no need of spraying pesticide.

Situation Analysis:
During the first meeting a few small farmers were reluctant to use insecticide on their fields
due to the fear of the pest developing resistant to the insecticide. However the large leader
farmers somehow managed to convince them. During the second meeting the idea of
performing puja was raised by Satnami leader Neema. The final decision was to perform puja
and sprinkling holy water in conjugation with spraying of the insecticides. However, the
subsiding effect of pest after performing puja convinced the most of the villagers (majorly the
small farmers) that the pest attack was due to displeasure of Gods and performing puja had
successfully overcome the problem. The result was that most of the small farmers refused to
spray insecticides on their fields.

Impact:
This decision by small farmers can have a huge negative repercussion on the large farmers. It
can lead to 20-25% crop loss leading to a huge financial impact. The reasons for the small
farmers disagreeing to cooperate in the current situation can be attributed to a number of
factors. The most important being:

 Power asymmetry in the village: Most the important positions in the village was
occupied by 2 major castes – Sahu and Satnami (total 67/101 HH) Not only this, these
2 communities were the ones with major land holdings also. Sahus own 31% of the
total cultivable land in the village. Thus both economic and political power is
concentrated in the hands of a few upper caste farmers. Had there been leaders from
 small and marginalized communities also, the chances of convincing everyone would
have increased.

 Information asymmetry among farmers: There was a huge information asymmetry

among the farmers. Large farmers were the first to get information about fertilizers
and small farmers usually adopted these after 2 years. Large farmers were also better
off than the small farmers in terms of using HVY seeds and better irrigation facilities.

 Lack of trust and cooperation among the farmers: The above two factors are the
major cause of distrust among small farmers.

 Another important reason identified from the case was the failure of village level
worker Raghu to perform his duties effectively. He seems to be influenced by large
farmers. Although he joined the village in 1965, yet the use of fertilizer by small
farmers started in 2 years after its adoption by large farmers. This clearly shows that
even he did not provide sufficient information to small farmers. Accepting villagers
demand to preform puja was another mistake from Raghu’s side. He should have
handled the situation in a more scientific manner rather than agreeing to the blind
faith of the villagers.

 The indiscriminate use of pesticides is largely to be blamed on the collapse of the

government’s farm extension system, which is meant to advise farmers. Private
pesticide dealers have stepped into this vacuum, but they do not offer reliable advice
since they often have to meet sales targets from companies. The lack of safety
information on pesticides has lethal consequences. As reported in the first part of this
series, more than 40 cotton farmers died after inhaling chemicals while spraying
pesticides in Maharashtra in one agricultural season in 2017. Similar deaths were
reported from other states. In Tamil Nadu, nine farmers died, according to farmer
groups.

Solutions:
What the villagers thought was the subsiding of gall fly could actually be more exacerbating
or worsening of the situation. As per behaviour of gall-fly, once the larva of the gall-fly hatch
(typically after 5-8 days of laying egg), it moves to the base of the crop, between sheath and
stem and induces a gall. It feeds on the developing tissues of the crop. The gall appears 1 week
after the larval entry (Reference-1). Thus the subsiding of gall fly could be a potential
penetration on the pest.
The immediate solution to handle this situation could be to convince the villagers about the
criticality of the situation. Raghu could use the help of Agri-experts from block office to explain
the growth and life cycle of gall-fly to villagers and persuade them to take necessary action
before it is too late.
The long term solution is to build a system of trust among farmers, reduce information
asymmetry and have representation of small and marginalized communities in the village
decision making process.

References:
http://farmextensionmanager.com/English/Rice%20technology%20bank/pest%20doctor/Rice%20Ga
ll%20Midge.html