“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

This will connect the field research with the large existing body of knowledge in India, both written and
in the form of individual expertise. It will entail the gathering of all available information in the following
categories. Where possible, and in particular for sections 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.4 these findings will be
tabulated. It will form part of the baseline database. Knowledge gaps will be identified.
1.2: Survey
1.2.1: Trapping of adults
1.2.2: Rearing out from collected fruit
1.2.3: Key informant interview survey
1.2.4: Semi-structured interview survey
This will form part of the baseline database. At eight sites around the country it will assess the
presence and infestation of fly pests, using a combination of trap catches, rearing out of larvae from
infested fruit, and key informant surveys to obtain quantified estimates of (a) infestation of unprotected
hosts, (b) infestation of protected hosts and (c) incidence of protection measures. Insofar as possible
this will be done separately by hosts and fly species in a variety of ecological zones. Complete
coverage of the whole country is not envisaged, but it is hoped that the methodology may be refined, in
partnership with Indian colleagues, to obtain a robust but valid approach which may cheaply be
extended to other areas. This will be combined with a wide-area, informal Semi-Structured Interview
(SSI) survey, to evaluate what farmers think of current control options, how they make decisions about
fruit fly control, including criteria, information sources and rationales behind them, and what are the
obstacles to change and improvement.
1.3: Opening workshop. This will be held in New Delhi, at the outset of the Project.
2: Farm-Level Control Experiments
2.1: Laboratory single-killing-point study
2.2: Field single-killing-point study
2.3: On-farm control trials with farmer evaluation
Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 will form a hierarchy of experimental methods, ascending in realism and
economic quantification of results, while descending in the speed, economy and convenience with
which candidate technologies can be processed. Attention will focus on food bait (BAT) and
pheromone lure (MAT) attractant controls controls (which offer the best chance for low-pesticide,
effective and sustainable Tephritid controls), although cover applications (e.g. of neem ) may also be
evaluated. The three-tiered hierarchy will build on methods developed by Imperial College in Pakistan
(see Appendix IV, where each paper in preparation describes fieldwork with one of the three tiers),
while at the same time, in partnership with Indian colleagues, addressing their shortcomings and
adapting them to the conditions in hand. The approach was developed in an attempt to “industrialise”
comparisons of attractant controls by allowing the rapid, reliable, large-scale assessment of options,
including mixtures and combinations, with as little use of time and resources as possible, using a
hierarchy to allow only the most promising candidates to progress from one step to the next. The first
two steps make use of the fact that attractants are applied in discrete “killing points” of bait spots,
blocks or traps and so the relative effectiveness of these (if not their actual crop protection costeffectiveness)
may be evaluated by counting the flies attracted to, and killed by, points of different
types. First, laboratory single-killing-point (SKP) studies will evaluate the relative attractant power of
two killing points deployed at either end of a long choice-chamber cage into which flies are released on
the centre line equidistant between the two candidate treatments. Data are counts of dead flies
gathered on either side of the centre line. Second, field SKP studies, one step more realistic and
resource-consuming, will deploy real killing points in actual field or orchard conditions, and count the
flies falling killed from these into specially designed collectors; the measurement of the distance
13