Master Crop, Disease & Product Mapping — 4-State Field Data
In four states, across twelve principal crops, against forty-three named pathogens and pest complexes, every Paramverse Bio product has a position. This master matrix is how we know what to recommend when an agronomist scans a field at 6 a.m. — and how a Kisan Prescription gets written before the sun is overhead.
Why a matrix, not a catalogue
Most biocontrol catalogues are organised around product. You open a brochure, the brand name sits on the cover, and the relevant crops and diseases are listed in small print on the back. That logic works for procurement. It collapses in the field.
A farmer in the Vidarbha cotton belt does not start the morning by recalling which microbial isolate she might purchase. She starts with what she sees: leaf curl on three lines of plants, a pattern of chlorosis spreading along the row, a stand-density problem after the last shower. She needs an answer organised the way the problem presents itself — crop × stage × symptom × product, not product → maybe-relevant-to-your-crop.
This matrix is the inversion. Twelve crops on one axis, the pathogen and pest complexes most likely to show up across our four-state pilot on the other, and every Paramverse Bio product positioned at the intersection where it has measurable field efficacy.
The twelve crops, and why these twelve
Four states. Twelve crops. We did not select the crops by acreage alone — we selected them by the intersection of three filters: significant area under cultivation in our pilot states, documented chronic biotic stress that synthetic chemistry has been managing imperfectly, and an export or premium-domestic market where EU MRL compliance matters.
| State | Crops in matrix | Why selected |
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra | Cotton, grapes, pomegranate, soybean, sugarcane | Vidarbha cotton crisis; Nashik export-grade grape belt; pomegranate bacterial blight epidemic in Solapur |
| Gujarat | Groundnut, cotton, cumin, castor | Saurashtra groundnut Aspergillus contamination — direct export gating; cumin wilt is an unsolved problem |
| Madhya Pradesh | Soybean, wheat, cotton, pulses | Malwa soybean girdle beetle + charcoal rot; Bundelkhand pulse pod-borer |
| Karnataka | Maize, tomato/chilli, arecanut, ragi | Maize Fall Armyworm devastating Belagavi; Ganoderma wilt in coastal arecanut; chilli black thrips |
The forty-three targets
For each crop the matrix lists a primary disease/pest complex and a secondary list of opportunistic infections. We restrict the "primary" list to targets that meet three tests: yield loss documented above 8 % under untreated conditions in our four states; existing chemical control either failed, gated by EU MRL, or under regulatory review; and a biological mode-of-action exists at agronomically deliverable cost.
A short selection from the primary list, by way of illustration:
| Crop | Target | RAKSHAK option | Stage window |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cotton | Pink bollworm | VAJRANSH (Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% W.P) | Square initiation → boll formation |
| Cotton | Fusarium wilt | MRIDAJ (Trichoderma viride 1% W.P) — seed treatment | Sowing → 30 DAS |
| Grapes | Powdery mildew | KALVIR (Bacillus subtilis 1.5% A.S) | 4-leaf → veraison |
| Pomegranate | Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas) | TEJAJ (Pseudomonas fluorescens 2% A.S) | Flowering → fruit set |
| Soybean | Charcoal rot | HRITAJ (Trichoderma harzianum 1% W.P) | Seed treatment + flowering soil drench |
| Groundnut | Aspergillus (aflatoxin) | HRITAJ + TEJAJ stack | Pegging → maturity |
| Maize | Fall Armyworm | VAJRANSH | V3 → tasselling |
| Arecanut | Ganoderma wilt | HRITAJ — soil application | Pre-monsoon + post-monsoon |
The full matrix lists every intersection for every target. We do not publish it open-access — it is distributed to certified Doctor of Soil agronomists, FPO managers and authorised distributors as a working sheet, kept current with quarterly field amendments. The extract above is sufficient to demonstrate the underlying logic: each cell is a defensible recommendation, not an aspirational suggestion.
How the matrix was built: methodology in brief
Three inputs feed every cell.
Field trials. Each candidate product is run through a minimum of three growing seasons across a minimum of two agro-climatic zones before it earns a matrix entry. The trial design is RBD (Randomised Block Design) with chemical-standard and untreated checks. Efficacy is recorded against the named target, plus yield, plus harvest residue.
Strain-level performance data. A Trichoderma viride is not a Trichoderma viride. We carry strain-level performance characterisations: thermal tolerance ceilings, salinity tolerance bands, sporulation kinetics at field temperature. Our indigenous TNAU and ITCC strains carry higher tropical resilience than the typical imported reference strain (see Tropicalized vs. Imported Strains).
Regulatory and residue gate. Every recommendation must pass through the EU MRL gate for export crops and the FCO / CIBRC gate for domestic registration. A product that demonstrates field efficacy but exceeds residue thresholds at recommended dose does not enter the matrix.
What the matrix is not
It is not a substitute for a soil test. It is not a substitute for an agronomist's eye on the actual field. It is not a static document — pathogen complexes shift, resistance emerges, new strains come online. The matrix is quarterly-amended and version-controlled. The current public version is dated February 2026, version 1.4.
"A matrix doesn't replace judgement. It compresses what takes a season to learn into something a junior agronomist can carry in a back pocket. The judgement still happens in the field."
Access
Full matrix is distributed under the Doctor of Soil protocol. Request access via /contact/ or reach out to your nearest Paramverse Bio distributor with your FPO or institutional credentials.