Crop Production

Crop Production

1. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Effect of Organic farming on Yield and soil health in Rice

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Rice, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of rice under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Variety	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Variety	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1: Organic farming practice (ANGRAU Recommendations)	T2:ICM(ANGRAU Recommendations)	T3: Farmers practice
1	A. Krishna	NDLR 7	KosigI	Effect of Organic farming on Yield of Rice	5840	6900	6600
2	S. Diwakar	NDLR 7	Venkatapuram		5230	6300	7200
3	Balaraju	NDLR 7	Korempeta		5370	7350	6390
	Average yield (kg/ha)				5480	6850	6730
	Gross returns(Rs.)				134,150/-	139,740	137292
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)				72600	63025	68500
	Net returns (Rs.)				61550/-	76715	68792
	B:C Ratio				1.29	1.98	1.77
	% increase in Yield				18% lower yield over RDF	1.78% over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs and initially low yields were observed by the farmers

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic products for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of Groundnut under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

6. No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1:Organic farming practice	T2:RDF	T3:Farmer’s practice
1	Govindarajulu	Hanumapuram	Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming	2280	2400	2600
2	Balaraju	Venkatapuram		2621	2518	3182
3	veeresh	masmandoddi		2149	3062	2858
	Average yield (kg/ha)			2350	2660	2880
	Gross returns(Rs.)			137475	155610	168597
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			84500	67680	71580
	Net returns (Rs.)			52975	87930	97017
	B:C Ratio			1.62	2.29	2.35
	% increase in Yield			11% and 18% lower over RDF and Farmer’s practice	7.6% lower yield over farmers practice

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs by the farmers.

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic inputs for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued,

11. Remarks:

2. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceeding rabi chickpea cropping sequence

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop & Farming Situation : Khari f(foxtail millet/Blackgram)- Bengalgram

4. Purpose : To assess the performance of short duration varieties of foxtail millet and Blackgramto fit in foxtail millet/blackgram- Bengal gram cropping sequence

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1: (Foxtail millet-Bengalgram )	T2: (Blackgram-Bengalgram)	T3: Farmers practice Kharif fallow-Bengalgram
1	K. Sriramulu	Kalugotla	Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceedingrabi chickpea cropping sequence	2788	2553	1540
2	M. Basvaraju	Kotekal		2308	2726	1400
3	Ch. Madhusudhan	Palakalu		1468	1780	1350
	Average yield (kg/ha)			2188	2371	1430
	Gross returns(Rs.)			114432/-(34.6%)	124003/-	74789/-
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			64200(73%)	72360 (92%)	39500
	Net returns (Rs.)			50232(29.7%)	51643(31%)	35289
	B:C Ratio			1.78	1.71	1.89
	% increase in Yield			34% increasedyld over FP	39% increased yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Growing of short duration foxtail millet and blackgram prior to bengalgram helped farmers in realisation of additional yield, they

expressed satisfaction in performance of short duration variety of foxtail millet and Blackgram.

8. Constraints: Non availability of seed and market for foxtail millet

9. Feed back:

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of drought resistant and high yielding varieties foxtail millet and blackgram

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on double cropping and short duration varieties

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

3. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Rabi- 2022

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To assess the effect of pre- mix application of imazethapyr + quizalopfopethyl on weeds and yield of groundnut

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1: Pendimethalin @ 750 g a.i/ha fb pre- mix application of 50 % of each of imazethapyr @ 37.5 g a.i/ha + quizalopfop ethyl @ 25 g a.i/ha at 25 DAS	T2: pendimethalin 30%+Imazethapyr 2% EC a.i/ha at 20DAS fb HW at 35 DAS	T3: Farmer’s practice(Twice HW at 20DAS & 40DAS)
1	KandoliPullaiah	Gonegandla	Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut	2600	3080	3180
2	E. Venkatesh	Chilakaladona		3080	3328	3886
3	K. Nagesh	Masmandoddi		2420	3042	3044
	Average yield (kg/ha)			2700(-14.6%)	3150(-25%) (-12%)	3370
	Gross returns(Rs.)			157950	184275	197145
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			68650	79680	82580
	Net returns (Rs.)			89300	104595	114565
	B:C Ratio			2.3	2.31	2.38
	% increase in Yield			14% Lower yield over FP	12% Lower yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in use of herbicides in effective control of weeds

8. Constraints: Non availability of selective herbicide that controls problematic weeds

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of integrated weed management practices for effective control of weeds

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of herbicide mixtures

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Jowar
4	Purpose	:	To popularize the variety NTJ-5
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		5	5

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village			Variety	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
								T1:Demo NTJ-5	T2: Farmers practice
1	Sunkanna		Gonikondla			NTJ 5	Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5	2940	2370
2	K.ChinnaRamaiah		Ladhagiri					3890	2740
3	Revathi		Ladhagiri					4180	2450
4	Srinivasulu		Ramapuram					3465	2585
5	Venkkanna		Gajuldinnae					3650	2980
		Average yield (kg/ha)						3625	2625
		Gross returns (Rs.)						90625	65625
		Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)						18075	18075
		Net returns (Rs.)						72550	47550
		B:C Ratio						5.01	3.6
		% increase in Yield						38% higher yield over FP
6.	Farmers reaction			:	Farmers expressed that the performance of NTJ-5 found better compared to local variety because of tolerance to drought and high yielding potential of the NTJ-5
7.	Constraints			:
8.	Feedback			:	: Farmers were satisfied with the technology
	To the Scientist			:	--
	To the extension personnel			:	Popularize the tested variety through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.
9.	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons			:	Concluded
10.	Remarks			:

2. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Bengalgram
4	Purpose	:	To improve profitability of rain fed farmers by increasing the production and income levels by introduction of new high yielding Chick pea varieties
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		10	10

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village	Variety	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
						T1:Demo NBeG-452	T2: Farmers practice(JG-11)
1	Venkateshwarlu		kalugotla	NBeG-452	Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety	2300	1890
2	krishniah		kalugotla			1900	2136
3	veeresh		masmandoddi			2100	1784
4	Narsimha		venkatagiri			2300	1982
5	Ramakrishna		Banavasi			2275	2093
6	B. Parandhama		venkatagiri			2286	1920
7	Punikonda		Hanumapuram			1940	2066
8	prakash		venkatagiri			2092	1980
9	G. Virupakshi		Masmandoddi			2421	2038
10	B M Baswaraj		Kotekal			2136	1871
		Average yield (kg/ha)				2175	1975
		Gross returns (Rs.)				113752	103292
		Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)				59650	59650
		Net returns (Rs.)				54102	43642
		B:C Ratio				1.9	1.73
		% increase in Yield				9.19% over FP

6	Farmers reaction	:	: Farmers were satisfied with the technology
7	Constraints	:
8	Feedback	:
	To the Scientist	:	--
	To the extension personnel	:	Popularization of the tested variety through field days, print and electronic media.
9	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons	:	Concluded
10	Remarks	:

3. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Pigeonpea
4	Purpose	:	To evaluate the effect of weather advisory services in cultivation of rainfed pigeonpea
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		5	5

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
					T1:Demo : selection of variety, ii. timing of input Application (Nutrients and water) and protection measures taken on the basis of weather advisories	T2: Farmers practice(Cultivation of crop without following weather advisories)
1	G. Naganna		chennapuram	Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation	1428	1385
2	G. Kondaiah		chennapuram		1621	1400
3	Mekalapeddiah		venkatagiri		1480	1532
4	S. Raghavendra		Yemmiganur		1721	1528
5	BoyaBalaraju		Yemmiganur		1590	1330
		Average yield (kg/ha)			1568	1435
		Gross returns (Rs. ha-¹.))			157500/-	146250/-
		Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha^-1 )			36500/-	39600/-
		Net returns (Rs. ha-^1.)			1,20,000	104950
		B:C Ratio			4.20:1	3.50:1
		% increase in Yield			8% over FP

6	Farmers reaction	:	Cultivation of pigeonpea using weather advisories resulted in reduction in cost of cultivation of 3100/ha and 9.2% higher yield over farmer’s practice
7	Constraints	:	Need to reach all the farmers hrough suitable platform for weather information, inputs and market information
8	Feedback	:
	To the Scientist	:	--
	To the extension personnel	:
9	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons	:	continued
10	Remarks	:

4. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Cotton
4	Purpose	:	To evaluate the performance of LHDP-5 cotton variety
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		5	5

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
					T1:Demo : LHDP cotton-5	T2: Farmers practice(BT Cotton ( US 7067)
1	Diwakar		Venkatapuram	Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP	1280	1600
2	G. Virupakshi		Masmandoddi		1321	1680
3	B M Baswaraj		Kotekal		1290	1620
4	K. Sudhakar		Gonegondla		1400	1790
5	G. Kondaiah		chennapuram		1459	1935
		Average yield (kg/ha)			1350	1725
		Gross returns (Rs. ha-¹.))			82080/-	104880/-
		Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha^-1 )			48600/-	59800/-
		Net returns (Rs. ha-^1.)			33480/-	45080/-
		B:C Ratio			1.68	1.75
		% increase in Yield			21% lower yield over FP

6.	Farmers reaction	:	More number of plants per square meter(7) were recorded higher under LHDP Cotton sown with 75 cm x 20 cm spacing, where as more number of bolls per plant (46) and higher fibre yield(1850 kg ha-1)was recorded under farmer’s practice with use of BT-HYBRID sown with 90 cm x 30 cm spacing
7.	Constraints	:	Low yield under LHDP COTTON-5 variety compared to BT-Cotton variety
8.	Feedback	:	Need cotton variety tolerant to pests and diseases and suitable for mechanical harvesting
	To the Scientist	:	--
	To the extension personnel	:
10	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons	:	Continued
11	Remarks	:

CROP PRODUCTION

1. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Effect of Organic farming on Yield and soil health in Rice

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Rice, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of rice under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Variety Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1: Organic farming practice (ANGRAU Recommendations) T2:ICM(ANGRAU Recommendations) T3: Farmers practice

1 A. Krishna NDLR 7 KosigI Effect of Organic farming on Yield of Rice 5840 6900 6600

2 S. Diwakar NDLR 7 Venkatapuram 5230 6300 7200

3 Balaraju NDLR 7 Korempeta 5370 7350 6390

Average yield (kg/ha) 5480 6850 6730

Gross returns(Rs.) 134,150/- 139,740 137292

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 72600 63025 68500

Net returns (Rs.) 61550/- 76715 68792

B:C Ratio 1.29 1.98 1.77

% increase in Yield 18% lower yield over RDF 1.78% over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs and initially low yields were observed by the farmers

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic products for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of Groundnut under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

6. No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1:Organic farming practice T2:RDF T3:Farmer’s practice

1 Govindarajulu Hanumapuram Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming 2280 2400 2600

2 Balaraju Venkatapuram 2621 2518 3182

3 veeresh masmandoddi 2149 3062 2858

Average yield (kg/ha) 2350 2660 2880

Gross returns(Rs.) 137475 155610 168597

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 84500 67680 71580

Net returns (Rs.) 52975 87930 97017

B:C Ratio 1.62 2.29 2.35

% increase in Yield 11% and 18% lower over RDF and Farmer’s practice 7.6% lower yield over farmers practice

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs by the farmers.

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic inputs for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued,

11. Remarks:

2. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceeding rabi chickpea cropping sequence

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop & Farming Situation : Khari f(foxtail millet/Blackgram)- Bengalgram

4. Purpose : To assess the performance of short duration varieties of foxtail millet and Blackgramto fit in foxtail millet/blackgram- Bengal gram cropping sequence

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1: (Foxtail millet-Bengalgram ) T2: (Blackgram-Bengalgram) T3: Farmers practice

Kharif fallow-Bengalgram

1 K. Sriramulu Kalugotla Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceedingrabi chickpea cropping sequence 2788 2553 1540

2 M. Basvaraju Kotekal 2308 2726 1400

3 Ch. Madhusudhan Palakalu 1468 1780 1350

Average yield (kg/ha) 2188 2371 1430

Gross returns(Rs.) 114432/-(34.6%)

124003/-

74789/-

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 64200(73%) 72360 (92%) 39500

Net returns (Rs.) 50232(29.7%) 51643(31%) 35289

B:C Ratio 1.78 1.71 1.89

% increase in Yield 34% increasedyld over FP 39% increased yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Growing of short duration foxtail millet and blackgram prior to bengalgram helped farmers in realisation of additional yield, they

expressed satisfaction in performance of short duration variety of foxtail millet and Blackgram.

8. Constraints: Non availability of seed and market for foxtail millet

9. Feed back:

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of drought resistant and high yielding varieties foxtail millet and blackgram

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on double cropping and short duration varieties

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

3. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Rabi- 2022

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To assess the effect of pre- mix application of imazethapyr + quizalopfopethyl on weeds and yield of groundnut

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1: Pendimethalin @ 750 g a.i/ha fb pre- mix application of 50 % of each of imazethapyr @ 37.5 g a.i/ha + quizalopfop ethyl @ 25 g a.i/ha at 25 DAS T2: pendimethalin 30%+Imazethapyr 2% EC a.i/ha at 20DAS fb HW at 35 DAS T3: Farmer’s practice(Twice HW at 20DAS & 40DAS)

1 KandoliPullaiah Gonegandla Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut 2600 3080 3180

2 E. Venkatesh Chilakaladona 3080 3328 3886

3 K. Nagesh Masmandoddi 2420 3042 3044

Average yield (kg/ha) 2700(-14.6%) 3150(-25%) (-12%) 3370

Gross returns(Rs.) 157950 184275 197145

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 68650 79680 82580

Net returns (Rs.) 89300 104595 114565

B:C Ratio 2.3 2.31 2.38

% increase in Yield 14% Lower yield over FP 12% Lower yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in use of herbicides in effective control of weeds

8. Constraints: Non availability of selective herbicide that controls problematic weeds

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of integrated weed management practices for effective control of weeds

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of herbicide mixtures

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Jowar

4 Purpose : To popularize the variety NTJ-5

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 5 5

S. No

Farmer’s name Village Variety Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo NTJ-5 T2: Farmers practice

1 Sunkanna Gonikondla NTJ 5 Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5 2940 2370

2 K.ChinnaRamaiah Ladhagiri 3890 2740

3 Revathi Ladhagiri 4180 2450

4 Srinivasulu Ramapuram 3465 2585

5 Venkkanna Gajuldinnae 3650 2980

Average yield (kg/ha) 3625 2625

Gross returns (Rs.) 90625 65625

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 18075 18075

Net returns (Rs.) 72550 47550

B:C Ratio 5.01 3.6

% increase in Yield 38% higher yield over FP

6. Farmers reaction : Farmers expressed that the performance of NTJ-5 found better compared to local variety because of tolerance to drought and high yielding potential of the NTJ-5

7. Constraints :

8. Feedback : : Farmers were satisfied with the technology

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel : Popularize the tested variety through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.

9. Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : Concluded

10. Remarks :

2. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Bengalgram

4 Purpose : To improve profitability of rain fed farmers by increasing the production and income levels by introduction of new high yielding Chick pea varieties

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 10 10

S. No

Farmer’s name

Village Variety Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo NBeG-452 T2: Farmers practice(JG-11)

1 Venkateshwarlu kalugotla NBeG-452 Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety 2300 1890

2 krishniah kalugotla 1900 2136

3 veeresh masmandoddi 2100 1784

4 Narsimha venkatagiri 2300 1982

5 Ramakrishna Banavasi 2275 2093

6 B. Parandhama venkatagiri 2286 1920

7 Punikonda Hanumapuram 1940 2066

8 prakash venkatagiri 2092 1980

9 G. Virupakshi Masmandoddi 2421 2038

10 B M Baswaraj Kotekal 2136 1871

Average yield (kg/ha) 2175 1975

Gross returns (Rs.) 113752 103292

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 59650 59650

Net returns (Rs.) 54102 43642

B:C Ratio 1.9 1.73

% increase in Yield 9.19% over FP

6 Farmers reaction : : Farmers were satisfied with the technology

7 Constraints :

8 Feedback :

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel : Popularization of the tested variety through field days, print and electronic media.

9 Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : Concluded

10 Remarks

3. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Pigeonpea

4 Purpose : To evaluate the effect of weather advisory services in cultivation of rainfed pigeonpea

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 5 5

S. No

Farmer’s name Village Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo : selection of variety, ii. timing of input Application (Nutrients and water) and protection measures taken on the basis of weather advisories T2: Farmers practice(Cultivation of crop without following weather advisories)

1 G. Naganna chennapuram Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation 1428 1385

2 G. Kondaiah chennapuram 1621 1400

3 Mekalapeddiah venkatagiri 1480 1532

4 S. Raghavendra Yemmiganur 1721 1528

5 BoyaBalaraju Yemmiganur 1590 1330

Average yield (kg/ha) 1568 1435

Gross returns (Rs. ha-1.)) 157500/- 146250/-

Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha-1 ) 36500/- 39600/-

Net returns (Rs. ha-1.) 1,20,000 104950

B:C Ratio 4.20:1 3.50:1

% increase in Yield 8% over FP

6 Farmers reaction : Cultivation of pigeonpea using weather advisories resulted in reduction in cost of cultivation of 3100/ha and 9.2% higher yield over farmer’s practice

7 Constraints : Need to reach all the farmers hrough suitable platform for weather information, inputs and market information

8 Feedback :

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel :

9 Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : continued

10 Remarks :

4. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Cotton

4 Purpose : To evaluate the performance of LHDP-5 cotton variety

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 5 5

S. No

Farmer’s name Village Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo : LHDP cotton-5 T2: Farmers practice(BT Cotton ( US 7067)

1 Diwakar Venkatapuram Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP 1280 1600

2 G. Virupakshi Masmandoddi 1321 1680

3 B M Baswaraj Kotekal 1290 1620

4 K. Sudhakar Gonegondla 1400 1790

5 G. Kondaiah chennapuram 1459 1935

Average yield (kg/ha) 1350 1725

Gross returns (Rs. ha-1.)) 82080/- 104880/-

Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha-1 ) 48600/- 59800/-

Net returns (Rs. ha-1.) 33480/- 45080/-

B:C Ratio 1.68 1.75

% increase in Yield 21% lower yield over FP

6. Farmers reaction : More number of plants per square meter(7) were recorded higher under LHDP Cotton sown with 75 cm x 20 cm spacing, where as more number of bolls per plant (46) and higher fibre yield(1850 kg ha-1)was recorded under farmer’s practice with use of BT-HYBRID sown with 90 cm x 30 cm spacing

7. Constraints : Low yield under LHDP COTTON-5 variety compared to BT-Cotton variety

8. Feedback : Need cotton variety tolerant to pests and diseases and suitable for mechanical harvesting

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel :

10 Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : Continued

11 Remarks :

Indian Council Of Agricultural Research

ACHARYA N.G.RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA

BANAVASI-518 360

Quick Links

Notifications/Downloads