Plant Protection

 

1. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

 

1. Name of the technology     : Assessing the performance of improved varieties of Redgram against Wilt and SMD.

2. Nature of intervention        : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop & Farming Situation: Redgram, Rainfed – Black / Red Soils

4. Purpose                              : There is a need to assess the performance of recently released tolerant varieties i.e.LRG 105 and TRG 59 to Wilt and SMD

   for the management of disease and improving the yield.

5. Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

               No. of farmers         :   5                              5

S. no	Farmers name		Village/Mandal		Name of the Tech.		Duration (Days)			Yield (Kgs/Ha)			Per cent Disease incidence
							T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3	LRG 105		TRG 59		TS -3R
													Wilt	SMD	Wilt	SMD	Wilt	SMD
1	N Ananda Padmanabha		Bommireddipalli		T1: LRG105 T2: TRG-59 T3: LRG 41		170	170	135	1020	1050	1480	0	0	0	0	1.4	0
2	A. Venkataramana Chary		Yelkalacheruvu							980	1000	1410	0	0	0	0	0.8	0
3	E. Kiran Kumar Reddy		Maddikera							1000	1080	1450	0	0	0	0	0.4	0
4	B. Parndhama		Venkatagiri							1050	1180	1480	0	0	0	0	1.1	0
5	S. Krishna Naik		Pattikonda							930	1030	1400	0	0	0	0	0.9	0
Average										996 (-31)	1068 (-26)	1444	0	0	0	0	0.92	0
		Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha)		Gross returns (Rs./ha)		Net returns (Rs./ha)		Benefit Cost   Ratio (BCR)
T1		37148		65736		28584		1.76:1
T2		37148		70488		33340		1.89:1
T3		35880		95885		60005		2.67:1

During 2022-2023, SMD incidence was not recorded in operational villages of KVK and Wilt incidence was also negligible in operational villages of KVK. Among varieties assessed for Wilt and SMD, LRG 105 and TRG 59 are found free from Wilt and Sterility Mosaic Disease, but in local variety (TS-3R) 0.9 % Wilt was recorded in initial stages of crop. Maximum yield was recorded in Local varieties (14.44 q/ha) than the LRG 105 (9.96 q/ha) and TRG 59 (10.68 q/ha) due to terminal moisture stress in long duration varieties.

7. Farmers reaction : No incidence of Wilt and SMD was recorded in LRG 105 and TRG 59. Farmers were satisfied with the yield of TRG 59 and requested for short duration Wilt and SMD Tolerant varieties.

8. Constraints                                     :

9. Feed back

      1. To the Scientist                               : required short duration Wilt and SMD Tolerant varieties

            2. To the extension personnel             :

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued, OFT converted in to FLD.

11. Remarks                                                   : --

   

2. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

 

1. Name of the technology     : Assessment of different technology options for the management of Pink Boll Worm in Bt. Cotton.

2. Nature of intervention        : OFT-Kharif- 2021

3. Crop&Farming Situation     :   Cotton, Irrigated /Rainfed – Red / Black Soils

4. Purpose                              : The main objective of the intervention is to assess the Specialized Pheromone Lure Application Technology for

the management of Pink Boll Worm.

5. Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

            1. No. of farmers         :   5                              5

6. Irrigated Condition

S. no	Farmers name			Village / Mandal	Name of the Tech.		% Rosette flower			Yield (Kgs/Ha)
							T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1	K. Sriramulu			Kalugotla	T1:CREMIT +ANGRAU RP. T2:ANGRAU recommended practice. T3:Farmers practice		4.9	9.9	19.8	3750	3270	3090
2	M. Basvaraju			Kotekal			5.7	10.2	18.2	3890	3140	3070
3	Ch. Madhusudhan			Palakalu			5.0	13.3	16.7	3560	3080	2990
Average							5.2 (-71.4)	11.1 (-39)	18.2	3730	3160	3050
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)	Gross returns (Rs//ha)			Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
T1		95333	261333			142666	2.74:1
T2		89633	221433			131800	2.47:1
T3		90613	213500			122887	2.35:1

 

S. no	Farmers name		Village / Mandal		Name of the Tech.		% Rosette flower			Yield (Kgs/Ha)
							T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1	K. Naganna		Chennapuram		T1: CREMIT +ANGRAU RP. T2: ANGRAU recommended practice. T3:Farmers practice		18.9	39.1	51.8	1450	1240	1030
2	B. Chandra		Betinahle				20.0	31.7	49.1	1750	1520	1310
Average							19.45 (-61.4)	35.4 (-29.8)	50.4	1600 (36.8)	1380 (17.9)	1170
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)		Gross returns (Rs//ha)		Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)
T1		68500		112000		43500	1.63:1
T2		59500		96600		37100	1.62:1
T3		61440		81900		20460	1.33:1

 Rainfed

Condition

 

Seasonal incidence of PBW in Bt Cotton in adopted villages of KVK, Banavasi

During 2022-2023, the incidence of PBW was recorded in 04^th week of July and later incidence reached peak in the month of December under irrigated condition. In rainfed condition, Incidence of PBW was recorded in 02^nd week of August and later incidence reached peak in the month of December. Among three technologies assessed CREMIT along with ANGRAU Recommended practice was found effective in reducing PBW damage to 71 and 61 per cent in irrigated and rainfed conditions than the farmer practice. CREMIT along with ANGRAU Recommended practice recorded 23.2 and 36.8 per cent increased yields in irrigated and rainfed conditions respectively than the farmer practice.

7. Farmers reaction                :: Farmers realized the importance of pheromone traps for monitoring and mass trapping of Pink Boll Worm adults and also realized the importance of IPM practice along with CREMIT PBW paste.

8. Constraints             :

9. Feed back

     1. To the Scientist                    :   --

2. To the extension personnel : Popularization of technology by imparting demonstrations and trainings.

10. Whether continued during

2023-274 or not reasons   : Concluded

18. Remarks                    : --

 

3. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

 

1. Name of the technology     : Assessment of Organic farming in Groundnut.

2. Nature of intervention        : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop           &Farming Situation    : Groundnut, Rainfed/Irrigated – Black / Red Soils

4. Purpose                              : Excessive and indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides causing environmental problems and

   increased cost of cultivation. So, to assess the use of Organic sources like FYM, Vermicompost, Neem cake,

   Botanicals, Bio-pesticides and cultural practices for Pest management and to reduce cost of cultivation.

5. Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

               No. of farmers         :   5                              4

6.         Rainfed Condition: Kadiri Lepakshi

 

Calculated with price of Rs.5000/q

 

 

S. no	Farmers name		Village / Mandal		Name of the Tech.		% Hopper		Yield (Kgs/Ha)
							T1	T2	T1	T2
1	S. Diwakar		Venkatapuram		T1:Recommended Practice (ANGRAU). T2:Farmers practice		4.1	8.6	1200	1310
2	N. Ramu Naik		Pattikonda				3.7	3.1	1150	1290
Average							3.9 (-33.3)	5.8	1175 (-9.6)	1300
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)		Gross returns (Rs//ha)		Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)
T1		54044		58750		4706	1.08:1
T2		59938		65000		5063	1.08:1

 

 

               

 Irrigated condition: TCGS 1694

 

S. no	Farmers name		Village / Mandal		Name of the Tech.		% Hopper		Yield (Kgs/Ha)
							T1	T2	T1	T2
1	K. Govindarajulu		Hanumapuram		T1:Recommended Practice (ANGRAU). T2:Farmers practice		8.2	14.6	3350	3680
2	B. Balaraju		Venkatapuram				9.1	15.4	3520	3750
Average							8.6 (-42.6)	15	3440 (-7.5)	3720
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)		Gross returns (Rs//ha)		Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)
T1		58544		223275		164731	3.81:1
T2		61938		241475		179538	3.89:1

 Calculated with price of Rs.6500/q

Two drought and Pest tolerant varieties were assessed for suitability in Organic farming practice in rainfed and irrigated conditions.

Under rainfed condition (Kadiri Lepakshi), Recommended practice has recorded 9.6 % reduction in yield (13.0 q/ha.) than farmer practice (11.75 q/ha). Under irrigated condition (TCGS 1694), Recommended practice has recorded 7.5 % reduction in yield (37.2 q/ha.) than farmer practice (34.4 q/ha).

7. Farmers reaction                                        : Farmers are not getting good remunerative prices for their organic produce, requested for organic certification

8. Constraints                                     : Farmers are not getting good remunerative prices for their organic produce, requested for organic certification

9. Feed back

      1. To the Scientist                               :

            2. To the extension personnel             :

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

11. Remarks:: --

 

4. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

 

1. Name of the technology     : Assessment of different technology options for the Management of Black Thrips, T.parvispinus in Chilli.

2. Nature of intervention        : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop&Farming Situation    : Chilli, Irrigated / Rainfed – Black / Red Soils

4. Purpose                              : There is a need to assess the performance of different technology options for the Management of Black Thrips,

T.parvispinus in Chilli. As Black Thrips is a new invasive insect pest recorded during October, 2021 in Chilli crop in western

part of Kurnool District, by which drastic reduction in yields were recorded.

5. Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

               No. of farmers         :   5                              5

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name			Village/Mandal		Name of the Tech.	No of Thrips per flower		Yield (Kgs/Ha)
							T1	T2	T1	T2
1	M. Basvaraju			Kotekal		T1: Recommended Pratice (DR YSRHU) T2: Farmer Practice			42.5	39.1
2	M. Narayana			Chennapuram					43.1	36.8
3	Madhusudhan			Polekalu					40.5	37.5
4	Madanmohan Reddy			Yemmiganur					41.8	39.0
5	Satyanarayana Reddy			Kadimetla					40.0	36.8
Average							13.3 (63.9)	21.8	41.58 (9.8)	37.84
		Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha)	Gross returns (Rs./ha)		Net returns (Rs./ha)		BCR
T1		234330	1247400		1013070		5.32:1
T2		265176	1135200		870024		4.28:1

 

 Incidence of Western Black Thrips, T.parvispinus in Chilli

 

Incidence of Black Thripswas recorded in the month of September and reached peak in the month of December, later declined trend was recorded. No insecticide and Biopesticide were found effective during the peak activity of Thrips, only regular spraying of novel insecticides reduced the intensity. Thrips population. 9.8 % increase in yield was recorded in recommended practice (41.58 q/ha) than farmer practice (37.84 q/ha). 63.9 per cent reduction damage was recorded in recommended practice than farmer practice. Due to infestation Black Thrips and Fruit Rot in Chilli 25 per cent reduction in yield was recorded

14. Farmers reaction                                      :

15. Constraints                                                           : --

16. Feed back

      1. To the Scientist                               :

            2. To the extension personnel             :

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

18. Remarks:: --

 

1. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

 

1. Name of the technology     : Demonstration on Biointensive Pest Management in Rice

2. Nature of intervention           : FLD - Kharif, 2021

3. Crop           &Farming Situation    : Rice, Irrigated - Black soils

4. Purpose                             : The main objective of the intervention is to assess the Bio-Intensive Pest Management in Rice.

5. Number                                   :   Approved                       Achieved

            1. Area                        :   4 ha                        4 ha

            2. No. of farmers         :   10                           10

6 –13              

RNR 15048

           

NDLR 7

 

           

BPT 5204

 

Recommended practice has recorded 12.5% reduction in yield (61.25 q/ha.) than farmer practice (70.0 q/ha) in RNR 15048. Same trend was recorded in NDLR 7, 21.9% reduction in yield in recommended practice (56 q/ha) in comparison to farmer practice (71.75q/ha) and in BPT 5204, 25.6% reduction in yield in recommended practice (50.75 q/ha) in comparison to farmer practice (68.25/ha). RNR 15048 followed by NDLR 7 were found suitable for organic farming.

14. Farmers reaction                   :: Farmers were satisfied with the technology, as there produce were sold at higher remunerative price .

15. Constraints                                   :: -

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             :: Management of BPH and Blast with organic products may be developed.

2. To the extension personnel :: --

17. Whether continued during   :: Concluded.

       2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks                           :: --

 

2. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

 

1. Name of the technology     : Demonstration on Integrated Pest Management of Pin Worm in Tomato.

2. Nature of intervention        : FLD- Rabi 2021-22

3. Crop           &Farming Situation    : Tomato, Irrigated – Red Soils

4. Purpose                              : The main objective of the intervention is to evaluate and demonstrate the recommended practice of IIHR,

   Bengaluru for the management of Pin Worm in Tomato.

5. Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

            1. Area                        :     4 ha                           4 ha

            2. No. of farmers         :     10                        10

6. –13

Treatments	Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha)	Gross returns (Rs/ha)	Net returns (Rs/ha)	Benefit Cost   ratio (B: C)
Recommended Practice (Demo.)	138960	235320	96360	1.69:1
Farmers practice	159860	224400	64540	1.40:1

 

 

Seasonal incidence of Pin Worm in Tomato.

 

Standard Week	Month	Thrips population per flower
41-44	October	0
45-49	November	4.0
50-53	December	15.8
01-04	January	22.0
05-06	February	4.1

               

Incidence of Pin Worm was recorded in the month of November and reached peak in the month of January, later declined trend was recorded. In recommended practice (12.3) 22.1 % reduction of Pin worm damage was recorded than the farmer practice (15.8). Recommended 

practice has recorded 4.8 % increase in yield (58.83 t/ha) than farmer practice (56.10 t/ha).

 

14. Farmers reaction               : Farmers were satisfied with the technology and effectively managed the new invasive pest.

15. Constraints     ::--

               16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             :: --

2. To the extension personnel: Create awareness on IPM practices Pin worm Management

17. Whether continued during           ::Concluded.

       2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks                           ::--

 

3. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

 

1. Name of the technology     : Demonstration on Integrated Pest Management in Onion.

2. Nature of intervention        : FLD- Kharif 2022-23

3. Crop           &Farming Situation    : Onion, Irrigated – Black / Red soils

4. Purpose                              : The main objective of the intervention is to evaluate and demonstrate the recommended practice of DR YSRHU for the

                                                   management of Pest in Onion.

5. Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

            1. Area                        :     4 ha                           4 ha

            2. No. of farmers         :     10                         10

6. –13

Treatments	% Damage	Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha)	Gross returns (Rs/ha)	Net returns (Rs/ha)	Benefit Cost   ratio (B: C)
Recommended Practice (Demo.)	3.3	122350	137700	15350	1.1:1
Farmers practice	5.4	131642	134300	15342	1.0:1

 

 In recommended practice (3.3) 63.6 % reduction of bulb rot was recorded than farmer practice (5.4). Recommended practice has recorded 2.44 %

increase in yield (202.5 q/ha) than farmer practice (197.5 q/ha).

 

15. Constraints     ::--

           16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             :: --

2. To the extension personnel: Create awareness on IPM practices in Onion.

17. Whether continued during           ::Disontinued

       2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks                           ::--

 

4. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

 

1. Name of the technology     : Demonstration on Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Chickpea.

2. Nature of intervention        : FLD- Rabi 2022-23

3. Crop           &Farming Situation    : Chickpea, Rainfed – Black Soils.

4. Purpose                              : The main objective of the intervention is to evaluate and demonstrate the recommended practice of ANGRAU for

   the management of Pest in Chickpea.

5. Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

            1. Area                        :     4 ha                           4 ha

            2. No. of farmers         ::     10                       10

6. –13

Treatments		% Damage	Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha)	Gross returns (Rs/ha)	Net returns (Rs/ha)	Benefit Cost   ratio (B: C)
Recommended Practice		0.8	44550	85750	41200	1.92:1
Farmers practice		5.4	46840	79380	32540	1.69:1

           

In recommended practice (0.8) 85 % reduction of Root rot was recorded than farmer practice (5.4). Recommended practice has recorded 8.0% increase in yield (17.5 q/ha) than farmer practice (16.2 q/ha).

14. Farmers reaction               : Farmers were satisfied with the technology.

15. Constraints     ::--

           16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             :: --

2. To the extension personnel: Create awareness on IPM practices in Chickpea

17. Whether continued during         ::Discontinued

       2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks                         ::--