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

6.

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

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

 

6.

 

 

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

 

6.

 

 

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

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:

 

 

 

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. 1.Front Line Demonstration:
   1. Area
   3. Area

  

                                    

4. Front Line Demonstration:

              

                                    

 

 

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		Bommi reddipalli		T1:  LRG105 T2:  TRG-59 T3:  LRG 41	170		170	135	1020	1050	1480	0	0	0	0	1.4	0
2	A. Venkata ramana Chary		Yelkala cheruvu							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

 

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

 

Calculated

 

with price of

 

Rs.5000/q

 

                   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 WesternBlack 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

 

v  Incidence of Pin Worm was recorded in the month of November and reached peak in the month of January, later declined trend was

 

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

 

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                         ::--

 

HORTICULTURE

 

1. ON FARM TRIAL

 

1.  Name of the technology     :: Assessment of chilli varieties.

 

2.  Nature of intervention          :: OFT                                                

 

3.  Crop                                   ::Chilli

 

4.  Purpose                              ::To assess the yield potential and disease resistance of LCA-625and LCA-680 over the local varieties

 

5.  Numbered                         ::   Approved               Achieved

 

            1. Area                        ::     0.5                             0.5

 

            2. No. of farmers         ::       5             5         

 

 

       Assessment of Chilli varieties: Maximum number of Fruits per plant (241) and Fruit length (10.5 cm) were recorded in HP-2043 followed by LCA 625

 

with number of Fruits per plant (221) and Fruit length (8.5 cm) than LCA 680 variety (216 no. & 7.8 cm). Maximum yield was recorded in HP-2043

 

(40.40 q/ha) followed by LCA-625 (38.20 q/ha) and LCA-680 (36.30 q/ha).

 

14.  Farmers reaction ::  Farmer satisfied with the HP-2043, as they were found resistant to diseases and high yield potential.

 

15.  Constraints                       :: --

 

16.  Feed back

 

1. To the Scientist             ::     --

 

        2. To the extension personnel  :: Variety need to be popularized.

 

17.  Whether continued during           ::Concluded.

 

       2022- 23 or not reasons

 

18.  Critical Observations                 ::

2. ON FARM TRIAL

 

1.  Name of the technology     ::Evaluation of Organic farming in Chilli.

 

2.  Nature of intervention        :: OFT                                                 

 

3.  Crop                                   ::Chilli

 

4.  Purpose                              ::To evaluate performance of organic farming in Chilli

 

5.  Numbered                          ::   Approved   Achieved

 

            1. Area                        ::     0.5                             0.5

 

            2. No. of farmers         ::       5             5        

 

 

v  Assessment of Organic farming in Chilli: Maximum number of Fruits per plant (246) and Fruit length (9.5 cm) was recorded  inDr.YSRHU recommendation followed by farmer practice with number of Fruits per plant (241) and Fruit length (8.8 cm) and followed by the Organic farming (98 no. & 6.5 cm). Maximum yield was recorded in Dr. YSRHU recommendation (42.30 q/ha) than farmer practice (40.80 q/ha) and the lowest was recorded in Organic farming (18.90 q/ha).

14.  Farmers reaction                        ::  --

15.  Constraints                       :: --

16.  Feed back

1. To the Scientist             ::     --

2. To the extension personnel::    ---

17.  Whether continued during       :: Concluded.

        2022- 23 or not reasons

18.  Critical Observations                 ::

3. ON FARM TRIAL

1.  Name of the technology     ::Assessment of high yielding Ridge guard variety Arka Prasan

2.  Nature of intervention        :: OFT                                                  

3.  Crop                                   ::  Ridge guard

4.  Purpose                              ::To assess the yield potential and disease resistance of Arka Prasan and Arka Vikram over the local varieties

5.  Numbered                          ::   Approved               Achieved

             1. Area                        ::     0.5                             0.5

               2. No. of farmers       ::       5              5         

 

v  Assessment of high yielding Ridge guard variety Arka Prasan: Maximum yield was recorded in Arka vikram (28.2 t/ha) and Arka Prasan (25.9 t/ha) than compared to Jaipur long (23.1 t/ha). Arka vikram fruits were found attractive, long, straight, tender green and preferred very much in the market.            .

14.  Farmers reaction                        ::  --

15.  Constraints                                   :: --

16.  Feed back

1. To the Scientist             ::     -

 2. To the extension personnel::    ---

17.  Whether continued during           :: 2 ^nd year

        2022- 23 or not reasons

18.  Critical Observations                 ::

4. ON FARM TRIAL

1.  Name of the technology     ::Assessment of high yielding Onion variety Arka Bheem

2.  Nature of intervention          :: OFT                                                

3.  Crop                                   ::  Onion

4.  Purpose                              ::To assess the yield potential and disease resistance of Arka Bheem and Arka Kalyan over the local varieties

5.  Numbered                          ::   Approved               Achieved

 

            1. Area                        ::     0.5                             0.5

 

            2. No. of farmers         ::       5                                 5 

 

v  Maximum yield was recorded in Arka Bheem (38.54 t/ha) and Arka Kalyan (36.27 t/ha) than compared to Nasik red (28.26 t/ha).

14.  Farmers reaction                        ::  --

15.  Constraints                                   :: --

16.  Feed back

1. To the Scientist             ::     --

       2. To the extension personnel::    ---

17.  Whether continued during           :: 2 ^nd year

        2022- 23 or not reasons

18.  Critical Observations                 ::

I  FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1.  Name of the technology     ::Demonstration of Coriander variety Susthira

2.  Nature of intervention        ::  FLD

3.  Crop                                   :: Coriander

4.  Purpose                              ::  To popularize new Coriander variety i.e. Susthira.

5.  Numbered                          ::   Approved               Achieved

 

            1. Area                        ::      2                           2

 

            2. No. of farmers         ::      10                        10

 

 

14.  Farmers reaction              :: Farmers were unsatisfied with the performance of Susthira but due to heavy rains in November, its potential yield was not achieved and this trial will be continued for next year.

 

15.  Constraints                                   :: Availability of Seed

 

16.  Feed back

 

1. To the Scientist             ::     --

 

        2. To the extension personnel:: --

 

17.  Whether continued during           :: Continued

 

       2022-23 or not reasons

 

18.  Critical Observations                 ::

 

II  FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

 1.  Name of the technology     ::Demonstration of ICM in Onion

 2.  Nature of intervention        ::  FLD

 3.  Crop                                   :: Onion

4. Purpose                              ::To create awareness on ICM and reduce the cost of cultivation, as farmers are indiscriminately using insecticides and fertilizers.

5. Numbered                          ::   Approved               Achieved

            1. Area                        ::     2                                 2

            2. No. of farmers         ::     10           10       

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

15. Constraints                                   :: New Twister disease has been diagnosed, which reducing the yields were drastically.

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             ::     --

       2. To the extension personnel :: Technology must be popularized.

17. Whether continued during           :   Continued.

       2022-23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations                :: --

III FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology     :: Demonstration of IPM in Chilli

2. Nature of intervention        :: FLD

3. Crop                                   :: Chilli

4. Purpose                              :: To create awareness on the IPM approach to the farming community and to increase Yields.

5. Numbered                          ::   Approved               Achieved

            1. Area                        ::4                    4

            2. No. of farmers         ::     10                      10       

14. Farmers reaction              :: Farmers were satisfied with the ICM package

15. Constraints                                   :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             ::     --

       2. To the extension personnel :: Technology need to be popularized

17. Whether continued during           :: Continued.

       2022-23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations                 :: --

IV FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology     :: Demonstration of Root rot management in Sweet orange

2. Nature of intervention        :: FLD

3. Crop                                   :: Sweet orange

4. Purpose                              :: To create awareness on the IDM approach to the farming community and to increase yields.

5. Numbered                          ::   Approved               Achieved

            1. Area                        :: 4                   4

            2. No. of farmers         ::     10                      10

14. Farmers reaction              :: Farmers were satisfied with the IDM package

15. Constraints                                   :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             ::     --

       2. To the extension personnel :: Technology need to be popularized

17. Whether continued during           :: Continued.

       2022-23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations                 :: --

HOME SCIENCE

1. ON FARM TRAIL

1.  Name of the technology     : Assessment of Coating Formulations to improve the Shelf life of Fruits and Vegetables

2.  Nature of intervention        :  OFT- Kharif/ Rabi 2022-23

3.  Crop & Farming Situation : Fruits and Vegetables

4.  Purpose                              : To increase the shelf life 

5.  Number                              :  Approved                 Achieved

            1. Area                        :  --                                  --

            2. No. of farmers         :5                                 5

6 –13

• There is an increase in shelf life of vegetables with 40 to 60 %
• No change in taste after cooking
• It was observed that drudgery was reduced to minimum with 35% when compare to farmers practice i.e. 68 % (Moderate)
• When compare to farmers practice, weeding with  CRIDA wheel hoe has saved an amount of Rs. 1200/- per acre
• Farm Women able to work easily with wheel hoe and accepted the technology 
  • 40 per cent increase in consumption of vegetables was observed with the  nutri kitchen garden
  • Saved and amount of  Rs.375 /- with sales of vegetables after consumption 
  • It was observed that total antioxidants, lycopene and ascorbic acid content was found to be high in dehydrated dried powder compare to the sun dried powder.These observations   may serve as guidance on selection of dehydrated tomato powder that can be consumed to meet the daily requirements.
  • Demonstrations on value-added products with tomato like tomato jam, toffee, Candies and ketchup   were given to farmers, farm women, and rural youth.
    • Value addition to red gram to toor dal has increased the farmer's income by   Rs. 2000.
    • Converting surplus production to value added product has increased the income of the farmer

14.  Farmers reaction                : Farmers expressed their willingness to adopt the technology

15.  Constraints                       :  Nil

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :

2. To the extension personnel:

17.  Whether continued during : Discontinued as per the instructions given at Action Plan Review Meeting 2023-24

         2023-24 or not reasons

18.  Remarks                           :

2. ON FARM TRAIL

1.  Name of the technology     : Assessing the performance of different hand weeder for weeding as       

                                                       drudgery reducing equipments

2.  Nature of intervention            :  OFT- Kharif/ Rabi 2022-23

3.  Crop & Farming Situation     : Vegetable crops 

4.  Purpose                                  : To reduce drudgery during weeding

                                                      To assess the time taken for harvesting the crop by traditional method and

improved method

5.  Number                              :  Approved                 Achieved

            1. Area                        :  5 ha                          5 ha

            2. No. of farmers         : 5                                5

6 –13

14.  Farmers reaction             :bhendi crop without causing any health problems

15.  Constraints                         : NIL

16. Feed back  : Farm women accepted the technology as it is user friendly and drudgery was

                                                     reduced with the use of wheel hoe when compare to farmers practice.

1. To the Scientist   :

2. To the extension personnel:

17.  Whether continued during  :  Discontinued as per the instructions given at Action Plan Review Meeting 2023-24

2023-24 or not reasons

18.  Remarks                           :

1. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1.  Name of the technology     :Demonstration of Nutri kitchen garden 

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

3.  Crop & Farming Situation: Vegetable crops

4.  Purpose                              : To demonstrate the role of Nutrition garden in farmer’s house holds

                                                  Maintaining the nutritional adequacy of adopted farm family

5.  Number                              :  Approved                 Achieved

            1. Area                        :  5 cents                      5cents

            2. No. of farmers         :10                               10

6 –13

14.  Farmers reaction         : Establishment of a nutri-kitchen garden has reduced nutritional deficiencies and also providing a source of  Supplementary income

15. Constraints:

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :          

2. To the extension personnel:

17.  Whether continued during

       2019-20 or not reasons    : Continued

18.  Remarks                           :

 

2. Front line Demonstrations 

1.  Name of the technology     : Demonstration on value addition to tomato  

2.  Nature of intervention        : FLD -Kharif-2023-24

3.  Crop           & Farming Situation   : Tomatoes

4.  Purpose                              :  Value addition to tomato 

5.  Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

            1. Area                        :   --                              --

            2. No. of farmers         :   10                            10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Crop	Name of the Tech.
1.	Sravani	Venkatapuram	Tomato	Tomato value addition
2.	Adilakshmi	Venkatapuram
3.	Vasavi	Kurnool
4.	N. Sekhar	Kurnool
5.	Md. Althaf	Kurnool
6.	Diwakar	Venkatapuram
7.	HB.Goverdhanreddy	Pedda Harivanam
8.	K.Gopi	Pedda Harivanam
9.	U.Venkatesh	Kadivella
10.	G.Suresh	Chilakadona

Previous results:

1. Total Antioxidants

2. Lycopene content

 

3.Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)

14.  Farmers reaction      :Accepted the technology and interested to take up as an entrepreneur activity

15.  Constraints           :

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist             :

2. To the extension personnel:

17.  Whether continued during

2023-24 not reasons         :  Continued under OFT on Assessment of capacity of drying equipment for fruits & vegetables 2023-24                                             

18.  Remarks               :

 

3. Front line Demonstrations 

1.  Name of the technology     :  Demonstration on value addition to pulses

2.  Nature of intervention        :  FLD-2023-24

3.  Crop           & Farming Situation   : Red gram

4.  Purpose                              :  Value addition

5.  Numbered                          :   Approved                Achieved

            1. No. of farmers         :   10                            10

6. –13