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-625 and LCA-680 over the local varieties
5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved
1. Area :: 0.5 0.5
2. No. of farmers :: 5 5
|
S. No |
Name of the farmer |
Village |
Variety |
Name of the techno logy |
Duration (days) |
Number of Fruits per plant |
Fruit length (cm) |
Yield ( q/ha ) |
||||||||||
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
||||
|
1. |
B. Basava raju |
Chenna puram |
LCA- 625 |
LCA- 680 |
HP 2043 |
Assess ment of chilli varieties |
210 |
210 |
210 |
221 |
216 |
241 |
8.5 |
7.8 |
10.5 |
36.78 |
35.50 |
41.82 |
|
2 |
A. Venkata swami |
Chenna puram |
37.90 |
36.43 |
40.40 |
|||||||||||||
|
3 |
E. Krishna Goud |
Kotekal |
38.88 |
37.88 |
39.55 |
|||||||||||||
|
4 |
E. Khasimanna |
Kotekal |
39.76 |
36.10 |
40.80 |
|||||||||||||
|
5 |
G. Viswanath |
Kalu gotla |
37.60 |
35.42 |
39.64 |
|||||||||||||
|
Average Yield (q/ha) |
38.20 |
36.30 |
40.40 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha) |
2,69,453 |
2,70,342 |
2,80,003 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Gross income ( Rs. /ha) |
11,46,000 |
10,89,000 |
12,12,000 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Net income (Rs./ha) |
8,76,547 |
8,18,658 |
9,31,997 |
|||||||||||||||
|
B : C Ratio |
4.25 |
4.03 |
4.33 |
|||||||||||||||
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 ::
1.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
2. No. of farmers :: 5 5
|
S. No |
Name
of the farmer |
Village |
Variety |
Name of the technology |
Duration (days) |
Number of Fruits per plant |
Fruit length (cm) |
Yield ( q/ha ) |
||||||||||
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
||||
|
1. |
S. Diwakar |
Venkapuram |
Organic farming |
University recommendation (Dr YSRHU) |
Farmer practice |
Evaluation of Organic farming in Chilli |
210 |
210 |
210 |
98 |
246 |
241 |
6.5 |
9.5 |
8.8 |
18.5 |
42.12 |
41.82 |
|
2 |
S. Govinda Rajulu |
Venkapuram |
20.2 |
42.40 |
40.40 |
|||||||||||||
|
3 |
H.Govardhan Reddy |
Pedda harivanum |
19.2 |
41.55 |
39.55 |
|||||||||||||
|
4 |
E. Shankar |
Chetnahalli |
18.5 |
42.80 |
40.80 |
|||||||||||||
|
5 |
G. Viswanath |
Kalugotla |
18.5 |
42.80 |
40.80 |
|||||||||||||
|
Average Yield (q/ha) |
18.90 |
42.30 |
40.80 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha) |
266483 |
248342 |
252483 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Gross income ( Rs. /ha) |
567000 |
1269000 |
1224000 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Net income (Rs./ha) |
300517 |
1020658 |
971517 |
|||||||||||||||
|
B:C Ratio |
2.13 |
5.11 |
4.85 |
|||||||||||||||
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 ::
2.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
|
S.No |
Name of the farmer |
Village |
Variety |
Name of the technology |
Duration(days) |
Yield ( t/ha ) |
|||||||
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
|||||
|
1. |
G.HariKumar |
Mugathi |
Arka Prasan |
Arka Vikram |
Jaipur long |
Assessment of high yielding Ridge guard variety Arka Prasan |
135 |
135 |
135 |
27.5 |
29.5 |
24.5 |
|
|
2 |
G.Hanumanthu |
Mugathi |
25.2 |
28.5 |
21.2 |
||||||||
|
3 |
E.Veeranna |
Ragimandoddi |
24.2 |
26.2 |
22.2 |
||||||||
|
4 |
A.Thulasappa |
Nandavarum |
26.5 |
28.4 |
23.5 |
||||||||
|
5 |
H.Ramudu |
Hanumpuram |
26.2 |
28.2 |
24.2 |
||||||||
|
Average Yield (t/ha) |
25. 9 |
28. 2 |
23.1 |
||||||||||
|
Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha) |
165850 |
143825 |
185685 |
||||||||||
|
Gross income ( Rs. /ha) |
310800 |
338400 |
277200 |
||||||||||
|
Net income (Rs./ha) |
144950 |
194575 |
91515 |
||||||||||
|
B:C Ratio |
1.87 |
2.35 |
1.49 |
||||||||||
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
|
S.No |
Name of the farmer |
Village |
Variety |
Name of the technology |
Duration(days) |
Yield ( t/ha ) |
||||||
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
||||
|
1. |
G.Sunkanna |
Ralladoddi |
Arka Bheem |
Arka Kalyan |
Nasik Red |
Assessment of high yielding Onion variety Arka Bheem |
130 |
130 |
130 |
38.58 |
35.50 |
29.80 |
|
2 |
B.Nagaraju |
Ragimandoddi |
37.50 |
36.43 |
28.60 |
|||||||
|
3 |
C.Mohammed Ali |
Masumandoddi |
38.28 |
37.88 |
26.20 |
|||||||
|
4 |
K.Chennappa |
Hanumpuram |
40.76 |
37.10 |
28.45 |
|||||||
|
5 |
B.Ranganna |
Vemugodu |
37.60 |
34.42 |
28.28 |
|||||||
|
Average Yield (t/ha) |
38.54 |
36.27 |
28.26 |
|||||||||
|
Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha) |
152568 |
155754 |
175754 |
|||||||||
|
Gross income ( Rs. /ha) |
385400 |
362700 |
282600 |
|||||||||
|
Net income (Rs./ha) |
232832 |
206946 |
106846 |
|||||||||
|
B:C Ratio |
2.53 |
2.33 |
1.61 |
|||||||||
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
|
S.No |
Name of the farmer |
Village |
Variety |
Name of the technology |
Duration (days) |
Yield ( q/ha ) |
|||
|
Demo |
Check |
Demo |
Check |
Demo |
Check |
||||
|
1. |
N B.Mallikarjuna |
Vemugodu |
Susthira |
Local variety |
Demonstration of Coriander variety Susthira |
90 |
90 |
6.5 |
5.3 |
|
2 |
T.Krishna |
Peddamarrivedam |
6.8 |
5.4 |
|||||
|
3 |
G. Sathyanarayana Reddy |
Vendhavakili |
7.1 |
6.0 |
|||||
|
4 |
N.Ranganna |
Aluru |
6.5 |
5.2 |
|||||
|
5 |
K. Mallayya |
Kowthalum |
6.2 |
5.7 |
|||||
|
6 |
K. Purushotham Reddy |
Vendavakili |
6.8 |
5.4 |
|||||
|
7 |
B. Eranna |
Mittasamudraum |
6.9 |
5.8 |
|||||
|
8 |
B. Linganna |
Kanakaveedu |
7.2 |
5.1 |
|||||
|
9 |
M. Gowvardan |
Chinaneltur |
6.3 |
5.3 |
|||||
|
10 |
G. Durgappa |
Doddanagiri |
6.0 |
5.7 |
|||||
|
Average Yield (q/ha) |
6.63 |
5.49 |
|||||||
|
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha) |
38826 |
39650 |
|||||||
|
Gross income (Rs. /ha) |
53048 |
43920 |
|||||||
|
Net Income (Rs./ha) |
14222 |
4270 |
|||||||
|
B:C Ratio |
1.37 |
1.11 |
|||||||
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
|
S.No |
Name of the farmer |
Village |
Variety |
Name of the technology |
Yield ( t/ha ) |
|||
|
Demo |
Check |
Demo |
Check |
|||||
|
1 |
B. Nagaraju |
Ragimandoddi |
Arka Bheem |
Nasik Red |
Demonstration of ICM in Onion |
29.50 |
26.80 |
|
|
2 |
K. Chennappa |
Hanumapuram |
30.43 |
27.60 |
||||
|
3 |
B. Ranganna |
Vemugodu |
33.50 |
30.20 |
||||
|
4 |
G. Sunkanna |
Ralladoddi |
32.10 |
29.45 |
||||
|
5 |
E. Veeranna |
Ragimandoddi |
30.42 |
28.28 |
||||
|
6 |
H. Ramudu |
Hanumapuram |
32.25 |
28.80 |
||||
|
7 |
Y. Thulasamma |
Nandavarum |
33.00 |
30.60 |
||||
|
8 |
G. Harikumar |
Mugathi |
30.25 |
26.20 |
||||
|
9 |
G. Govardan Reddy |
Venkatapuram |
30.20 |
27.25 |
||||
|
10 |
M. Sanker |
Chetanhalli |
31.25 |
29.28 |
||||
|
Average Yield (t/ha) |
31.29 |
28.45 |
||||||
|
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha) |
136458 |
149346 |
||||||
|
Gross income (Rs. /ha) |
312900 |
284500 |
||||||
|
Net Income (Rs./ha) |
176442 |
135174 |
||||||
|
B:C Ratio |
2.29 |
1.90 |
||||||
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
|
S.No |
Name of the farmer |
Village |
|
Name of the technology |
Duration(days) |
Yield ( q/ha ) |
||
|
Demo |
Check |
Demo |
Check |
|||||
|
1. |
B. Basavaraju |
Chennapuram |
Demonstration of IPM in Chilli |
210 |
210 |
46.00 |
37.10 |
|
|
2 |
G. Raghavendra |
Chennapuram |
45.50 |
39.50 |
||||
|
3 |
G. Venkata Swami |
Chennapuram |
44.00 |
41.60 |
||||
|
4 |
G. Pimabsab |
Kotakonda |
42.80 |
42.00 |
||||
|
5 |
E.Khasimanna |
Kotekal |
46.75 |
39.80 |
||||
|
6 |
E.Krishna Goud |
Kotekal |
44.00 |
40.50 |
||||
|
7 |
A.Narashimudu |
Bodubanda |
42.10 |
41.65 |
||||
|
8 |
Satyanarayana Reddy |
Masedpuram |
48.30 |
42.80 |
||||
|
9 |
T.Anjinayya |
Kadimetla |
47.00 |
39.00 |
||||
|
10 |
V.Thimmappa |
Chennapuram |
44.60 |
38.75 |
||||
|
Average Yield (q/ha) |
45.10 |
38.45 |
||||||
|
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha) |
182483 |
224342 |
||||||
|
Gross income (Rs. /ha) |
300800 |
297840 |
||||||
|
Net Income (Rs./ha) |
118317 |
73498 |
||||||
|
B:C Ratio |
1.64:1 |
1.32:1 |
||||||
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
|
S.No |
Name of the farmer |
Village |
|
Name of the technology |
Duration(days) |
Yield ( t/ha ) |
||
|
Demo |
Check |
Demo |
Check |
|||||
|
1. |
B. Basavaraju |
Chennapuram |
Demonstration of Root rot management in Sweet orange |
22.0 |
20.0 |
|||
|
2 |
G. Raghavendra |
Chennapuram |
21.2 |
18.2 |
||||
|
3 |
G. Venkata Swami |
Chennapuram |
22.2 |
18.5 |
||||
|
4 |
G. Pimabsab |
Kotakonda |
22.5 |
20.5 |
||||
|
5 |
E.Khasimanna |
Kotekal |
21.2 |
19.2 |
||||
|
6 |
E.Krishna Goud |
Kotekal |
20.5 |
17.5 |
||||
|
7 |
A.Narashimudu |
Bodubanda |
21.0 |
19.0 |
||||
|
8 |
Satyanarayana Reddy |
Masedpuram |
19.5 |
18.5 |
||||
|
9 |
T.Anjinayya |
Kadimetla |
21.0 |
19.0 |
||||
|
10 |
V.Thimmappa |
Chennapuram |
19.9 |
18.0 |
||||
|
Average Yield (t/ha) |
21.1 |
18.8 |
||||||
|
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha) |
342587 |
353587 |
||||||
|
Gross income (Rs. /ha) |
422000 |
376000 |
||||||
|
Net Income (Rs./ha) |
79413 |
22413 |
||||||
|
B:C Ratio |
1.23 |
1.06 |
||||||
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 :: --