Impact of front line demonstration on yield and economics of wheat under north Gujarat condition

pdf
Số trang Impact of front line demonstration on yield and economics of wheat under north Gujarat condition 7 Cỡ tệp Impact of front line demonstration on yield and economics of wheat under north Gujarat condition 249 KB Lượt tải Impact of front line demonstration on yield and economics of wheat under north Gujarat condition 0 Lượt đọc Impact of front line demonstration on yield and economics of wheat under north Gujarat condition 2
Đánh giá Impact of front line demonstration on yield and economics of wheat under north Gujarat condition
5 ( 12 lượt)
Nhấn vào bên dưới để tải tài liệu
Để tải xuống xem đầy đủ hãy nhấn vào bên trên
Chủ đề liên quan

Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(9): 2250-2256 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 9 Number 9 (2020) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.909.280 Impact of Front Line Demonstration on Yield and Economics of Wheat under North Gujarat Condition Sachin H. Malve*, Yogesh D. Pawar, Umesh Dobariya and D. A. Sadrasaniya Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Banaskantha-I, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Deesa, Banaskantha, Gujarat-385 535, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Extension gap, FLD, Technological gap, Technological index, Wheat Article Info Accepted: 17 August 2020 Available Online: 10 September 2020 Productivity of wheat in India is in quite low and owing to partial adoption of recommended technologies and inappropriate application of critical inputs. It is imperative to demonstrate high yielding variety of wheat GW-366 and GW-451 which is dwarf and resistant to lodging and seed treatment practices with bifenthrin for termite management on farmer’s field for improving the overall production and productivity of wheat under close supervision of the scientist. Krushi Vigyan Kendra, Banaskantha-I conducted 175 front line demonstrations on wheat during 2013-14 to 2019-20 (7 years) to compare the yield levels of wheat under FLD field and farmer’s practices and collect the feedback of farmers for further improvement in research and extension programmes. The results obtained from seven years data revealed that average yield of wheat varieties under demonstration practices was 38.72 q ha-1 as against 31.19 q ha-1 observed under farmer’s practices, thereby recording an average yield increase of 26.32 per cent. The average extension gap, technology gap and technology index were 7.93 q ha -1, 14.94 q ha-1 and 27.96 per cent, respectively in FLD of wheat. The demonstrated practices gave higher benefit cost ratio ranging from 2.44 to 3.76 with a mean of 2.90 compared to farmer’s practices (2.18). Introduction Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the second most important cereal crop in India after rice and it contributing substantially to the national food security by providing more than 50% of the calories to the peoples. Globally, it was cultivated on an area of 219 m ha with production of 715.9 million ton in the year 2013. In India, wheat is being cultivated on an area of 30.79 m ha with 98.51 million ton of production and 3.20 t ha-1 of average productivity (Anon, 2017-18). In Gujarat, wheat is an important rabi crop and is grown almost throughout the state with 1.05 million hectares area under cultivation, total production of 3.05 million tonnes and an average yield of 2.89 tonnes per hectare during 2017-18 (Anon. 2017-18). There are several factors, which are responsible for low average yield of wheat in Gujarat like use of old varieties and low quality seed, partial adoption of package of 2250 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(9): 2250-2256 practices, higher seed rate, unawareness about seed treatment practices and termite damage. This factor affects the yield of wheat crop and created considerable gap in actual productivity and potential yield and there is scope to reach potential level with proper management practices. The productivity of wheat per unit area could be increased by adopting recommended scientific and sustainable management production practices using suitable high yielding varieties namely GW-366 and GW451. Frontline demonstration is the new concept of field demonstration evolved by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) with main objective to demonstrate newly released crop production and protection technologies and its management practices in the farmer’s fields under different agroclimatic regions of the country under different farming situations. While demonstrating the technologies in the farmer’s fields, the scientists are required to study the factors contributing higher crop production, field constraints of production and thereby generate production data and feedback information. Taking into account the above considerations, Frontline demonstrations (FLD,s) were carried out in a systematic manner on farmer’s field to show the worth of a new improved variety with seed treatment practices with bifenthrin for termite management and convincing farmers to adopt improved production management practices of wheat for enhancing productivity of wheat, technology transformation on large scale and improving livelihood of farmers. Materials and Methods The present front line demonstration was carried by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Deesa, Banaskantha-I, Gujarat during rabi season of 2013-14 to 2019-20 (7 years) on 175 farmers’ field covering 70 ha of area on adopted village of different talukas of Banaskantha district. The region is characterized by subtropical and semi-arid weather comes under IV- North Gujarat Agro-climatic zone. Soils in the demonstrated area were sandy clay loam texture with pH ranges between 7.1 to 8.3 and EC 0.22 to 0.31. The available nitrogen content was low and ranges from 170 to 277 kg N ha-1, available phosphorous content was medium (26.44 to 58.60 kg P2O5 ha-1) and available potassium content was high (420.1 to 575.4 kg K2O ha-1) respectively. To popularized improved wheat production package constrains were identified through PRA survey, top ranked farmers problems on wheat were identified and front line demonstration were planned and conducted on farmers’ field. Each demonstration was conducted in an area of 0.4 ha and adjacent to the farmer’s fields in which the crop was cultivated with farmers practice / local variety. In demonstration package (DP), critical inputs like improved variety GW-366 and GW-451 and bifenthrin insecticide for termite management were demonstrated to farmer’s in group meeting programme and trained each farmers’ for their appropriate window of application. Other technological information like balanced fertilizer uses, weed management and irrigation scheduling etc also given time to time and comparison has been made with existing farmers practices which is shown in Table 1. The necessary steps for the selection of site and farmers, lay out of demonstration etc were followed as suggested by Chaudhary (1999). The farmer’s practices (FP) plots were maintained as local check for comparison study. To study the impact of Frontline demonstrations, data from FLDs and local practices were collected and analyzed. The Extension gap, technology gap and technology index were calculated using the formula as suggested by Samui et al., (2000) as given below. 2251 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(9): 2250-2256 Technology gap = Demonstration yield Extension gap Farmers yield = Potential Demonstration yield- yield- were motivated by results of demonstrated technologies applied in the FLDs trials and it is expected that they would adopt these technologies in the coming years also. Yield gap Results and Discussion Seed yield It is evident from data presented in table 2 that demonstration plot of improved package in wheat recorded higher seed yield ranged from 37.97 to 41.40 q ha-1 with mean yield of 38.72 q ha-1 as compared with the farmers’ practices (28.40 to 34.57 q ha-1) during 201314 to 2019-20, respectively. The percent increased in seed yield was 14.71 to 33.70 with average of 26.32 percent during demonstration period. The above trend of successively increased in seed yield of wheat over the year was obtained due to adoption of improved variety of wheat GW-366 AND GW-451, recommended seed rate (120 kg ha1 ) which maintain optimum plant population and seed treatment with bifenthrin for termite management. This increment in grain yield with improved practices was mainly because of high yielding varieties of wheat GW-366 and GW-451. Further, seed treatment practices with bifenthrin prevent the termite damage and reduced the cost of cultivation and yield loss. Similar yield enhancement in different crops in Frontline demonstration has amply been documented by Haque (2000), Tiwari and Saxena (2001), Tiwari et al., (2003), Nazrul Islam et al., (2004), Hiremath et al., (2007), Mishra et al., (2009), Tomar et al., (2009), Dhaka et al., (2010), Kumar et al., (2010) and Sreelakshmi et al., (2012). From these results it is evident that performance of improved varieties was found better than the local check under local conditions. Farmers Yield of the Frontline demonstration trials and potential yield of the different varieties of crop was compared to estimate the yield gaps which were the extension gap was calculated i. e. 7.93 q ha-1 (Table 2). The extension gap showed increasing trends in each consecutive year of study during demonstration years which emphasizes there is a need to educate the farmers through various means for adoption of improved agricultural production technologies to reverse the trend. In case of technology gap shows the gap in the demonstration yield over potential yield and it was 14.94 q ha-1. The observed technology gap may be attributed to dissimilarities in soil fertility and other vagaries of weather conditions in the area. Hence, to narrow down the gap between the yields of different varieties, location specific recommendation appears to be necessary. Technology index shows the feasibility of the variety at the farmer’s field. The lower the value of technology index (27.96%) more is the feasibility (Table 3). The finding of the present study is in line with the findings of Sawardekar et al., (2003), Hiremath and Nagaraju (2009) and Dhaka et al., (2010), Joshi et al., (2005), Pawar et al., (2017) and Malve et al., (2018). Economics Gross return, net return and Benefit-Cost ratio were recorded higher under intervention practices against farmer’s practices in all the years of study (Table 3). The Benefit-Cost ratios were ranges from 2.13 - 2.72 in intervention practices (IP) against 1.78 – 2.02 in farmer’s practices (FP) during 2252 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(9): 2250-2256 demonstrated year (Table 3). Higher benefit cost ratio under intervention practice was self explanatory indicated economic viability of the technology and convinced the farmers for adoption of intervention imparted. The economic feasibility of demonstrated practices (DP) over traditional farmer’s practices (FP) was calculated depending on the prevailing prices of inputs and output costs (Table 4). It was found that cost of cultivation of wheat under demonstrated practices (DP) varied from Rs. 21,400 to 23,950 ha-1 in case of GW-366 and Rs. 22502 to 23750 ha-1 in case of GW-451 with overall an average of Rs. 22,967 ha-1 as compare with Rs. 24,602 ha-1 in farmers practice. Frontline demonstrations recorded higher mean gross returns (Rs. 67,709 ha-1) and mean net return (Rs. 44742 ha-1) with higher benefit cost ratio (2.90) under demonstrated practices of different improved varieties of wheat as compared to local checks (BCR 2.18). These results are in line with the findings of Gurumukhi and Mishra (2003), Sawardekar et al., (2003), Sharma (2003), Pawar et al., (2017) and Malve et al., (2018). Table.1 Comparison between demonstration practices (DP) and existing farmer’s practice (FP) of wheat Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Particulars Farming situation Variety Sowing time Seed rate Sowing method Seed treatment 7 8 Fertilizer application Weed management Demonstration practices (IP) Irrigated GW-366, GW-451 November 100-120 kg ha-1 Line sowing Thiram @ 2 g followed by Bifenthrin @ 2.5 ml per kg of seed, Shade drying for 7 hours NPK: 120:60:0 Pre-emergence application of Pendimethaline and post emergence application of metsulfuron methyl Farmers practice (FP) Irrigated GW-496 Oct – Nov. 160-180 kg ha-1 Broadcasting Without seed treatment 180:60:0 Post emergence herbicide 2-4 D or metsulfuron methyl Table.2 Seed Yield, technology gap, extension gap and technology index of wheat under demonstration and farmers’ practices Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year 2012-13 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Area No. of farmers 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 70 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 175 Seed yield (q/ha) Potential DP FP 51.70 51.70 51.70 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 53.59 37.67 41.40 35.49 38.64 37.97 40.12 39.00 38.72 32.33 34.00 29.48 29.48 28.40 34.57 34.00 31.19 2253 % increase over FP 16.52 21.76 20.39 31.07 33.70 24.69 14.71 26.32 Technology gap (q/ha) Extension gap (q/ha) Technology index (%) 14.03 10.30 16.21 16.36 17.03 14.79 16.00 14.94 5.34 7.40 6.01 9.16 9.57 7.50 5.00 7.93 27.14 19.92 31.35 29.75 30.96 27.82 29.09 27.96 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(9): 2250-2256 Table.3 Economics of wheat under demonstration and farmers’ practices Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year 2012-13 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) DP FP 23950 24750 21400 24450 23275 25425 22502 23660 23750 24680 22650 23800 23245 25450 22967 24602 Gross return (Rs./ha) DP DP 58389 50112 67523 55454 59765 49644 65688 50116 64701 48280 70611 60843 87288 73540 67709 55427 Net return (Rs./ha) FP FP 34439 25362 46123 31004 36490 24219 43186 26456 40951 23600 47961 37043 64043 48090 44742 30825 BCR DP 2.44 3.16 2.57 2.92 2.72 2.76 3.76 2.90 Table.4 Extent of farmers satisfaction of extension services rendered (n=175) Satisfaction level Low Medium High Number of respondent 16.32 38.68 120.0 Farmer’s satisfaction The extent of satisfaction level of farmers over extension services and performance of demonstrated variety depends on demonstrated farmers’ feedback and it was measured by Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) (Table 4). The data depicted in the Table 4 indicated that majority of the farmers expressed the high (68.57%) level of satisfaction for improved variety of wheat GW-366 and GW-451 and low cost technology of seed treatment with bifenthrin for termite management under demonstration whereas, very few (9.33) percent of respondents expressed lower level of satisfaction. The results are in close conformity with the results of Narayanaswamy and Eshwarappa (1998) on pulses crops, Kumaran and Vijayaragavan (2005) on mustard and gram crops, Dhaka et al., (2010) and Meena et al., (2014) on maize crop. The higher level of satisfaction with respect to services rendered, linkage with Percent 9.33 22.10 68.57 farmers’ and technologies demonstrated etc. indicate stronger conviction, physical and mental involvement in the frontline demonstration which in turn would lead to higher adoption. It indicates that wheat grown with traditional practices with low yields are identified by low knowledge, lack awareness about high yielding varieties, low risk bearers with negative perception of wheat production technology. From the above finding it is concluded that yield gap between farmers’ practices and improved practices was perceptibly higher; there is urgent need to make stronger extension services for educating the cultivators in the implementation of improved practices. However, the yield level under FLDs was better than the old varieties and performance of these varieties could be further improved by adopting recommended packages of practices. Hence, it can be also observed that increment in yield was because of adoption of high yielding varieties, seed 2254 FP 2.02 2.27 1.95 2.12 1.96 2.06 2.89 2.18 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(9): 2250-2256 treatment practices and frontline demonstration of proven technologies. Yield potentials of crop can be increased to greater extent. This will subsequently increase the income as well as the livelihood of the farming community of the district. From the above research findings it can be also concluded that the maximum number of the respondents had high level of knowledge, more acceptability for this demonstrated technology and year by year improved variety replacing old varieties through not only through demonstration but also through various capacity building programmes, exposure visit, field visits, field day, mass media channels, interviews etc. References Anonymous, (2017-18). http://www.agricoop. nic.in Chaudhary, B. N. (1999). Krishi Vigyan Kendra- A guide for KVK managers. Division of Agricultural Extension, ICAR, pp. 73-78. Dhaka, B. L., Meena, B. S. and Suwalka, R.L. (2010). Popularization of improved maize production technology through frontline demonstrations in southeastern Rajasthan. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1(1):39-42. Gurumukhi D. R. and Mishra, S. (2003). Sorghum Frontline demonstration - A success story. Agriculture Extension Review. 15(4):22-23. Haque, M. S. (2000). Impact of compact block demonstration on increase in productivity of rice. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 19(1):22-27. Hiremath, S. M., Nagaraju, M. V. and Shashidhar, K. K. (2007). Impact of Frontline demonstrations on onion productivity in farmer’s field. Paper presented In: National Seminar on Appropriate Extension Strategies for Management of Rural Resources, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, December 18-20, p.100. Joshi, P. K., Singh, N. P., Singh, N. N., Gerpacio, R.V. and Pingali, P. L. (2005). Maize in India: Production Systems, Constraints, and Research Priorities. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT. Kumar, A., Kumar, R., Yadav, V. P. S. and Kumar, R. (2010). Impact assessment of frontline demonstrations of Bajra in Haryana state. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 10 (1):105108. Kumaran, M, and Vijayaragavan, K. (2005). Farmers’ satisfaction of agricultural extension services in an irrigation command area. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 41 (3&4):8-12. Meena, B. L., Meena, R. P., Meena, R. R. and Bhim Singh. (2014). Popularization of improved maize (Zea mays L.) production technology through frontline demonstrations in semi arid zone IVA of Rajasthan. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 6 (2): 763-769. Mishra, D. K., Paliwal, D. K., Tailor, R. S. Deshwal, A. K. (2009). Impact of frontline demonstrations on yield enhancement of potato. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 9 (3):26-28. Narayanaswamy, C. and Eshwarappa, G. (1998). Impact of Frontline demonstrations. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 34(1&2):14-15. Nazrul Islam M, Md Rezual Karim and QM Safigual Islam. (2004). Economic performance of BARI Mash1 (Improved variety of Black gram) with traditional variety at farmers fields of Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences. 3:247-250. Sachin H. Malve, Yogesh D. Pawar, F. K. Chaudhary, Umesh Dobariya, K. M. Joshi, (2018). Productivity 2255 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(9): 2250-2256 enhancement of green gram (Vigna radiata L.) through front line demonstrations in tribal area of North Gujarat. Multilogic in Science. VIII, Issue XXVII, pp.142-144. Samui, S. K., Maitra, S., Roy, D. K., Mandal, A. K. and Saha, D. (2000). Evaluation of front line demonstration on groundnut. J. Indian Soc. Coastal Agric. Res., 18(2): 180-183. Sawardekar, S. V., Dhane, S. S. and Jadhav, B. B. (2003). Front-line demonstration performance of salt-tolerant rice varieties in coastal saline soils. IRRN 28 (1):73-74. Sharma, O. P. (2003). Moth bean yield improvement through Frontline Demonstrations. Agriculture Extension Review. 15 (5):11-13. Sreelakshmi, C. H., Sameer Kumar, C. V. and Shivani, D. (2012). Productivity enhancement of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) through improved production technology, Madras Agricultural Journal. 99 (4-6):248-250. Tiwari, K. B. and Saxena, A. (2001). Economic Analysis of FLD of oil seeds in Chindwara. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 16 (3&4):185189. Tiwari, R. B., Singh, V. and Parihar, P. (2003). Role of Frontline demonstration in transfer of gram production technology. Maharashtra Journal of Extension Education. 22 (1): 19. Tomar, R. K. S., Sahu, B. L., Singh, R. K. and Prajapati, R. K. (2009). Productivity enhancement of black gram through improved production technologies in farmers’ field. Journal of Food Legumes. 22(3):202-204. Yogesh Pawar, Sachin H. Malve, Chaudhary, F. K., Umesh Dobariya and Patel, G. J. (2018). Yield gap analysis of groundnut through cluster front line demonstration under North Gujarat condition. Multilogic in Science, Volume VII, Issue XXV, pp. 177-179. How to cite this article: Sachin H. Malve, Yogesh D. Pawar, Umesh Dobariya and Sadrasaniya, D. A. 2020. Impact of Front Line Demonstration on Yield and Economics of Wheat under North Gujarat Condition. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 9(09): 2250-2256. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.909.280 2256
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.