Sei sulla pagina 1di 3
International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2019,

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences

ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2019, pp.-7770-7772.

Available online at https://www.bioinfopublication.org/jouarchive.php?opt=&jouid=BPJ0000217

Research Article YIELD GAP ANALYSIS IN KABULI CHICKPEA (CICER KABULI ANUM.) THROUGH FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATION

SHUKLA A.K. * , MISHRA D.K., RAKESH JAIN R., PACHLANIYA N. AND SHUKLA K.

ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust, Kasturabagram, Indore, 452020, Madhya Pradesh, India *Corresponding Author: Email - arunpagarbhu@gmail.com

Received: January 04, 2019; Revised: January 23, 2019; Accepted: January 24, 2019; Published: January 30, 2019 Abstract: Chickpea (Cicer kabuli anum.) is a major pulse crop grown in Madhya Pradesh particularly in Indore district with 11.83 q/ha which is far below than its potential yield (20 q/ha). Therefore to enhance its production and productivity front line demonstration were carried out at Indore district during 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. The interventions imparted under front line demonstration were consisting Improve variety, {Phule G 0517 (Kripa)}, integrated nutrient management (20:60:20 kg N: P: K /ha + Rhizobium + P.S.B.@ 5 ml per kg of seed), integrated pest management, Deep ploughing, seed treatment with Trichoderma viridi, Quinolphos @1.5 lt/ha+ Indoxacarb 3.3 lt/ha). Existing farmers practice was treated as control. Full gap was observed in case of variety, seed rate, seed treatment, seed inoculation, while partial gap was observed in use of inorganic fertilizer and plant protection measure followed by the farmers. 26.23 percent average yield enhancement was recorded with extension gap ranging between 3.1, 2.4 and 3.49 q/ha during the period of study. The trends of technology gap (ranging between 5.4, 6.93 and 4.39 q/ha) reflected the farmer’s co-operation in carrying out such demonstration with encouraging results in sequent year. Average technological index 14.8 % showed the feasibility of the evolved technology at the farmer’s field. Net return under recommended practices was recorded Rs 70553, 73220 and Rs 57847 while it was Rs 45593, 57228 and Rs 39525 under existing farmers practice. Benefit: cost ratio was ranged between 1: 3.47, 3.25 and 1:2.97. Consequently it was clearly showed that the Front line demonstration can paved the way of minimizing the gap between actual yield of chick pea and its yield potential.

Keywords: Chickpea, Deep ploughing, Seed treatment

Citation: Arun Kumar Shukla, et al., (2019) Yield Gap Analysis in Kabuli Chickpea (Cicer kabuli anum.) Through Front line Demonstration. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp.- 7770-7772. Copyright: Copyright©2019 Arun Kumar Shukla, et al., This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction Chickpea (Cicer arietinum Linn) is a major pulse crop occupies around 38 percent areas under pulses and contributes around 50 percent of total production in India. It is being grown throughout the country except on high altitude of northern, north eastern regions & costal peninsula. Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal are the major chickpea producing state sharing over 95 percent area. Pulses are the important source of proteins and essential component of Indian diet. The area, production and productivity of the pulses in the country is 29.46 million hectare, 22.95 million tonnes and 7.79 q/ha respectively during 2016-17 [12]. Among the pulses Chickpea is the leading food legume crop in India covering about of 9.93 Million ha with production and productivity of 9.75 million tonnes and 9.73 q/ha respectively [12]. In Madhya Pradesh it is being grown under in 2.63 million hectares with the production of 2.84 million tons and average productivity is 1082 kg ha. [12]. Indore is a major chickpea producing district of Madhya Pradesh covering around 74 thousands hectare area with production of 87 thousands tones and average productivity is 11.83 q/ha. [11]. Average productivity of chickpea in Madhya Pradesh was reported 10.82 q/ha which is far below than its potential (20.00 q/ha) yield. Lower productivity of chick pea with respect to its potential yield (20.00 q/ha) was observed due to low adoption of recommended production technologies and biotic and a biotic stress. Major a biotic stress under chickpea cultivation are soil moisture, organic matter and terminal drought while biotic stresses are infestation of gram pod borer causes 75 per cent pod damage in the crop [13]. To mitigate the causes of yield loss and maximization of income from chick pea cultivation, dissemination of recommended technologies through front line demonstration were conducted and their yield and economics were analysed.

Materials and Methods:

To enhance the yield and income from chick pea, 39 Front Line Demonstrations were organised during three consecutive years i.e. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh. As intervention superior technologies included variety Kripa, integrated nutrient management (20:60:20 kg N:P:K /ha) , Rhizobium + P.S.B. @ 5ml per kg of seed, integrated pest management, Deep ploughing , seed treatment with Trichoderma viridi, Pheromone trap 10/ha + bird percher @ 50/ha + Quinolphos @1.5 lt/ha+Indoxacarb 3.3 lt/ha) were demonstrated under recommended technologies. Prior to conducting front line demonstrations specific skill trainings ware imparted to the selected farmers. All other steps like site selection, farmer selection, layout, farmer’s participation etc were followed as suggested by [3]. Along with demonstration plots, control plots ware also laid out as farmer’s practice. All the crop production packages other than interventions were applied similarly in both the recommended and control plots. Difference in package of practices between recommended practice and farmers practice are listed in [Table-1]. The data related to yield and economics from both the demonstrations and control plots were collected and their technology gap, extension gap, technology index and economics were analysed.

Results and Discussion Gap between Recommended and Existing Farmers Practice - Data were collected from both the demonstration and existing farmers plots (Control) about the major packages of practices and presented in [Table-1]. Farmers in general were using unidentified variety instead of improved variety of Kabuli chickpea. Farmers followed narrow sowing (30 cm row to row and 5 cm plant to plant) against the recommended 45 cm row to row and 5 cm plant to plant distance. Because of this they applied higher seed rate (150 kg/ha) than the recommended (120 kg/ha).

||BioinfoPublications||

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2019

7770

Yield Gap Analysis in Kabuli Chickpea (Cicer kabuli anum.) Through Front line Demonstration

Table-1 Difference between recommended and existing farmer practices under chickpea FLD

Crop Rotation

 

Recommended practices

 

Farmers practice

 

Remarks

Variety

PKV-4

 

Doller Unidentify Variety

 

Fully gap

Seed rate (Kg/ha)

 

120

150

Fully gap

Seed treatment

 

Carboxin 37.5%+Thiram 37.5% @ 3g/kg seed.

 

Not Treated

 

Fully gap

Seed Inoculation

 

Rhizobium+PSB@5 ml/kg seed

 

Not Treated

 

Fully gap

Fertilizer dose (Kg/ha)

20:50:20:20

 

20:80:0

Partial gap

Sowing time

10-12 October

 

15-20 October

 

Partial gap

Sowing method

 

45x10 cm Row to row and plant to plant

 

30x5 cm Row to row and plant to plant

Fully gap

Plant protection

 

IPM module (Pheromone trap (10) + Bird percher 50/ha + Quinolphos @1.5 lt/ha+ Indoxacarb 3.3 lt/ha

Indoxacarb 3.3 lt/ha 2-3 spray of

 

partial gap

 

Table-2 Productivity, Extension Gap, Technology gap and technology index of chickpea as grown under FLD and existing package of practices

 

Year

Village

Area

Benificiary

Potential

Demons.Yield

Local Yield

 

%

Extension gap

 

Technology gap

Technology Index

 

(ha)

Yield

q/ha

 

q/ha

Increase

 

q/ha

q/ha

%

2015-16

Buranakhedi

 

5

13

20

14.06

 

10.96

 

28

 

3.1

5.4

 

15

2016-17

Aankya

   

5

13

20

13.07

 

10.67

 

22

 

2.4

6.93

 

12

2017-18

Panod

   

5

13

20

15.61

 

12.12

 

28.7

 

3.49

4.39

 

17.4

     

15

39

20

14.24

 

11.25

 

26.23

 

2.9

5.57

 

14.8

 

Table-3 Economic analysis of demonstration and farmers practices

 

Year

COC

 

Gross return

 

Net return

 

Additional Cost

 

Additional

B:C Ratio

   

RP

 

FP

 

RP

 

FP

RP

FP

Net return

 

RP

FP

2015-16

28564

 

26149

99117

71743

70553

45593

2415

24960

3.47

2.74

2016-17

32510

 

29147

105730

86376

73220

57228

3363

15992

3.25

2.96

2017-18

29400

 

28242

87247

67768

57847

39525

1158

18322

2.97

2.39

 

30158

 

27846

97364

75295

67206

47448

2312

19758

3.23

2.69

No Seed treatment and seed inoculation in chickpea were followed by the farmers, hence full gap was observed. Partial gap was observed in use of recommended Fertilizers and plant protection measure which was definitely the reason of not achieving its potential yield. Similar findings were also reported by [7].

Yield Gap The yield of chickpea obtained over the year under improved technology as well as local check are presented in [Table-2]. The yield of chickpea ranged between 13.07 to 15.61 q/ha with mean yield of 14.24 q/ha under recommended technology as against 10.96 to 12.12 q/ha with mean yield of 11.25 q/ha under control plots i.e. farmers practice. Overall 22 to 28.7 percent yield increase was recorded over farmers practice under Front Line Demonstration programme. Higher productivity under both recommended and farmers practice were recorded during 2017-18, which might be due Microclimate situation, market price, social and cultural practices of the particular year. The higher yield of chickpea under recommended practices was due to the use of latest high yielding variety, integrated nutrients and pest management. Similar results have been reported by [10] and [14].

Extension gap: The extension gap is difference between demonstration yield and farmers yield (2.9) showed an increasing trend. Extension gap range between 2.45 to 3.49 q/ha during the period of study, and it emphasizes the need to educate the farmers through various means for the adoption of improved agriculture production technology to reverse the trend of wide extension gap.

Technology gap: The technology gap is difference between potential yield and yield of demonstration plot (5.57). It was recorded 5.40, 6.93 and 4.39 during the year 2015 -16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. Average technology gap under three year of front line demonstration programme was recorded 5.57. The trends of technology gap (ranging between 4.39 6.93 (q/ha) reflected the farmers co- operation in carrying out such demonstration with encouraging results in subsequent year. The technology gap observed may be attributed to the dissimilarity in Soil fertility status and weather conditions. Similar findings were reported by [2] and [6] in different crops.

The technology index: The technology index showed the viability of the evolved technology at the farmer’s field. The lesser value of technology index more is the feasibility of the technology demonstrated. As such reduction in technology index from 17.4% during 2017-18 to 15% during 2015-16 exhibited the feasibility of the

demonstrated technology in this region. These results confirm the findings of crop technology demonstration on oilseed and pulses.

Economics: The economic analysis of front line demonstration was presented in [Table-3]. The input and output prices of commodities prevailed during each year of demonstration were taken for calculating cost of cultivation, net return and benefit cost ratio [Table-3]. The net return from recommended practices was Rs 57847 to Rs 73220 while it was Rs 39525 to Rs 57228 under farmer practices. It means that net return from demonstration plots were higher than the farmer practices. The additional cost Rs 1158 to 241 incurred due to intervention gave additional net return of Rs Rs15992 to Rs 24960 per ha. Benefit: cost ratio. Was presented in [Table-3] it was recorded highest under demonstration plots against control plots (Farmers Practice) during the all the years of front line programme. Average benefit: cost ratio was recorded 3.23 under demonstration plot while it was 2.69 under control plots. Thus it was clearly showed that the demonstration of chickpea with full package was better than farmer’s practices. Similar result has been reported by earlier by [9].

Conclusion From the above findings it can be concluded that the use of recommended practices of chickpea cultivation can reduce the yield gap to a considerable extent this leading to increase the productivity of chickpea in the district. Moreover extension agencies in the district need to provide proper technical support to the farmers through different educational and extension methods to reduce the extension gap for better pulse production.

line

demonstrations on chickpea cultivation endow with the estimation and mechanism

for reducing the yield gap among the farmers.

Application of

research:

Present

states and Impact

study of

front

Research Category: Technology dissemination and Yield gap analysis

Abbreviation: q/ha (quintal/hectare), lt/ha (litter/hectare), B:C (benefit and cost), FLDs (front line demonstration), KVK (Krishi Vigyan Kendra)

Acknowledgement / Funding: Authors are thankful to ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust, Kasturabagram, Indore, 452020, Madhya Pradesh, India. Authors are very thankful to the farmers of adopted villages for providing their cooperation for conducting the experiments.

||BioinfoPublications||

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2019

7771

Shukla A.K., Mishra D.K., Rakesh Jain R., Pachlaniya N. and Shukla K.

*Principal Investigator or Chairperson of research: Arun Shukla Institute: ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust, Kasturabagram, Indore, 452020, Madhya Pradesh, India Research project name or number: Frontline Demonstration

Author Contributions: All authors equally contributed

Author statement: All authors read, reviewed, agreed and approved the final manuscript. Note-All authors agreed that- Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to publish / enrolment

Conflict of Interest: None declared

Study area / Sample Collection: Data collection from farmer’s field

Cultivar / Variety name: Phule G 0517 (Kripa)

Ethical approval: This article does not

participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Ethical Committee Approval Number: N/A

contain any studies with human

References

[1]

Tomar R.K.S., Sharma P. and Yadav L.N. (1999) Int. Chickpea

[2]

Pigeonpea News Lelt. 6, 22-23. Sharma O.P. (2003). Agric. Extn. Rev., 15(5),11-13.

[3]

Kirar B.S., Mahajan S.K. and Nashine R. (2004) Indian Res. J. Ext.

[4]

Edu., 5(1),15-17. Yadav D.B., Kamboj B.K. and Garg R.B. (2004) Haryan J. Agron,

20,33-35.

[5]

Krishna Kant, Kanaujia K.R. and Kanaujia S. (2007) Annual Plant Protection Sciences, 15, 303-306.

[6]

Mishra D.K., Paliwal D.K., Tailor R.S. and Alok Deswal (2009) Indian

[7]

Res. J Extn, Edu., 9(3), 26-28. Burman, Roy R., Singh A.K. and Singh A.K. (2010) Indian Res. J Extn,

[8]

Edu., 10(1),99 -104. Lathwal O.P. (2010) Annals of Agriculture Research. 31, 24-27.

[9]

Tomar R.K.S. (2010) Indian Journal of Natural Products and Resources, 1,515-517.

[10] Verma Deependra Praksh (2013) M.Sc. (Ag.)Thesis, Jawahar lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur M.P.

[11]

[12] Anonymous (2017) Pulses in India, Restrospect & Prospect DES,

Ministry of Agri. & FW (DAC&FW), Govt. of India. Matharu K.S. and Tanwar P.S. (2018) Agric. Update, 13(1),62.66.

[13]

[14] Shukla A.K., Pachlaniya Nitin, Mishra D.K. and Deswal Alok (2018) Agric. Update, 13(1,77-80)

Anonymous (2015-16) www.mpkrishi.net.in.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2019

||BioinfoPublications||

7772