2016 - 17
Season | Crop | Title | Details of technology | Result (q/ha) | Net income (Rs.) | No. of farmers |
Kharif | Onion | Assessment of different onion varieties in kharif season |
TO1 : N-53 TO2 : Agrifound Dark Red TO3 : Bhima Shakti |
TO1 : 152 TO2 : 202 TO3 : 213 |
TO1 : 88600 TO2 : 143900 TO3 : 157100 |
07 |
Kharif | Tomato | Assessment of integrated crop management of kharif tomato in group approach |
TO1 : Improper management TO2 : Raising seedling in poly tunnel, Staking of plants, RDF with all agronomical practices TO3 : TO1 +Seed treatment with carboxin+thiram, Integrated management of wilting (metalyxyl+ mancozeb)+ Streptocycline with seedling treatment and drenching after disease infestation TO4: Seed treatment with carboxin+thiram, raising seedling in poly tunnel, Staking of plants, STBR for NPK,Ca and B, Integrated management of wilting with (metalyxyl+ mancozeb) + Streptocycline seedling treatment and roughing of disease plants and drenching |
TO1 : 108 TO2 : 145 TO3 : 172 TO4: 180 |
TO1 : 57000 TO2 : 104500 TO3 : 145000 TO4: 157000
|
05 |
Rabi | Litchi | Assessment of integrated approach for quality fruit production of litchi |
TO1 : No application ZnSo4 & Borax, mulching & drip irrigation TO2: Foliar application of ZnSo4 @ 2% & Borax 0.4% TO3:TO1+Mulching TO4:TO2 +Drip irrigation TO5:TO3 +Application of cypermethrin 2ml/ltr gives good result. First spraying should be done at pea stage and second,15-20 days after first spraying |
TO1:42.0 TO2:50.0 TO3:54.2 TO4:58.8 TO5:63.5 |
TO1:101400 TO2:125000 TO3:141000 TO4:162000 TO5:182500
|
04 |
Rabi | Onion | Assessment of different weedcides in onion during rabi season |
TO1: No application of weedicide and hand weeding TO2 : Combined spray of oxyflurofen 23.5EC @ 1ml/l and Quizalofop ethyl 5EC @ 1.75 ml/l at the time of planting and at 30 DAT TO3: Combined spray of Pendimethalin 30 EC and Quizalofop ethyle 5% EC at the time of planting and at 30 DAT |
TO1 : 240 TO2 : 305 TO3 : 290
|
TO1 : 65650 TO2 : 96700 TO3 : 87700
|
07 |
Rabi | Tomato | Assessment of IPM against white fly in tomato in kharif season |
TO1 : Injudicious application of insecticides like chloropyriphos TO2 : Use yellow sticky traps @ 20 nos./ha to attract and kill insects + spraying neem oil 1.5 lit/ha TO3 : T2 + spraying of acetamiprid 20SP @ 125g/ha |
TO1 : 265 TO2 : 286 TO3 : 342
|
TO1 : 76700 TO2 : 84800 TO3 : 108600
|
07 |
Rabi | Cauliflower | Assessment of IDM against downy mildew in cauliflower |
TO1 : No use of any kind of fungicides TO2 : Seed treatment with Metalaxyl Mancozeb (2g/kg) TO3 : Foliar spraying with Metalaxyl Mancozeb @ 2g/lit after initiation of disease symptoms
|
TO1 : 212 TO2 : 248 TO3 : 286
|
TO1 : 63200 TO2 : 78300 TO3 : 91400
|
07 |
2017 - 18
Season | Crop | Title | Details of technology | Result (q/ha) | Net income (Rs.) | No. of farmers |
Kharif | Tomato | Assessment of integrated crop management of kharif tomato in group approach | FP-Tomato cultivation without proper management practices TO1– Raising seedling in poly tunnel in the month of June and transplanted in July, Staking of plants, RDF with all agronomical practices TO2 – TO1 + Seed treatment with carboxin 37.5% + thiram 37.5%, management of wilting (metalyxyl 8%+ mancozeb 64%) + Streptocycline with seedling treatment and drenching after disease initiation TO3 – Raising seedling in poly tunnel in the month of July and transplanted in August, Staking of plants, STBR for NPK, Ca and B, seed treatment with carboxin 37.5% + thiram 37.5%, Integrated management of wilting with (metalyxyl 8%+ mancozeb 64%) + Streptocycline seedling treatment and rouging of disease plants and drenching | FP-110, TO1-162, TO2-176, TO3-194 | FP-89000, TO1-141800, TO2-156400, TO3-176600 | 05 |
Kharif | Onion | Assessment of different onion varieties in kharif season | FP : N-53 TO1 :Agrifound Dark Red TO2: Bhima Shakti | FP-152, TO1-198, TO2-213 | FP-88600, TO1-135200, TO2-157100 | 07 |
Rabi | Watermelon | Assessment of pest management of thrips in watermelon | FP- Injudicious application of insecticides like Dimethoate 2ml/lit TO1–Application of Imidacloprid 17.8SL@ 5ml/10 lit of water along with 10 nos of yellow sticky trap /ha TO2 –Application of Thiomethoxam 25%WG@0.6g/lit along with 10 nos of yellow sticky trap/ ha | FP-245, TO1-312, TO2-335 | FP-72500, TO1-94500, TO2-102500 | 07 |
Rabi | Litchi | Assessment of integrated approach for quality fruit production of litchi | FP : No application of ZnSO4 & Borax, mulching and drip irrigation TO1: Foliar application of ZnSO4 @ 2% & borax 0.4% TO2 : TO1 + Mulching TO3 : TO2 + drip irrigation TO4 : TO3 + Application of cypermethrin 10EC @2 ml/lit. First spraying at pea stage and second, 15-20 days after first spray | 04 |
2018-19
Season |
Crop | Title | Details of technology | Result (q/ha) | Net income (Rs./ha) | No. of trials |
Kharif |
Sesame |
Assessment of different varieties of Sesamum in kharif season |
FP: Use of local variety TO1: GT 10: Early maturing(75 days),bold seeded, average yield 10q/ha, Potential yield 15 q/ha, oil content 50% suitable for kharif condition under rainfed condition and in summer under irrigated condition. TO2: Amrit : Medium maturity (80 days), seed coat is bright white, bold seeds, average yield 10.0 q/ha, potential yield 16.0 q/ha, recommended for kharif under rainfed condition and summer under irrigated condition. |
FP-3.8 TO1-5.2 TO2-4.9 |
FP-17600 TO1-37000 TO2-34600 |
7 |
Kharif |
Paddy |
Assessment of BPH tolerance paddy variety Hasanta |
FP- Use variety Swarna TO1- Pratikshya variety(145 days) having yield potential of 45q/ha TO2– Hasanta variety (145days) tolerant to BPH having yield potential of 39 q/ha
|
FP-34.6 TO1-42.6 TO2-48.5 |
FP-26200 TO1-31700 TO2-39875 |
5 |
Rabi |
Greengram |
Assessment of different date of sowing on productivity of rabi Greengram |
TO1–Date of sowing: 2nd fortnight of January TO2– Date of sowing: 1st fortnight of February |
FP-3.6 TO1-4.8 TO2-4.6 |
FP-11600 TO1-19500 TO2-18000 |
7 |
Kharif |
Tomato |
Assessment of different tomato varieties in late kharif season |
FP – Use of local variety TO1 – HYV disease resistance to wilting. Fruits round shape, large (70-85g), Deep red . Suitable for fresh market. TO2 – High yielding F1 hybrid with triple disease resistance to ToL CV, BW and early blight . Fruits square round , large (90-100g), Deep red , firm fruits. Suitable for fresh market and processing. Yield 60-70 t/ha |
FP-245 TO1-320 TO2-316 |
FP-155000 TO1-205000 TO2-201000 |
7 |
Kharif | Cowpea |
Assessment of management of sucking pest (aphids) in cowpea |
FP – Injudicious use of insecticides like Dimethoate 30EC @ 2ml/lit TO1 – Foliar spraying with Imidachloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.5ml/lit TO2 – Foliar spraying with Flonicamid 50%WG @ 0.4g/lit along with yellow sticky trap @ 50 nos./ha |
FP-32.8 TO1-39.6 TO2-42.5 |
FP-29100 TO1-40700 TO2-44500 |
7 |
2019-20
Season | Crop | Title | Details of technology | Result (q/ha) | Net income (Rs./ha) | No. of trials |
Kharif 2019 | Rice | Assessment of BPH tolerant paddy variety Hasanta |
FP – Pooja TO1 – Pratikshya TO2 – Hasanta
|
31.6 41.2 45.3 |
17900 29500 35000 |
7 |
Kharif 2019 | Sesame | Assessment of different varieties of Sesame in kharif season |
FP – Local TO1 – GT-10 TO2 – Amrit
|
3.8 5.6 4.8 |
21250 36500 31750 |
7 |
Kharif 2019 | Tomato | Assessment of different tomato varieties with consumer preference for wilt tolerance in late kharif |
FP – Laxmi TO1 – Arka Rakshak TO2 – Arka Samrat
|
265 460 440 |
168000 345000 328000 |
7 |
Kharif 2019 | Tomato | Assessment of nutrient management for Blossom end rot in tomato |
FP – Only use of NPK, no use of Secondary Nutrients & Micro nutrients TO1 – Soil application of Gypsum, Foliar application of Calcium 5% (1-2 Tbsp/gallon) of water TO2 – Use of Arka Vegetable Micronutrient Formulation as spray after flowering @ 10-20 g/litre |
265 385 420 |
25110 33480 32085 |
7 |
Rabi 2019-20 |
Greengram | Assessment of different date of sowing on productivity of rabi Green gram |
FP- 2nd fortnight of Feb) TO1– 2nd fortnight of January TO2– 1st fortnight of February
|
3.6 4.8 4.6 |
25110 33480 32085 |
7 |
Rabi 2019-20 |
Sweet orange | Assessment of IPM module for management of fruit sucking moth in sweet orange |
FP – Fire in every evening hour in orchard which fails to control the population of the moths TO1 – Foliar application of neem oil(1%) at 10 days interval at coinciding with colour breaking stage) TO2 – Poison bait destroying larval host plant during off season |
228
248
260 |
271000
301000
320000 |
7 |
Rabi 2019-20 | Marigold | Assessment of different marigold varieties as an employment generation activities for farm women |
FP – Low yield in the traditional marigold cultivation during Rabi season TO1–Ceracole
|
80 84 |
93655 100557
|
7 |
2020-21
Season |
Crop |
Title |
Details of technology |
Result (q/ha) |
Net income (Rs.) |
No. of farmers |
Summer |
Moong |
Assessment of sowing time of summer moong bean |
TO1 : 2nd fortnight of January TO2 : 1st fortnight of February |
TO1 : 3.21 TO2 : 4.25 TO3 : 5.2 |
TO1 : 5500 TO2 : 7500 TO3 : 9500 |
07 |
Rabi |
Tomato |
Assessment of nutrient management for Blossom end rot in tomato |
To1 – Soil application of Gypsum, Foliar application of Calcium 5% (1-2 Tbsp/gallon) of water To2 – Use of Arka Vegetable Micronutrient Formulation as spray after flowering @ 10-20 g/litre |
TO1 : 265 TO2 : 385 TO3 : 420 |
TO1 : 168000 TO2 : 273000 TO3 : 305000 |
07 |
Rabi |
Sweet orange |
Assessment of IPM module for management of fruit sucking moth in sweet orange |
To1 – Neem oil forms a coating on the insect’s body, blocking the breathing openings and suffocating the insect. To2 – Poison bait attracts and kills the insect whereas by destroying larval host plant reduces the insect population during off season |
TO1 : 228 TO2 : 248 TO3 : 260 |
TO1 : 271000 TO2 : 301000 TO3 : 320000 |
07 |
Kharif |
Rice |
Assessment of long duration High yielding rice variety in kharif |
TO1: Mrunalini : Small bold grains, Semi dwarf, Maturity-146days, Moderately resistant to blast, sheath blight, sheath rot, Resistance to gall midge, yellow stem borer, leaf folder, resistance to lodging TO2: Pradhan dhan (CR Dhan 409) shallow lowlands of Odisha state,Maturity-160 days. Semi dwarf, non-lodging plant type, height -120-130cm, long slender grain, 350-400 panicles per m2, high tillering (12-15) , test weight of 22.5g, moderate submergence tolerance, moderately resistant to leaf blast, neck blast, sheath blight, sheath rot, yellow stem borer |
TO1 : 36.7 TO2 : 44.5 TO3 : 44.2 |
TO1 : 18950 TO2 : 30300 TO3 : 28940 |
07 |
Kharif |
Tomato |
Assessment of different types of trellis in tomato |
TO1 :Staking with bamboo to individual plants TO2 :Trellis should be of approximately 6 feet high with a top & bottom wire and plastic twine tied between the two wires at each plant. Posts should be no more than 15 feet apart and the top wire should be very tight. A stiff additional wire between posts may be required in the season when the fruit loads becomes heavy |
TO1 : 240 TO2 : 324 TO3 : 335 |
TO1 : 215000 TO2 : 330000 TO3 : 356500 |
07 |
2021-22
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Disease/ insect pest incidence (%) |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha)
|
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
||||||||
Assessment of sowing time of summer moong bean |
7 |
8.8 9.6 11.5 |
7.4 8.8 10.5 |
35.8 36.2 36.5 |
15% |
FP-3.21 TO1-4.25 TO2 -5.2
|
12000 12500 12500 |
17500 20000 22000 |
5500 7500 9500 |
1.46 1.60 1.76 |
Assessment of nutrient management for Blossom end rot in tomato |
7 |
|
|
|
|
FP-265 TO1-385 TO2 -420
|
97000 112000 115000 |
265000 385000 420000 |
168000 273000 305000 |
2.73 3.43 3.65 |
Assessment of IPM module for management of fruit sucking moth in sweet orange |
7 |
|
|
|
24% 17% 12% |
FP-228 TO1-248 TO2 -260
|
185000 195000 200000 |
456000 496000 520000 |
271000 301000 320000 |
2.46 2.54 2.60 |
Assessment of long duration High yielding rice variety in kharif |
7 |
|
|
|
|
FP-36.7 TO1-44.5 TO2 – 44.2
|
28000 28000 28650 |
46950 58300 57600 |
18950 30300 28940 |
1.67 2.08 2.01 |
Assessment of different types of trellis in tomato |
7 |
|
|
|
|
FP-240 TO1-324 TO2 – 335
|
145000 150000 146000 |
360000 480000 502500 |
215000 330000 356500 |
2.48 3.20 3.40 |
2022
OFT- 01
1. |
Title of On Farm Trial |
Assessment of integrated weed management in kharif tomato |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Lower yield due to high weed infestation and high cost of manual weeding |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
TO1 Quizalofop-p-ethyl (Targa super) TO2 Mulching with Polythene sheet(30 micron) |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
Source: ICAR News 2016, ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Integrated weed management. |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Weed intensity, % weed infestation, Cost of intervention. Additional income over additional investment Yield (q/ha), B:C ratio |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Mulching with Polythene sheet(30 micron) |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Availability of mulching material in local market |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Farmers satisfied with this technology but initial investment is little bit costly |
Thematic area: Integrated weed management.
Problem definition: Lower yield due to high weed infestation and high cost of manual weeding
Technology assessed: Assessment of integrated weed management in kharif tomato
Result
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
FP |
7 |
256.4 |
140941 |
380541 |
239600 |
2.7 |
TO1 |
7 |
278.6 |
148833 |
416733 |
267900 |
2.8 |
TO2 |
7 |
328.2 |
144291 |
490591 |
346300 |
3.4 |
OFT- 02
1. |
Title of On Farm Trial |
Assessment of IDM module for management of Erwinia rot in banana |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Low yield due high mortality in plant population by Erwinia rot |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
FP: Use of Mancozeb @ 2g/lit after severe infection TO1 Application of bleaching powder 2% @ 25 g/plant/month two inches away from pseudostem around the collar region upto four months TO2 Drenching and foliar spray of copper oxychloride 50WP at 3 g/l + streptomycin sulphate 0.5 g/l at 15 days interval beginning from 15 days after planting |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
ICAR-NRCB, 2011 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Integrated disease management |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
TO1– Application of bleaching powder at pseudostem around the collar region upto four months was found most effective TO2-Drenching and foliar spray of combination of fungicide and bactericide at 15 days interval beginning from 15 days after planting suppress the bacterial growth |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Timely application pesticides and other cultural practices |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Infection occurs after 45 days of planting and continue upto fruiting stage. Hence, it is difficult to control without studying the disease cycle and predisposing factors. |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Farmers able to check the rotting of the plant and they need some new technologies to control other diseases in banana. |
Thematic area: Integrated pest management
Problem definition: Low yield due high mortality in plant population by Erwinia rot
Technology assessed: FP: Use of Mancozeb @ 2g/lit after severe infection
TO1 Application of bleaching powder 2% @ 25 g/plant/month two inches away from pseudostem around the collar region upto four months
TO2 Drenching and foliar spray of copper oxychloride 50WP at 3 g/l + streptomycin sulphate 0.5 g/l at 15 days interval beginning from 15 days after planting
Table: 5
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Disease/ insect pest incidence (%) |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
||||||||
FP |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO1 |
7 |
|
|
|
Continuing |
|
|
|
|
|
TO2 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OFT- 03
1. |
Title of On Farm Trial |
Assessment of IPM module for management of fruit sucking moth in sweet orange |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Fruit sucking moth causes fruit drop at colour breaking stage |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
FP- Fire in every evening hour in orchard which fails to control the population of the moths TO1- Removal of alternate host, installation of light trap, poison bait, foliar application of neem oil(1%) at 10 days interval at coinciding with colour breaking stage. TO2- Hanging of polypropylene sachets with acephate 75% SP 10g @ 2nos./tree at coinciding with colour breaking stage |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
TO1- Annual Report, ICAR-NRCC, 2016 TO2- ICAR-CCRI, 2018 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Integrated Pest Management |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
TO1-Removal of alternate host arrest pest population, light trap & poison bait attract the moth, fumigation & spraying repel the moth colour breaking stage of fruits TO2–Hanging polypropylene sachets with Acephate 75% SP act as a repellent of moth to the orchard. |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Timely installation of poison bait, light traps and other cultural practices |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Infestation occurs during colour breaking stage of fruits, nocturnal in nature and having several alternate hosts. Hence, it is difficult to control without studying the insect biolgy. |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Farmers are not able to manage the moth with technology as the moth attracted towards light rather bait |
Thematic area:
Problem definition: Fruit sucking moth causes fruit drop at colour breaking stage.
Technology assessed: FP- Fire in every evening hour in orchard which fails to control the population of the moths
TO1- Removal of alternate host, installation of light trap, poison bait, foliar application of neem oil(1%) at 10 days interval at coinciding with colour breaking stage.
TO2- Hanging of polypropylene sachets with acephate 75% SP 10g @ 2nos./tree at coinciding with colour breaking stage.
Table: 6
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Disease/ insect pest incidence (%) |
Yield(q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
||||||||
FP |
7 |
– |
– |
– |
18 |
122 |
165000 |
366000 |
201000 |
2.22 |
TO1 |
7 |
– |
– |
– |
8 |
156 |
185000 |
468000 |
283000 |
2.53 |
TO2 |
7 |
– |
– |
– |
11 |
145 |
190000 |
435000 |
245000 |
2.29 |
OFT- 04
1. |
Title of On Farm Trial |
Assessment of different value added products from tomato |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Distress sale, spoilage due to high perishability without any value addition |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
TO1: Preparation of Tomato Puree. TO2: Preparation of Tomato Sauce /ketch up |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
Source: PHT Centre,TNAU,2015 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Homestead Value addition |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Sensory evaluation, Market acceptability |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Value addition with proper packaging will be a very good income in lacal market |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Availability of Packaging material |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Value addition in tamato increases profit margin and goodmarket demand |
Thematic area: Value addition
Problem definition: Distress sale, spoilage due to high perishability
Technology assessed: Preparation of tomato concentrate: Preparation of tomatoes concentrate by cooking tomato juices to desired consistency (36 to 38 brix) bottling hot by pasteurizing the concentrate in hot water for 20 minutes.
Result
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Yeild (kg/q) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
Selling price/q |
|
|
|||||||
FP |
7 |
1000 |
|
|
100 |
185000 |
344000 |
300 |
1.6 |
TO1 |
7 |
7800 |
|
|
25 |
195000 |
385000 |
4900 |
3.00 |
TO2 |
7 |
9860 |
|
|
28 |
200000 |
406000 |
5350 |
3.40 |
OFT- 05
1. |
Title of On Farm Trial |
Assessment of different shapes for cultivation of Paddy straw mushroom (Volvariella volvacea) using crumpled straw. |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Less production in paddy straw mushroom using crumpled straw due to inappropriate shape |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
TO1: Square compact bed size (30 × 30 cm) TO2: Circular compact bed size -(45 cm diameter, 30 cm height) |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
Department of Plant Pathology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore- 2012 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Homestead/Backyard Income generation |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Average weight/button (g), Pin head appearance (days) Biological efficiency (%), |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Maximum yield was observed in Square compact bed size (30 × 30 cm) |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Care is needed for watering and management of mushroom bed. |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Farm women were much acquainted with the practice and waste straw can be utlised income generation. |
Thematic area: Income generation
Problem definition: Less production in paddy straw mushroom using crumpled straw due to inappropriate shape
Technology assessed: Assessment of different shapes for cultivation of Paddy straw mushroom (Volvariella volvacea) using crumpled straw
Table 4
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Yield (kg/bed) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./100beds) |
Gross return (Rs/100beds) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
Biological efficiency |
|||||||
FP |
7 |
11.4 |
0.650 |
5200 |
13000 |
7800 |
1.90 |
TO1 |
7 |
9.5 |
0.445 |
5000 |
8800 |
3800 |
1.45 |
TO2 |
7 |
14.8 |
0.748 |
5560 |
14860 |
9200 |
2.84 |
2023
OFT-1
1. |
Title of On farm Trial |
Assessment of high yielding medium duration rice varieties in kharif |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Low yield in medium land due cultivation of old varieties |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
FP (Lalata) TO1(Kalinga Dhan 1201) TO2 – (Kalinga Dhan 1204) |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
Rice Research Station, Dept. Of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Bhubaneswar, 2021 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Varietal evaluation, Kharif, Rainfed, medium land |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
No. of EBT/m2, No of filled grains/panicle, Test weight (gm), Yield (q/ha) Profit(Rs), B:C |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Kalinga Dhan 1204 Performed better than Kalinga Dhan 1201 and Practised variety (Lalat) with higher number of EBT and more profit |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
— |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Farmers cultivated the new rice varieties and satisfied with their performance |
Thematic area: Varietal evaluation
Problem definition: Low yield due to cultivation of old variety
Technology assessed:
Table:
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
|||||||
FP (Lalata) |
7 |
245 |
97 |
20.1 |
34.5 |
42500 |
68500 |
26000 |
1.58 |
TO1(Kalinga Dhan 1201) |
7 |
284 |
106 |
19.8 |
41.7 |
45900 |
85900 |
40000 |
1.89 |
TO2 – (Kalinga Dhan 1204) |
7 |
287 |
113 |
19.8 |
42.8 |
45900 |
88900 |
43000 |
1.96 |
Results: Kalinga Dhan 1204 Performed better than Kalinga Dhan 1201 and Practised variety (Lalat) with higher number of EBT and more profit
OFT-2
1. |
Title of On farm Trial |
Assessment of High yielding finger millet Varieties in Kharif |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Scope for improvement in yield of finger millet and crop diversification |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
FP:Cultivation of local var. kala mandia TO1: Arjun TO2: Kalua TO3: OUAT Kalinga finger millet-601 (Shreeratna) |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
CPR, Behampur, OUAT-2021 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Kharif, Rainfed, up land and medium land |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Plant height (cm), No. of effective tillers/hill, No of fingers/ ear, Test weight (g), Yield (q/ha), Profit (Rs), B:C |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
All the three introduced varieties have higher yield than local variety out of which Shreeratna performed the best |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
— |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Farmers cultivated the new rice varieties and satisfied with their performance |
Thematic area:
Problem definition: Scope for improvement in yield of finger millet and crop diversification
Technology assessed:
Table:
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
|||||||
FP |
Cultivation of local var. kala mandia |
3.1 |
4.3 |
3.03 |
7.9 |
19500 |
28383 |
8883 |
1.41 |
T O1 |
Arjun |
4.8 |
6.8 |
3.19 |
14.2 |
31500 |
58313 |
26813 |
1.88 |
T O 2 |
Kalua |
4.2 |
6.1 |
3.06 |
12.9 |
31500 |
53313 |
21813 |
1.75 |
TO3 |
Shreeratna |
5.7 |
7.4 |
3.18 |
15.3 |
31500 |
61744 |
30244 |
1.94 |
Results: All the three introduced varieties have higher yield than local variety out of which Shreeratna performed the best
OFT-3
1. |
Title of On farm Trial |
Assessment of IDM module for management of Sigatoka leaf spot disease in Banana |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Sigatoka leaf spot disease reduce yield and quality of fruit size in Banana |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
TO1: Cutting & destroying infected leaves, spraying of (Carbendazim 12%+ Mancozeb 63% WP) @ 1kg/ha, Propiconazole 25%EC @ 500ml/ha and (Tebuconazole+Trifloxystrobin75WG) @ 200g/ha at 25days interval starting from initiation of the disease (generally at 150DAP) * 1% Petroleum based mineral oil should be added to each chemical at the time of spraying TO2:Cutting & destroying infected leaves, spraying of mineral oil @ 1% with Carbendazim @ 0.2% or Calixin @ 0.15% twice at 25 days interval starting from initiation of the disease |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
AICRP on Fruits,OUAT, 2020-21 NRCB, 2019 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Irrigated medium land, IDM |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Percentage of disease infestation FP-28 TO1-4.3 TO2-9.1 |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Cutting & destroying infected leaves, spraying of (Carbendazim 12%+ Mancozeb 63% WP) @ 1kg/ha, Propiconazole 25%EC @ 500ml/ha and (Tebuconazole+Trifloxystrobin 75WG) @ 200g/ha at25days interval starting from initiation of the disease (generally at 150DAP) |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Sigatoka disease resistant variety are more preferable instead of repeated spraying |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Group meeting, Personal contact, Diagnostic visit, Method demonstration |
Thematic area: Plant protection
Problem definition: Sigatoka leaf spot disease reduce yield and quality of fruit size in Banana
Technology assessed:
TO1: Cutting & destroying infected leaves, spraying of (Carbendazim 12%+ Mancozeb 63% WP) @ 1kg/ha, Propiconazole 25%EC @ 500ml/ha and (Tebuconazole+ Trifloxystrobin 75 WG) @ 200g/ha at 25days interval starting from initiation of the disease (generally at 150DAP)
* 1% Petroleum based mineral oil should be added to each chemical at the time of spraying
TO2: Cutting & destroying infected leaves, spraying of mineral oil @ 1% with Carbendazim @ 0.2% or Calixin @ 0.15% twice at 25 days interval starting from initiation of the disease
Table:
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Disease/ insect pest incidence (%) |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
||||||||
FP |
11 |
|
|
|
28.0 |
332 |
205523 |
431600 |
226077 |
2.1 |
TO1 |
11 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
468 |
234000 |
608400 |
374000 |
2.6 |
TO2 |
11 |
|
|
|
9.1 |
417 |
225875 |
542100 |
316225 |
2.4 |
Results: TO1 performed best among all the treatments.
OFT-4
1. |
Title of On farm Trial |
Assessment of IPM module for management of Panicle mites in Rice |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Panicle initiation reduce yield & market value |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
TO1: Seed Treatment with Imidacloprid 70%WS @ 7g/kg of seed and two spraying of Acetamiprid 20% SP @ 0.3g/L at 7 days interval during PI stage TO2: Two spraying of Diafenthiuron 50% SC @ 2g/lit at 7 days interval during PI stage |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
Annual report, DRR-2015 Indian Journal of Science Research and Technology ,2014 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Irrigated medium land, IPM |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Disease/ insect pest incidence (%) FP- 21 TO1-8 TO2-6 |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Two spraying of Diafenthiuron 50% SC @ 2g/lit at 7 days interval during PI stage |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Panicle mite resistant rice variety |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Group meeting, Personal contact, Diagnostic visit, Method demonstration |
Thematic area: Plant protection
Problem definition: Panicle initiation reduce yield & market value
Technology assessed:
TO1: Seed Treatment with Imidacloprid 70%WS @ 7g/kg of seed and two spraying of Acetamiprid 20% SP @ 0.3g/L at 7 days interval during PI stage
TO2: Two spraying of Diafenthiuron 50% SC @ 2g/lit at 7 days interval during PI stage
Table:
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Disease/ insect pest incidence (%) |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
||||||||
FP |
11 |
|
|
|
21.0 |
37.3 |
40712 |
81425 |
40713 |
2.0 |
TO1 |
11 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
43.8 |
41570 |
95615 |
54044 |
2.3 |
TO2 |
11 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
46.7 |
43380 |
101946 |
58566 |
2.35 |
Results: TO2 Performance better among all the treatments
OFT-5
1. |
Title of On farm Trial |
Assessment of IPM module for management of Fruit sucking moth in Sweet Orange |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Fruit sucking moth causes drop at colour braking stage |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
TO1: Removal of alternate host, installation of light trap, poison bait, foliar application of neem oil (1%) at 10 days interval at coinciding with colour breaking stage TO2: Hanging of polypropylene sachets with acephate 75% SP 10g @ 2nos./ tree at coinciding with colour breaking stage |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
NRC, Nagpur |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Irrigated upland, IPM |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
% of fruit sucking moth infestation FP-18 TO1-8 TO2-11 |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Removal ofalternate host& weed, installation of light trap, poison bait, foliar application of neem oil(1%) at 10 days interval at coinciding with colour breaking stage reduces fruit sucking moth |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Effective light trap and pheromone trap for fruit sucking moth |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Group meeting, Personal contact, Diagnostic visit, Method demonstration |
Thematic area: Plant protection
Problem definition: Fruit sucking moth causes drop at colour braking stage
Technology assessed: TO1: Removal of alternate host, installation of light trap, poison bait, foliar application of neem oil (1%) at 10 days interval at coinciding with colour breaking stage
TO2: Hanging of polypropylene sachets with acephate 75% SP 10g @ 2nos./ tree at coinciding with colour breaking stage
Table:
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Disease/ insect pest incidence (%) |
Yield (q/ha) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) |
Gross return (Rs/ha) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
||
No. of effective tillers/hill |
No. of spikelet per panicle |
Test wt. (100 grain wt.) |
||||||||
FP |
11 |
|
|
|
18.0 |
122 |
165000 |
366000 |
201000 |
2.22 |
TO1 |
11 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
156 |
185000 |
468000 |
283000 |
2.53 |
TO2 |
11 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
145 |
190000 |
435000 |
245000 |
2.29 |
Results: TO2 Performed better among all the treatments.
OFT-6
1. |
Title of On farm Trial |
Assessment of different shapes of beds for cultivation of Paddy straw mushroom (Volvariella volvacea) using crumpled straw |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Less production in paddy straw mushroom using crumpled straw due to inappropriate shape |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
Circular compact bed of size (45 cm diameter, 30 cm height) of Paddy straw mushroom prepared from crumpled straw |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
Department of Plant Pathology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore- 2012 |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Homebased,Mushroom production |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Yield (Kg/ Bed) ,Biological efficiency (%),Net income
|
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Average weight/button (g), Pin head appearance (days) Biological efficiency (%), |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Maximum yield was observed in Square compact bed size (30 × 30 cm) |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Care is needed for watering and management of mushroom bed. |
Thematic area:
Problem definition:
Technology assessed:
Table:
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield component |
Yield (kg/bed) |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./100beds) |
Gross return (Rs/100beds) |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
Biological efficiency |
|||||||
FP |
7 |
11.4 |
0.650 |
5200 |
13000 |
7800 |
1.90 |
TO1 |
7 |
9.5 |
0.445 |
5000 |
8800 |
3800 |
1.45 |
TO2 |
7 |
14.8 |
0.748 |
5560 |
14860 |
9200 |
2.84 |
Results:
OFT-7
1. |
Title of On farm Trial |
Assessment of different value added products from tomato |
2. |
Problem diagnosed |
Distress sale, spoilage due to high perishability without any value addition |
3. |
Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement (Mention either Assessed or Refined) |
To1;Preparation of Tomato Puree To2: Preparation of Tomato Sauce /ketch up |
4. |
Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify) |
AICRP |
5. |
Production system and thematic area |
Homestaed,Value addition |
6. |
Performance of the Technology with performance indicators |
Yeild (kg/q) , BC Ratio |
7. |
Final recommendation for micro level situation |
Production of finished product with proper packaging |
8. |
Constraints identified and feedback for research |
Compition with market |
9. |
Process of farmers participation and their reaction |
Value addition in tomato increases profit margin and tomato ketch up had good market demand |
Thematic area:
Problem definition:
Technology assessed:
Table:
Technology option |
No. of trials |
Yield (kg/quintal) |
Selling price/q
|
Additional cost for value addition |
Net return (Rs./ha) |
BC ratio |
|
FP |
7 |
100 |
1000 |
0 |
300 |
1.4 |
|
TO1 |
7 |
40 |
7800 |
2200 |
4600 |
2.40 |
|
TO2 |
7 |
35 |
9860 |
2600 |
6200 |
2.72 |
Results: