Technology Assessment and Refinement 2022-2023
1. Crop Production
01/ OFT/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK
1. |
Name o the technology |
: |
Assessment of drought mitigation technologies in rainfed groundnut (Kadiri 6) by spraying 0.5% 19:19:19 |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Groundnut |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To assess the yield improvement in rainfed groundnut by spraying 0.5% 19:19:19 during dry spell |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved : 0.5 ha b) Organized : 0.5 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
Spraying of 19:19:19 (N:P2O5:K2O) @ 5g/lit at one week interval during dry spell recorded 5.47 % higher yield (1872 kg/ha) over no spraying of 19:19:19 (N:P2O5:K2O) (1775 kg/ha) and further it has resulted in Rs.5470/- higher net returns per ha with a benefit cost ratio of 1.59 than farmers practice 1.51 |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers expressing that Spraying of 19:19:19 during dry spell is beneficial for rainfed groundnut |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
-- |
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Requesting for provision of alternative to 19:19:19 |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
The extension persons need to increase the area through field visits, field days, print and electronic media. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Trial was concluded |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
When there is prolonged dry spell it is not working effectively |
OFT-1:Assessment of drought mitigation technologies in rainfed groundnut (Kadiri 6) by spraying0.5% 19:19:19 |
|||||
S.No. |
Name & Address of the Farmer |
Contact |
Yield (Kg/ha) |
||
T1: 0.5 % 19:19:19 Spray |
T2:2% Urea Spray |
T3:FP ( No Spraying) |
|||
1 |
V. Lava Kumar Reddy, Chintalavaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M). |
7285950726 |
1870 |
1840 |
1770 |
2 |
B. Ramesh, Chintalavaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M). |
9966841372 |
1895 |
1879 |
1790 |
3 |
G. Bhaskar Reddy, Chintalavaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M). |
7702627959 |
1850 |
1810 |
1765 |
Average yield (kg/ha) |
1872 |
1843 |
1775 |
||
Gross Returns (Rs.) |
112320 |
110580 |
106500 |
||
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) |
70750 |
70550 |
70400 |
||
Net returns (Rs.) |
41570 |
40030 |
36100 |
||
B:C Ratio |
1.59 |
1.57 |
1.51 |
02/ OFT/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of Organic farming package in Groundnut |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Groundnut |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To assessthe Organic farming package in Groundnut |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved: 0.5 ha b) Organized : 0.5 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
--- |
|
9. |
Results |
: |
Crop cultivated under recommended practicesresulted higher yield (1891 kg/ha) over organic farming practice (1570 kg/ha) whereas higher B:C Ratio (1.62) recorded with Organic farming practices than recommendedpractice (1.6) and farmers practice (1.54). |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers are expressing reduction in yield but satisfaction in terms of reduction in cost of cultivationand having a demand as the product is organic with good purchasing value |
11. |
Feed back points |
|
|
(a) To the scientist |
Need to assess the suitable varieties and better weed management practices under organic groundnut |
||
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Need to create awareness on organic preparations on community basis |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Trial will be continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Separate market for selling of organic products is required |
S.No. |
Name & Address of the Farmer |
Contact |
Yield (kg /ha) |
||
T1: Organic Package Practice |
T2: ICM |
T3: Farmers Practice |
|||
1 |
B. Venkata Ramana, Guttapalem (V), Kalikiri (M) |
8179875174 |
1600 |
1890 |
1770 |
2 |
G.Padmanabaiah, Guttapalem (V), Kalikiri (M) |
9052484254 |
1540 |
1910 |
1810 |
3 |
S.Nagabhushanam, Guttapalem (V), Kalikiri (M) |
9550736061 |
1570 |
1875 |
1765 |
Average yield (kg/ha) |
1570 |
1891 |
1782 |
||
Gross returns (Rs.) |
102050 |
113460 |
106920 |
||
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) |
62800 |
70750 |
69800 |
||
Net returns (Rs.) |
39250 |
42710 |
37120 |
||
B:C Ratio |
1.62 |
1.6 |
1.54 |
03/ OFT/ CP /2022-23/Kharif/KVK/KLK
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of Rice variety NLR 3354 in Western Mandals of Annamayya District |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Paddy |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To test the variety NLR-3354 for suitability |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved: 0.5 ha b) Organized : 0.5 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
Tested variety NLR-3354 recorded 9.1 per cent higher yieldover RNR-15048. Higher B:C ratio (2.2) was recorded in NLR 3352 over farmer’s practice and noticed very less incidence of blast and non Lodging. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers expressing that the selling price was low compared to RNR-15048 and BPT 5204 varieties but due to non lodging and blast tolerance some farmers are willing to adopt the variety. |
11. |
Feed back points |
|
|
(a) To the scientist |
Required more fine grain variety |
||
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
The extension persons need to increase the area through field visits, field days, print and electronic media. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24or not |
: |
Trial was concluded |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Need to test in large area |
S.No. |
Name & Address of the Farmer |
Contact |
Yield (kg/ha) |
||
TO-1: NLR-3354 |
TO-2: RNR-15048 |
FP: BPT 5204 |
|||
1 |
G Arjun, Pategada (V), Kalikiri (M) |
6300217722 |
6020 |
5425 |
4926 |
2 |
V. Nagaraja, Palem (V), Kalikiri (M) |
9701930206 |
5924 |
5530 |
5170 |
3 |
K. Siva, Mudiyamvaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M) |
9581027693 |
5982 |
5467 |
5007 |
Average yield (kg/ha) |
5975 |
5474 |
5034 |
||
Gross returns (Rs.) |
125475 |
114954 |
105714 |
||
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) |
56500 |
56500 |
56500 |
||
Net returns (Rs.) |
68975 |
58454 |
49214 |
||
B:C Ratio |
2.2 |
2.03 |
1.88 |
01/ FLD/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration of Groundnut VarietyKadiriLepakshi (K-1812) |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Frontline demonstration |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Groundnut |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To popularize the variety KadiriLepakshi (K-1812) |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved: 4.0 ha b) Organized : 4.0 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
2022-23: Demonstrated groundnut varietyKadiriLepakshi recorded 24.6 % higher yield (2415 kg/ha) over Narayani ( 1938 kg/ha) under rainfed conditions. Groundnut varietyKadiriLepakshi also recorded higher net returns Rs.70250/- per ha with a B:C ratio of 1.94 than Narayani (1.74). |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers expressing that market price are low for Kadirilepakshi. Gave good yield even under high rainfall as well as in dry spell situations. |
11. |
Feed back points (a) To the scientist |
: |
Pegging and pod formation is at different times |
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Good yield but maturity is not uniform |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 not |
: |
Popularize the tested variety through field visits, field days, print and electronic media. |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Trial was concluded |
Yield obtained by the individual farmers:
S.No. |
Name & Address of the Farmer |
Contact |
Yield (Kg/ha) |
|
T1: K-1812 |
T2: FP: Narayani |
|||
1 |
A. Amarnath, Joginenipalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
8106224429 |
2491 |
2020 |
2 |
A. Leelavathamma, Joginenipalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
9298559599 |
2320 |
1987 |
3 |
K.Munirathnam, Manchuru (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
6304460019 |
2268 |
1895 |
4 |
M. Gurunatha Reddy, Murevandlapalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
9490445207 |
2472 |
1934 |
5 |
M. Raghunatha Reddy, Murevandlapalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
9490445207 |
2287 |
1970 |
6 |
B. Satyaraju, Murevandlapalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
9010005456 |
2391 |
1968 |
7 |
D. Srinivasulu, Thurupuvaddipalli (V), Kalakada (M) |
9390692140 |
2470 |
1872 |
8 |
K. Venkateswarlu,Thurupuvadipalli(V), Kalakada(M) |
8374300138 |
2520 |
1920 |
9 |
P. Madhusudhan, Balayagaripalli (V), Kalakada(M) |
9110307555 |
2435 |
1872 |
10 |
Y. Reddeppa Reddy, Balayagaripali(V),Kalakada (M) |
6305493843 |
2492 |
1946 |
Average yield (kg/ha) |
2415 |
1938 |
||
Gross returns (Rs.) |
144900 |
125970 |
||
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) |
74650 |
72250 |
||
Net returns (Rs.) |
70250 |
53720 |
||
B:C Ratio |
1.94 |
1.74 |
02/ FLD/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration of Nutrient mixture in Sugarcane |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Frontline demonstration |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Sugarcane |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To demonstrate the nutrient mixture in Sugarcane |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved: 4.0 ha b) Organized : 4.0 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
Demonstration of Nutrient Mixture in Sugarcane 6.76 per cent higher cane yield ( 101.21 t/ha) than farmers Practice (94.8t/ha). Further spraying of nutrient mixture also noticed Rs.10460/- higher net returns per ha than farmers practice with a B:C ratio of 2.19. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers expressed that, Spraying of nutrient mixture gave higher net returns due to higher yield and is economical |
11. |
Feed back points |
|
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Can formula 4 or formula 7 be used instead of this |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Popularize this technology through field visits, field days, print and electronic media. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24or not |
: |
Trial will be concluded |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Separatly spraying of mico nutrients is laborious and expensive |
S.No. |
Name & Address of the Farmer |
Contact |
Yield (t/ha) |
|
T1: Spraying of Nutrient Mixture |
T2: Farmers Practice |
|||
1 |
N. Praveen Kumar, Jogivaripalli (V), Sodum (M) |
9502045048 |
101.25 |
95.4 |
2 |
J.Ramesh Kumar Reddy,Jogivaripalli(V),Sodum(M) |
9959459592 |
98.78 |
94.1 |
3 |
K.Mallikarjuna, Jogivaripalli (V),Sodum(M) |
929855959 |
100.7 |
96.2 |
4 |
D. Alivelu, Chintalavaripalli(V),Sodum(M) |
7382177339 |
102.1 |
93.7 |
5 |
G. Hemanth, Kamplli(V),Sodum(M) |
9515090774 |
102.9 |
94.6 |
Average yield (kg/ha) |
101.21 |
94.8 |
||
Gross returns (Rs.) |
191900 |
180120 |
||
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) |
87250 |
86500 |
||
Net returns (Rs.) |
104650 |
93620 |
||
B:C Ratio |
2.19 |
2.08 |
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of Horsegram variety ATPHG-11 |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Frontline Demonstration |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Horse gram |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To demonstrate the newly released variety ATPHG 11 for its suitability |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved: 4 ha b) Organized : 4 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
2022-23: Tested ATPHG11 variety recorded an yield of 1217 kg/ha compared to farmers practice 1107 kg/ha with 9.93% increase in yieldand recorded higher net returns (Rs. 31180/- per ha) with a benefit cost ratio of 2.78 than local varieties (2.53). |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
ATPHG11 variety was given more yield compared to other varieties with better branching. |
11. |
Feed back points |
|
|
(a) To the scientist |
Good variety withstanding drought conditions |
||
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Need to create Awareness on new varieties |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24or not |
: |
Trial will be continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Availability of seed in large quantity is required |
S.No. |
Name & Address of the Farmer |
Contact |
Yield (kg/ha) |
|
TO-1: ATPHG 11 |
FP:Local varieties |
|||
1 |
A.Narasimha Reddy, Burujupalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
9121147504 |
1235 |
1158 |
2 |
G.Devender Reddy, Burujupalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
8790890551 |
1220 |
1062 |
3 |
G. Vannurappa, Burujupalli (V), Vayalpadu (M) |
8790890551 |
1214 |
1105 |
4 |
B Bhaskar Reddy, Rajuvaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M) |
9618652174 |
1204 |
1086 |
5 |
P. Sunil Kumar, Chakkeravandla palli (V), Kalikiri (M) |
7093538273 |
1212 |
1120 |
Average yield (kg/ha) |
1217 |
1107 |
||
Gross returns (Rs.) |
48680 |
44280 |
||
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) |
17500 |
17500 |
||
Net returns (Rs.) |
31180 |
26780 |
||
B:C Ratio |
2.78 |
2.53 |
04/ FLD/ CP /Rabi/2022-23/KVK/KLK
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration of Groundnut variety Nitya Haritha |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Frontline demonstration |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Ragi |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
Popularization of new three seeded pod and Short statured Spanish bunchy type high yielding variety |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved: 4.0 ha b) Organized : 4.0 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
Demonstrated groundnut variety Nitya Haritha recorded 13.1 % higher yield (3220 kg/ha) over K-6 (2846 kg/ha) under irrigated condition.Groundnut varietyNitya Haritha also recorded higher net returns Rs.114930/- per ha with a B:C ratio of 2.47 than K-6 variety (2.25). |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmer Expressed satisfaction with regard to performance of Nitya Haritha Groundnut variety and having good taste. |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
To make it suitable for kharif season also |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Popularize the technology through trainings, print and electronic media |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24or not |
: |
Trial will be continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
To create awareness about this variety among farmers |
S. No. |
Name & Address of the Farmer |
Contact |
Yield (kg/ha) |
|
T1:Nitya Haritha |
T2: K-6 |
|||
1 |
K.Venkataramana Reddy, Parapatla (V), Kalikiri (M) |
9440312585 |
3364 |
2965 |
2 |
K. Charan Kumar, Mudiyamvaripalli, Kalakada (M) |
9581027693 |
3182 |
2872 |
3 |
M Prabhakar, Kalikiri (V0, Kalikiri (M) |
9985139507 |
3264 |
2920 |
4 |
B Ramana, Palem (V), Kalikiri (M) |
9959489197 |
3252 |
2745 |
5 |
A Reddana, Barnepalli (V), |
9908342208 |
3180 |
2685 |
6 |
Y Venkata Ramana, Rajuvaripalli (V) |
9996618978 |
3154 |
2973 |
7 |
C. Varala Reddy, Kotagundlu palli (V), Somala (M) |
8179886828 |
3205 |
2774 |
8 |
N Kumar Reddy, Gandaboyanapalli (V), |
7396566800 |
3224 |
2865 |
9 |
N Ameen Peer, Devapatla (V) |
8142537761 |
3120 |
2972 |
10 |
D Jagadeesh, Mudiyamvaripalli (V), Kalakada (M) |
9298559599 |
3260 |
2685 |
Average yield (kg/ha) |
3220 |
2846 |
||
Gross returns (Rs.) |
193200 |
170760 |
||
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) |
78270 |
75870 |
||
Net returns (Rs.) |
114930 |
94890 |
||
B:C Ratio |
2.47 |
2.25 |
Plant Protection
On Farm Trials
01/OFT/PP/KLK/K/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Biological management of Root rot disease in mulberry |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Mulberry |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
Management of root rot |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.4 |
6. |
item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
During this year we did not observe the rootrot in mulberry |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Rootrot is not observed in mulberry by the farmers during previous and current year |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
To the Scientist |
: |
Defoliators like hairy caterpillars is a major problem |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Farmers opine that silkworms are dying after feeding on mulberry leaves as mulberry is sown after tomato crop which is being dumped with more pesticides. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
concluded |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
No incidence of root rot disease in Mulbery |
S. No |
Name and of the farmer |
Phone number |
Remarkes |
1 |
A.Alivelammma, Kothavandlapalli (Village) & Vayalpadu (Mandal) |
9010744020 |
Rootrot disease was not reported / no incidence of rootrot disease |
2 |
N. Purushotham Reddy, Kothavandlapalli (Village) & Vayalpadu (Mandal) |
7893002402 |
|
3 |
Y. Sujatha, Thangellavaripalli (Village)& Thambalapalle (Mandal) |
9701656373 |
OFT/02/R/PP/ KVK/KLK/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of organic package for pest and disease management in tomato |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Tomato |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To assess organic farming package in tomato |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.4 |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
The yield in T1(31540 kgs/ha), T2(32033.33kgs/ha) and in T3 (34250 kgs/ha) and BC Ratio 1.24, 1.21 and 1.18 respectively in T1, T2 & T3. Inspite of 8% decrease in yield in T1 when compared to T3, there were higher net returns and BC Ratio and low cost of cultivation. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers were satisfied with the decrease in pests and diseases after following the T1 treatments |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
To develop varities that tolerate tomato pinworm, blight |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
It would be better if organically produced tomatoes fetch higher price in the market |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Converted to FLD |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Separate market for selling organic tomatoes is required |
S. No |
Name and address of the farmer |
Phone number |
Average Yield (kg/ha) |
||
T1 |
T2 |
T2 (FP) |
|||
1 |
G. Vinod, T.Sakirevupalli (Village) & Valmikipuram (Mandal) |
9676815364 |
31500 |
31950 |
33950 |
2 |
G.Venkat Reddy, Reddyvaripalli & Pileru (Mandal) |
9440104656 |
31670 |
32000 |
34000 |
3 |
T.Surendra, Reddyvaripalli (Village) & Pileru (Mandal) |
31450 |
32150 |
34800 |
|
Damage by Tuta absoluta |
2.4 % |
3.8 |
11.9% |
||
Average Moth catches per trap |
|||||
August |
8.2 |
- |
|||
September |
3.5 |
- |
|||
October |
5.1 |
- |
|||
Average |
5.6 |
- |
|||
Late blight |
3.3% |
4.3% |
11.4% |
||
Average yield (kg/ha) |
31540 |
32033.33 |
34250 |
||
Average cost of cultivation |
176500 /- |
182550/- |
197500 /- |
||
Gross returns |
220500 /- |
221029/- |
233800 /- |
||
Net returns |
44000 |
38479 |
36300 |
||
BC Ratio |
1.24 |
1.21 |
1.18 |
OFT/03/R/PP/ KVK/KLK/2021-22
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of Bacillus thuringiensis C33 strain to manage tobacco caterpillar in Rabi groundnut |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Groundnut |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
Management of tobacco caterpillar below ETL |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
a) Approved: 1.2 ha b) Organized: 1.2 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
Enclosed |
|
9. |
Results |
: |
In T1 where Bt C33 strain is sprayed there is 14.9 % increase in yield when compared with farmers practice. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmer expressed the decrease in tobacco caterpillar incidence after the use of Bt |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
Farmers were satisfied with the decrease in incidence of tobacco caterpillar |
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Farmer expressed can they use any insecticide in combination with the bt |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Farmers were satisfied with the decrease in incidence of tobacco caterpillar |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
|
S. No |
Name and address of the farmer |
Phone number |
|
Average Yield (kg/ha) |
|
T1 |
T2 |
T3: FP |
|||
1 |
G. Charan, Mudiyamaripalli(Village) & Kalakada (Mandal) |
9581027693 |
2495 |
2358 |
2235 |
2 |
T. Jagadeeshwara Mudiyamaripalli(Village) & Kalakada (Mandal) |
6305385511 |
2460 |
2340 |
2129 |
3 |
T.Sakirevupalli (Village) Vayalpadu (Mandal) |
9573059859 |
2485 |
2335 |
2110 |
per cent damage due to tobacco caterpillar before treatment |
33.33 |
35.38 |
33.37 |
||
per cent damage due to tobacco caterpillar 7 Days after treatment |
20.87 |
20.12 |
26.50 |
||
per cent damage due to tobacco caterpillar 14 Days after treatment |
17.11 |
16.12 |
23.87 |
||
Average yield (kg/ha) |
2480 |
2344.333 |
2158 |
||
Gross returns |
86800 |
82051.66 |
75530 |
||
Average cost of cultivation |
50100 |
49950 |
52150 |
||
Net returns |
36700 |
32101.66 |
23380 |
||
BC Ratio |
1.7 |
1.6 |
1.4 |
04/OFT/CPT/KVK/KLK/Summer/2023
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of management of fruit fly in mango |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Mango |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To demonstrate the integrated management of mango fruit fly. |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.4 |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
In T1 where fruit covers are used 22.7 % increase in yield and no incidence of fruitfly was observed when compared with farmers practice. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmer satisfied that the mango fruits were not affected with any pests and the quality was good and fetched higher price in the market |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Can the fruit covers be tied to different sizes of mangoes |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Its difficult to tie the fruit covers to fruits of old orchards (for the fruits on top portion of plant) |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Converted to FLD |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
In Andhra Pradesh availability of fruit covers is only at Tadepalligudem which is a constraint |
S. No |
Name and address of the farmer |
Phone number |
Average Yield (kg/ha) |
||
T1 |
T2 |
T3: FP |
|||
1 |
T. Sunil Reddy, Chinthamakulavaripalli (Village) & Sadum (Mandal) |
9440835819 |
11132.5 |
9472.5 |
8500 |
2 |
K. Narasimhulu Vengamvaripalli (Village), Nimmanapalli (Mandal) |
9393810966 |
11530 |
9780 |
8797.5 |
3 |
G. Anand Vengamvaripalli (Village), Nimmanapalli (Mandal) |
11045 |
9530 |
8747.5 |
|
Fruitfly damage (%) |
0.00 |
0.00 |
16.78 |
||
Thrips damage (%) |
0.5 |
23.8 |
24.7 |
||
Fruitfly trap catches |
0.0 |
16.7 |
0.00 |
||
Average yield (kg/ha) |
11235.83 |
9594.167 |
8681.667 |
||
Gross returns |
337075 |
335795.8 |
303858.3 |
||
Average cost of cultivation |
112500 |
135000 |
137500 |
||
Net returns |
224575 |
200795.8 |
166358.3 |
||
BC Ratio |
2.9 |
2.4 |
2.2 |
01/FLD/CP/KVK/KLK/ Kharif/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of integrated management of black thrips in chilli |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
On Farm Testing |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
chilli |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
Managing the pest below ETL |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.4 |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
In T1 7.5 % increase in yield was observed when compared with farmers practice and the BC ratio was 2.5, 2.3 and 2.0 respectively in T1, T2 and T3. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmer opines the black thrips are not effectively controlled |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
To develop varities that tolerate black thrips and virus diseases |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Farmers asked for better control measures of black thrips |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Black thrips is a severe problem in chilli and its incidence is being observed in other crops like mango which is causing more damage |
S. No |
Name and address of the farmer |
Phone number |
Average Yield (kg/ha) |
||
T1 |
T2 |
T3: FP |
|||
1 |
M. Kalavathi, T.Sakirevupalli (V), Vayalpadu (Mandal) |
8985760238 |
25205 |
24955 |
23850 |
2 |
K.Alivelu, Reddyvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
9618931630 |
26220 |
24899 |
23899 |
3 |
T. Reddappa, Reddivaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
26015 |
24885 |
23865 |
|
Thrips damage (%) |
13.37 |
16.48 |
23.55 |
||
Average yield (kg/ha) |
25813.33 |
24913 |
23871.33 |
||
Gross returns |
413013.3 |
398608 |
381941.3 |
||
Average cost of cultivation |
162050 |
169020 |
183080 |
||
Net returns |
250963.3 |
229588 |
198861.3 |
||
BC Ratio |
2.5 |
2.3 |
2.0 |
02/FLD/CPT/KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration of blast tolerant ragi variety Tirumala |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Front Line Demonstration |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Finger millet |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To demonstrate blast tolerant / resistant ragi varities with high yield potential. |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
4.0 |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
In T1 18.34 % increase in yield was observed when compared with farmers practice and the BC ratio was 2.1 and 1.7 respectively in T1 and T2. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmer expressed the less incidence of blast and higher yields |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Research on control of weeds (Cyperus rotundus) and other weeds in fingermillet |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Satisfied with the yields of the variety |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
concluded |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
- |
S. No |
Name and address of the farmer |
Phone number |
Average Yield (kg/ha) |
|
DP |
FP |
|||
1 |
M. Ramachandra Reddy, Muthakamvaripalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
9000613906 |
2286 |
1880 |
2 |
R.Chinnappa, Muthalaamvaripalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
8500112589 |
2300 |
1860 |
3 |
C.Rajareddy, Nagamvaripalli (V) Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
9000613904 |
2280 |
1870 |
4 |
M. Ramaiah, Agraharam , Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
951569952 |
2278 |
1870 |
5 |
P. Bhasheer khan, Thurakapalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
7993073255 |
2300 |
1860 |
6 |
K. Akkulappa, Chinnareddypalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
8790739914 |
2280 |
1870 |
7 |
S. Boyakondamma , Eguvaharijanawada (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
8106988653 |
2280 |
1860 |
8 |
T. Manikumar, Kammavaripalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
8008668181 |
2300 |
1875 |
9 |
R. Venktramana Reddy, Parlandlapalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
9493224471 |
2300 |
1878 |
10 |
S. Narayana Reddy, Chokkandlapallli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal) |
9849699776 |
2300 |
1874 |
Blast incidence scale |
1-2 |
4-5 |
||
Average yield (kg/ha) |
2290 |
1870 |
||
Gross returns |
57250 |
46750 |
||
Average cost of cultivation |
26500 |
26000 |
||
Net returns |
30750 |
20750 |
||
BC Ratio |
2.1 |
1.7 |
03/FLD/CPT/KVK/KLK/Rabi/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration of Arka borer control for the management of mango stem borer |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Front Line Demonstration |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Mango |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
Management of stem borer |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.4 |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
In T1 and T2 there was 10.38 & 12.81 per cent damage due to stem borer where as after 2 months it was 5.21 & 9.34 respectively. In T1 2.9 BC Ratio was recorded when compared with farmer practice it was 1.7. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmer felt happy with the technology provided |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
It would be better if it is available in liquid form |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Felt satisfied with the decrease in stem borer incidence |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
concluded |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
- |
S. No |
Name and address of the farmer |
|
Average Yield (kg/ha) |
|
DP |
FP |
|||
1 |
G. Bhaskar, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
9393947930 |
9000 |
9500 |
2 |
|
9494124159 |
10800 |
8000 |
3 |
9600 |
10000 |
||
4 |
G. Kumar, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
8900 |
9000 |
|
5 |
G. Gnana sekhar, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
9014187633 |
9000 |
7500 |
6 |
K. Nagabhushanam, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
8332881818 |
8800 |
8500 |
7 |
G. Janardhan, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
9300 |
9000 |
|
8 |
G. Sreenivasulu, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
7500 |
8500 |
|
9 |
G. Venktramana, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
6304166735 |
9500 |
9500 |
10 |
K. Siddarth, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) |
8500 |
10000 |
|
Per cent damage due to stem borer hole (%) before treatment |
10.38 |
12.87 |
||
Per cent damage due to stem borer hole (%) after 2 months of treatment |
5.21 |
9.34 |
||
Average yield (kg/ha) |
9100 |
9000 |
||
Gross returns |
292500 |
274500 |
||
Average cost of cultivation |
75000 |
100000 |
||
Net returns |
217500 |
174500 |
||
BC Ratio |
2.9 |
1.7 |
04/FLD/CPT/KVK/KLK/Rabi/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration of integrated management of Fall armyworm in maize/sweet corn |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Front Line Demonstration |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Maize |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To manage the pest below ETL |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.4 |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
In T1 there was 6.19% increase in yield when compared with farmer practice. In T1 and T2 there was 3.13 and 2.5 BC Ratio. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers were satisfied with reduction of fall armyworm by using the treatments mentioned |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
To provide fall armyworm tolerant maize hybrids |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
There was good reduction in incidence of fall armyworm by following the T1 treatments. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Control measures should be started from the early incidence of fall army worm. |
S. No |
Name and address of the farmer |
|
Average Yield (kg/ha) |
|
T1 (Demo) |
T2 (Farmers practice) |
|||
1 |
P. Eswar Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal) |
8179229838 |
8570 |
8140 |
2 |
P. Chandra sekhar Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal) |
9441310769 |
8715 |
8000 |
3 |
P. Padmavathamma, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal) |
9005 |
8420 |
|
4 |
B. Jayaram Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal) |
8905 |
8350 |
|
5 |
B. Arun kumar Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal) |
8895 |
8450 |
|
Per cent leaf damage due to fall armyworm before treatment |
49.9 |
49.3 |
||
Per cent leaf damage due to fall armyworm 5 days after treatment |
21.4 |
37.7 |
||
Average yield (kg/ha) |
8818 |
8272 |
||
Gross returns |
185178 |
173712 |
||
Average cost of cultivation |
59000 |
67000 |
||
Net returns |
126178 |
106712 |
||
BC Ratio |
3.13 |
2.59 |
TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR FARMERS
PLANT PROTECTION:03
S. No |
Date |
Venue |
Name of the topic |
Resource person |
No. of Participants |
Feedback |
1 |
08-08-2022 |
Market Yard, Kalikiri |
IPM in tomato |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection) |
150 |
Good |
2 |
07-10-2022 |
RBK, Pathegada |
IPM in Paddy |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection) |
50 |
Good |
3 |
14-10-2022 |
RBK, Vayalpadu |
IPM in Mango |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection) |
45 |
Good |
Training programmes for Extension personnel:02
S. No |
Date |
Title of training |
Venue |
Resource person |
No. of Participants |
Feed back |
1 |
16-11-2022 |
GAP in tomato |
Madanapalle |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection) |
100 |
Good |
2 |
16-11-2022 |
GAP in paddy |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection) |
100 |
Good |
Vocational Training Programmes: 01
S.no |
Date |
Venue |
Name of the topic |
Resource person |
No of participants |
1 |
27-01-2023 |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Natural Farming practices in different field crops grown in chittoor district |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
90 |
Extension Activities conducted during 2022-23
Field days:1
S.No |
Date |
Venue |
Name of the topic |
Resource person |
No of participants |
1 |
21-5-23 |
Kuravapalli, Parupatla |
Field day in groundnut on Nithyaharitha variety |
SMS (Plant Protection), SMS (Crop Production) and SMS (Extension) |
20 |
Group discussions: |
||||||
S. No |
Date |
Venue |
Name of the topic |
Resource person |
No of participants |
Feed back |
1 |
10.08.2022 |
Marrikuntapalli |
pests and diseases in tomato, groundnut & cowpea |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
15 |
Good |
2 |
14.10.2022 |
Vayalpadu |
Fruitfly management practices in different horticulture crops |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
24 |
Good |
3 |
15.11.2022 |
Murrevandlapalli |
Use of fruit covers in mango |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
21 |
Good |
4 |
20.12.2022 |
Mudiyamvaripalli |
Seed treatement in different crops |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
41 |
Good |
Method demonstrations: 05
S. no |
Date |
Venue |
Name of the topic |
Resource person |
No of participants |
1 |
10-8-2022 |
Chinthalavaripalli |
Clipping of leaf tips in paddy |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
12 |
2 |
11-8-2022 |
Pathegada |
Alleyways in paddy |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
7 |
3 |
14-10-2022 |
T. Sakirevupalli |
Installation of blue sticky traps |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
11 |
4 |
17-03-2023 |
Chinthamakulapalli |
Installation of methyl eugenol traps |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
15 |
5 |
19-04-2023 |
Vengamvaripalli |
Tying of fruit covers in mango |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
14 |
Trainings/Workshops/Seminars etc. attended by the KVK staff
S.No |
Name of the staff |
Title |
Duration |
Venue |
Organized by |
1 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP) |
Increasing Research Visibility – Use of Reference Manager Toolsand Softwares for Publishing in Scopus indexed journals |
02.09.2022 |
RARS, Tirupati |
ANGRAU |
2 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP) |
Attended Orientation cum Refresher training programme |
16th to 18th August, 2022 |
ANGRAU & Lam, Guntur |
ANGRAU |
3 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP) |
Training programme on Urban and Periurban farming for extension professionals |
05.09.22 to 09.09.22 |
EEI, Hyderabad |
ICAR |
4 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP) |
National Workshop on Natural farming |
03.12.2022 |
RVSKVV, Gwalior, M.P |
ICAR |
5 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP) |
Orientation cum training programme for SMS’s of natural farming and nodal scientist of ATARIS on natural farming |
05.12.2022 &06.12.2022 |
State Natural farming training centre, Gurukul, Kurukshetra, Haryana |
ICAR |
Lectures delivered as resource person
S. NO |
DATE |
Scientist Participated |
VENUE |
TOPIC |
Clientle |
Organised by |
1 |
08.08.2022 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
Kalikiri market yard, Kalikiri |
IPM in tomato |
FPO members |
APMAS & FPO |
2 |
16.11.2022 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
KVK, Kalikiri |
GAP in paddy |
VAA, VHA |
Dept. of Agriculture |
3 |
17.11.2022 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
Madanapalle |
GAP in tomato |
VAA, VHA |
Dept. of Agriculture |
4 |
25.04.2023 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
Chedalla |
Pests and disease management in tomato, paddy, mango |
Farmers |
KVK, Reddipalli |
5 |
26.04.2023 |
Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection) |
Sadum |
Pests and disease management in tomato, paddy, mango |
Farmers |
KVK, Reddipalli |
Horticulture
01/OFT/HORTI/KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-2023
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of chilli hybrids for higher productivity in a Chittoor district |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Varietal assessment |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Chilli |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To assess the chilli hybrids for higher productivity in a Chittoor district |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.5 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
OFT on ‘assessment of chilli hybrids for higher productivity in a Chittoor district’ can be concluded that Arka Gagan has got yield 5.23 t/ha and has 11.50 per cent increased yield over local sahasra hybrid. Arka meghana performed well when compared to local hybrid and yielded 5.12 t/ha and 8.45% increase over control |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers satisfied with Arka Meghana new hybrid due to utility of both the green chilli and red chilli purpose, also dark red and more pungency. |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Suitable for rabi season, with good yields and pungency, farmers got higher yields with the cultivation of Arka Gagan and Arka Meghana. |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
The extension persons can recommend the cultivation of Arka Meghana in annamayya district, Arka meghana (Green chilli and Red chilli) cultivation is profitable to the farmers compared to present farmers’ practing hybrids. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Converted as FLD (Arka Meghana) |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Farmer Recommended for cultivation in Annamayya district during Kharif and Rabi seasons |
Treatments |
Plant Height (cm) |
Avg. fruit length (cm) |
Avg. 10 fruits Weight (gm) |
No. of fruits per plant |
fruits weight per plant (kg) |
Yield (t/ha) |
% increase over control |
T1: Arka Gagan |
61 |
8.5 cm x 1.1 |
98 |
63 |
0.61 |
5.23 |
11.50 |
T2: Arka Haritha |
59 |
8.9 cm x 0.9 |
84 |
56 |
0.47 |
4.87 |
-- |
T3:Arka Meghana |
58 |
9.2 cm x 1.2 |
95 |
61 |
0.58 |
5.12 |
8.45 |
T4: local variety |
55 |
6.5 cm x 2.2 |
82 |
51 |
0.25 |
2.50 |
Treatments |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ac.) |
Gross income (Rs./ha) |
Net income (Rs./ha) |
C:B ratio |
T1: Arka Gagan |
175000 |
4,70,700 |
2,95,700/- |
2.69 |
T2: Arka Haritha |
180000 |
4,38,300 |
2,58,300/- |
2.44 |
T3: Arka Meghana |
175000 |
4,60,800 |
2,85,800/- |
2.63 |
T4: local variety |
180000 |
2,25,000 |
45,000/- |
1.25 |
02/OFT/HORTI/KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-2023
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of new hybrids in tomato suitable for western mandals of Chittoor district |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Varietal assessment |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
Tomato |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To assess the new hybrids in tomato suitable for western mandals of Chittoor district |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.5 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
OFT on ‘assessment of new hybrids in tomato suitable for western mandals of Chittoor district ’ can be concluded that private hybride sahoo recorded 64.53 t/ha more yield followed by arka adhitya. But more benefit cost ratio was recorded in arka rakshak due to multiple disease resistance, has got yield 3.20. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers are satisfied with the performance of varieties. |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Installation of fruitfly traps in the mango orchards is recommended, because of their effectiveness in trapping the adult flies. This technology should be adopted in the mango orchards to control the damage. |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
The extension personal need to create awareness on the use of fruit fly traps for management of mango fruit fly. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Fa -- |
Treatments |
Plant Height (cm) |
Avg. fruit length (cm) |
Avg. 10 fruits Weight (gm) |
No. of fruits per plant |
fruits weight per plant (kg) |
Yield (t/ha) |
% increase over control |
T1: Arka Adhitya |
105 |
95 |
0.93 |
62 |
7.52 |
60.50 |
-6.6 |
T2: Arka Samrat |
95 |
105 |
1.05 |
63 |
7.73 |
58.00 |
-9.53 |
T3: Arka Rakshak |
92 |
89 |
0.91 |
58 |
6.66 |
59.20 |
-5.33 |
T4: Private hybrides |
180 |
90 |
0.86 |
72 |
7.42 |
64.53 |
Treatments |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ac.) |
Gross income (Rs./ha) |
Net income (Rs./ha) |
C:B ratio |
T1: Arka Adhitya |
1,90,000 |
6,05,000/- |
4,15,000/- |
3.18 |
T2: Arka Samrat |
1,85,000 |
5,80,000/- |
3,95,000/- |
3.14 |
T3: Arka Rakshak |
1,85,000 |
5,92,000/- |
4,07,000/- |
3.20 |
T4: Private hybrides |
2,55,000 |
6,45,300/- |
3,90,300/- |
2.50 |
OFT-03/Horti/Rabi/2022-2023/OFT/French Bean
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Assessment of Improved Hybrids of French Bean for higher productivity |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Varietal Assessment |
3. |
Crop/enterprise |
: |
French Bean |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To assess the performance of French bean varieties To introduce high yielding varieties |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
0.5 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
French bean is affected by heavy high tempararure during its growth period that resulted in poor. In the previous year, Arka suvidha variety recorded high yield (4.4 t/ha) and Arka Komal (3.85 T/ha), whereas farmer practicing variety recorded 3.16 t/ha. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Farmers satisfied with this high yielding variety due to short duration crop with high benefit cost ratio. |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Suitable for Kharif season. Not suitable for summer season. |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
The extension persons need to increase the area under French bean, it high yield variety and suitable for export also. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Recommended for kharif annamayya district for high yielding |
Treatmentsc |
Avg. Plant Height (cm) |
Days taken to 50% flowering |
Avg. 10 pods Weight (gm) |
No. of fruits per plant |
fruit weight per plant (g) |
Yield (t/ha) |
% increase over control |
T1:Arka Suvidha |
35 |
38 |
98.64 |
18 |
177.48 |
4.44 |
40.50% |
T2:Arka Komal |
30 |
39 |
90.56 |
17 |
153.85 |
3.85 |
21.83 % |
T3: Local hybrids |
30 |
40 |
84.22 |
15 |
126.30 |
3.16 |
Treatments |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha.) |
Gross income (Rs./ha) |
Net income (Rs./ha) |
C:B ratio |
T1: Arka Komal |
1,20,000 |
1,90,920 |
70,920 |
1.59 |
T2: Arka Suvidha |
1,20,000 |
1,65,000 |
45,000 |
1.36 |
T3: Local hybrids |
1,20,000 |
1,36,000 |
16,000 |
1.13 |
Farmers Details:
S.No |
Name of the Beneficiary |
Village |
Phone No. |
01 |
Mr. Vinodh |
Sachirevupalli |
|
02 |
Mr. D.V Pratap |
Kalikiri |
9490735609 |
03 |
P. Reddeppa Reddy |
gandaboinapalli |
9177139952 |
01/ FLD/Horti/ KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration of moringa variety PKM-1 |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Frontline demonstration |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Moringa |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To improve yield and quality in Moringa |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
1 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
Crop is at fruit maturity and harvesting stage. Harvesting is yet to be done. Yield data will be recorded after the harvests. One harvesting was completed. Average 15 fruits per plant was harvested in first plucking. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Use of chemic Farmers accepted with this variety. |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Suitable for Kharif season. |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
The extension persons need to increase the area under Moringa, it high yield variety and suitable for export also. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
PKM-1 recommended to Annamayya district for high yield. |
Farmers Details:
S.No |
Name of the Beneficiary |
Village |
Phone No. |
01 |
Mr. Y.Yellareddy |
Sachirevupalli |
- |
02 |
Mr. Subramanyam |
kalikiri |
9440247765 |
03 |
Mr. Ramana |
piler |
- |
04 |
Mr. Venkataramireddy |
kalakada |
9391386961 |
05 |
Mr. Kiran kumar reddy |
Kalikiri |
- |
06 |
Sriram |
KV Palli |
9553388427 |
06 |
Mr. A.veeranjaneyulu |
KV Palli |
8008766046 |
02/ FLD/Horti/ KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Demonstration on ridge gourd variety Arka Prasan for higher productivity |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Varietal assessment |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
|
4. |
Objectives |
: |
1. To spread variety horizontally 2. To compare with existing varieties |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
1 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
Ridge rd variety arka prasan was recorded more yield (17.5 t/ha) where as in farmers practice naga variety recorded yield 13.5 t/ha. 28 % more yield was recorded in arka prasan variety comare with Naga (farmers practice). |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
Farmers are given good feedback about this variety. Many farmers are interested to cultivate this variety. |
|
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
Suitable for Kharif season. Not suitable for summer season cultivation. More fruit fly incidence recorded in summer. |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
The extension persons need to increase the area under Ridge gourd, it high yield variety. |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Concluded |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
During summer season crop bitter taste was nocied in some fruis. |
Demonstration on ridge gourd variety Arka Prasan for higher productivity
Treatmentsc |
Days taken for first picking |
Avg. fruit length (cm) |
Avg. 10 fruits Weight (gm) |
No. of fruits per plant |
Yield per plant (kgs) |
Yield (t/ha) |
% increase over control |
T1: Arka Prasan |
45 |
45 cm |
2860 gms |
9 |
2.4 |
17.5 |
28.67 |
T2: Farmers practice (Naga) |
52 |
39 cm |
2200 gms |
8 |
1.8 |
13.6 |
Treatments |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./ac.) |
Gross income (Rs./ha) |
Net income (Rs./ha) |
C:B ratio |
Remarks |
T1: Arka Prasan |
1,45,000/- |
4,26,000/- |
2,81,000/- |
2.93 |
Early variety, fruit fly incidence was more noticed. |
T2: Farmers pratice (Naga) |
1,45,000/- |
3,35,000/- |
1,90,000/- |
2.31 |
fruit fly incidence was more noticed. |
Farmers Details:
S.No |
Name of the Beneficiary |
Village |
Phone No. |
01 |
Mr. K. Anandha |
Ankireddygaripalli, Kalakada |
9703992939 |
02 |
Mr. Madhu reddy |
parapatla |
990843354 |
03 |
Mr. Nagamani reddy |
Kalikiri |
9010067979 |
04 |
Mr. Reddeppa naidu |
shakamvaripalli |
900086849 |
05 |
Mr.Mahesh |
rajuvaripalli |
9966189788 |
03/ FLD/Horti/ KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23
1. |
Name of the technology |
: |
Integrated Disease Management in Tomato |
2. |
Name of the intervention |
: |
Varietal Assessment |
3. |
Crop/ enterprise |
: |
Tomato |
4. |
Objectives |
: |
To expand the area of tomatowith IIHR diseasemanagement technology |
5. |
No. of hectares |
: |
1 ha |
6. |
Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed |
||
9. |
Results |
: |
Farmers practice recorded 30 % disease incidence where as in IIHR protocol disease incidence was noted 25% and the cost of cultivation also recuded in IIHR technology. More B:C ratio 1.60 was recorded. |
10. |
Farmers reaction |
: |
Early blight and late blight incidence are more in kharif season crop. |
11. |
Feed back points |
: |
|
(a) To the scientist |
: |
IIHR Diseases management technology cost reduction and controlling the disease incidence in this area. |
|
(b) To the extension personnel |
: |
Awarenes among farmers on new technology to be created by training |
|
12. |
Whether continued during 2023-24 or not |
: |
Continued |
13. |
Remarks |
: |
Tomato IIHR tomato disease management technology is recommended for cultivation in Annamayya district. |
Integrated Disease Management in Tomato
Treatmentsc |
Percent of disease incidence (%) |
Yield (t/ha) |
% increase yield over control |
T1: IIHR tomato disease management protocol |
25 |
60.50 |
9 |
T2: Farmers practice |
30 |
55.25 |
Treatments |
Cost of cultivation (Rs./hc.) |
Gross income (Rs./ha) |
Net income (Rs./ha) |
C:B ratio |
T1: IIHR tomato disease management protocol |
5,00,000 |
8,00,000 |
3,00,000 |
1.60 |
T2: Farmers practice |
5,00,000 |
7,33,333 |
2,33,333 |
1.46 |
S.No |
Name of the Beneficiary |
Village |
Phone No. |
1 |
Subramanyam |
Kotagundlapalli |
9493226836 |
2 |
Malli |
kalikiri |
9440327146 |
3 |
karimulla |
yellampalli |
9666314546 |
4 |
Jagadheesh |
palamanda |
7995031966 |
5 |
K. Anandha |
Ankireddygaripalli, Kalakada |
9703992939 |
6 |
Mohan reddy |
Kotta gajjulollapalli |
7075640838 |
7 |
Nagamani reddy |
Kalikiri |
- |
8 |
K. Anandha |
Ankireddygaripalli, Kalakada |
9703992939 |
9 |
Mallikarjun naidu |
shakamvaripalli |
- |
10 |
Reddeppa naidu |
Shakamvaripalli |
9000868469 |
TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR FARMERS
HORTICULTURE:10
S. No |
Date |
Venue |
Name of the topic |
Resource person |
No. of Participants |
Feedback |
1 |
08-07-22 |
Sakirevupalli. |
Post harvest management practices in Mango |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
23 |
Good |
2 |
16-7-22 |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Cultivation practices in Mango |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
56 |
Good |
3 |
31-10-22 |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Production Technology of Tomato in Annamayya District |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
23 |
Good |
4 |
16-11-22 |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Post harvest technology in Mango & Production Technology of Tomato |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
102 |
Good |
5 |
23-11-22 |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Vegetable nursery management (tomato and chilli) |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
24 |
Good |
6 |
29-11-22 |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Kitchen garden and Roof top gardening |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
24 |
Good |
7 |
15-12-22 |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Organic cultivation practices in mango |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
24 |
Good |
Participation in Rythu Chaitanya Yatra (RCY)/Rythusadassu/Rythu Polallo Sastravetthalu (RPS)etc., T&V meetingsetc.
Details of the programme |
Duration |
place |
||
From (date) |
To (date) |
Total period |
||
Kisan Mela |
31-5-2022 |
31-5-2022 |
One day |
Tomato market yard, Kalikiri |
Krishi mela |
4-11-2022 |
6-11-2022 |
Three days |
GKVK, Bengalure |
Rythu Sadassu |
3-11-2022 |
3-11-2022 |
One day |
Mittapalli, Kanduru |
Ag- Tech 2022 |
4-12-2022 |
5-12-2022 |
One days |
Lam, Guntur |
Trainings/Workshops/Seminars etc. attended by the KVK staff
Name of the programme |
Period |
Venue |
Organizing Institution |
Orientation cum refresher training programme for SMSs and Farm managers |
16-8-2022 to 18-8-2022 |
Lam, Guntur |
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University |
Social media for Agricultural Extension |
21-6-2022 |
25-6-2022 |
EEI with MANAGE, Hyderabad |
Online training programme on Recent Advances in Chilli Chilli Improvement |
7th to 9th 2022 |
Online |
ICAR-IIHR, Bengaluru |
Training programme on Agri Journalism for effective Agricultural Extension |
20th to 24th September, 2022 |
Virtual mode |
EEI with MANAGE, Hyderabad |
Lectures delivered as resource person
S. NO |
DATE |
Scientist Participated |
VENUE |
TOPIC |
Clientle |
Organised by |
01 |
16.11.2022 |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
KVK, Kalikiri |
ICM in Tomato and mango |
VAA, VHA |
Dept. of Agriculture |
02 |
23.12.2022 |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
PLR Foods, Sadum |
ICM, in Mango |
FPO members |
PLR foods Pvt Lmtd. |
03 |
11.01.2023 |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
T. Sandravaripalli |
IPM in Mango |
FPO members |
FPO & Dep. of Horticulture |
04 |
25.04.2023 |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
Sadum |
Integrated management practices of mango |
Farmers |
KVK, Reddipalli |
05 |
26.04.2023 |
Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture) |
Punganur |
Integrated management practices of tomato and pruning operations in mango |
Farmers |
KVK, Reddipalli |
Resesrch papers publication;
S. No. |
Authors as per the citation |
Title of the Publication |
Name of Journal |
Volume and Page No. |
Position of authorship |
NAAS rating |
1 |
A Srinivasulu, CM Panda, SN Dash, A Mishra and RK Panda |
Screening of citrus rootstocks for salt tolerance at early seedling stage |
The Pharma Innovation Journal |
SP-11(8): 1847-1853 (2022) |
First |
5.23 |
2 |
A Srinivasulu, CM Panda, SN Dash, A Mishra and RK Panda |
Evaluation of Citrus Rootstocks to Salinity Tolerance |
Biological Forum |
14(3): 786-793(2022) |
First |
5.54 |
Community Home Science
On Farm Trials 2022-23
TRIAL NO 1/ OFT/ H.S /2022-23
Assessment of tomato variety for value addition (First year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Assessment of tomato variety for value addition (First year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
On Farm Trial |
3. |
Objective |
|
4. |
Crop |
Tomato |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 5 (b) Organized : 03 |
Name of the farmers |
1)KVK farm 2) G.Prabhakar-9985139507,Mure vandlapalli 3) Rajamani reddy -9440192438, Kalikiri |
Treatments:
T1: Arka apeksha
T2: Tomato hybrid-34
T3: Saahoo
Results 2022-23:
Observations recorded:
- Pulp yield for 1 kg of raw tomatoes % Recovery,
- Organoleptic evaluation
- Shelf life studies
Data recorded |
T1- Arka apeksha |
T2- Tomato hybrid-34 |
T3- Saaho |
|
Average weight |
75-80 grams |
70-90 gms |
70-100 gms |
|
TSS |
4.7 brix |
6.4 |
6.3 |
|
Acidity |
0.34 |
0.12 |
0.11 |
|
Pulp yield for 1 kg |
830 g |
720 g |
710 g |
|
Sensory evaluation |
||||
Color |
8.6 |
8.7 |
9 |
|
Taste |
9 |
8.6 |
8.7 |
|
Consistency |
9 |
8.5 |
7.8 |
|
Overall acceptability |
9 |
7 |
8 |
|
Feedback from farmers |
Good |
Good |
||
Shelf life studies |
No microbial contamination was observed in three treatments for 4 months under refrigerated conditions |
|||
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Heavy rains and water logging are not tolerated. Also the storage period is short |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
Good for processing in the preparation of ketchup when compared with other two treatments |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Good |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
Can be implemented by the farmers at commercial level. |
2) TRIAL NO 2/ OFT/ H.S /22-23
Assessment of performance of chaff cutters (I Year)
1. |
Name of the Technology |
Assessment of performance of chaff cutters |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Can reduce the time and drudgery in collecting the fodder grass for farm women. |
3. |
Objective |
To calculate the drudgery index |
4. |
Crop |
Fodder grass |
5. |
Nature of the Trial |
On Farm trial |
6. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 5 (b) Organized : 5 |
Treatments:
T1: Hand operated chaff cutrer-CIAE,Bopal
T2: Power operated chaff cutter– TNAU
T3: Farmer’s practice
Observations recorded |
T1- Hand operated Chaff cutter |
T2- Manual operated chaff cutter |
T3- farmers practice |
No.of labour required |
2 |
1 |
1 |
Fodder weight |
5 kg |
5 kg |
5 kg |
Time take for cutting |
7 min 23 sec |
2 min 13 sec |
- |
Drudgery index |
56.4 (Medium drudgery) |
38.4 (Mild drudgery |
- |
9 |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Good |
10 |
Whether continued during 2022-23 |
Yes (converted to FLD) |
11 |
Remarks |
Nil |
Front Line Demonstrations 2022-23:
1/FLD/HSC/KVK/KLK /2022-23
- Demonstration on Nutri gardens at schools (First year).
1. |
Name of the Technology |
Demonstration on Nutri gardens at schools(First year). |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Local Nutrition garden can make vegetables available, which in turn increase the consumption for vegetables and reduce the effect of micronutrient deficiencies especially among women and children in rural areas. |
3. |
Objective |
To improve the nutritional status of the children |
4. |
Crop |
Vegetables |
5. |
Nature of the Trial |
Front Line Demonstration |
6. |
Numbers |
a. Approved : 10 b. Organized: 10 |
Treatments: T1: T1:-Nutrigarden (MSSRF Model) T2:- No Garden |
S.No. |
Name of the village |
Phone number |
1 |
Sainik schools, Kalikiri |
8179431553 |
2 |
Government boys school, Kalikiri |
9440400579 |
3 |
Residential girls School, Kalikiri |
8985093081 |
4 |
Anganwadi school, Sakirevu palli |
7674836713 |
5 |
Anganwadi school, Kotha palli |
9121122573 |
6 |
Anganwadi school, Nadimpalli |
7095176331 |
7 |
Anganwadi school, Parapatla |
7702628726 |
8 |
Anganwadi school, Erra doddi palli |
9160816498 |
9 |
Anganwadi school, T.G.palli |
8008621691 |
10 |
Anganwadi school, Girijana colony |
9121122493 |
Results :2022-23
Expenditure incurred(Rs) |
Vegetable Gross yield (Kg) |
Utilization by the school children(Kg) |
Total (Rs) |
Additional Income generated (Rs |
|
1 month |
200 |
40-45 |
40-45 |
1600-1800 |
- |
6 months |
- |
270 |
200 |
10,800 |
2,800 |
Gross yield of vegetables from nutri gardens in 10 schools
S.No. |
Crop |
Yield (Kg) |
Vegetables |
||
1 |
Tomato |
24.3 |
2 |
Brinjal |
15.2 |
3 |
Mirchi |
14.2 |
4 |
Ladies finger |
15.8 |
5 |
Cluster beans |
15.3 |
Leafy vegetables |
||
6 |
Palak |
11.7 |
7 |
Hybiscus |
11.3 |
8 |
Menthi |
10.6 |
9 |
Amaranthus |
13.9 |
Roots |
||
10 |
Carrot |
14.5 |
11 |
Radish |
15.7 |
Creepers |
||
12 |
Bitter gourd |
16.0 |
13 |
Bottle gourd |
30.4 |
7 |
Farmers Reactions |
|
8 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
Good |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
||
9 |
Whether continued during 2023-2024 |
Yes |
10 |
Remarks |
2/FLD/HSC/KVK/KLK /2023-24
Demonstration on Backyard poultry-(First Year)
1. |
Name of the Technology |
Demonstration on Backyard poultry-(First Year) |
|
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Backyard poultry is mostly practiced among rural family and introducing high yielding dual purpose variety will enhances the consumption of eggs and poultry meat. Additional income can also be generated by selling the eggs and matured birds. Gagas are dual-purpose chicken variety developed by the ICAR-Directorate of Poultry Research in Hyderabad mainly developed for Rural community where it can be reared in backyard on natural, scavenged food with minimal supplementation. It produces eggs and meat based on rearing and feeding practices. Important features of this breed are multi-color feather pattern, immunity to disease, perform with less nutrition, grow faster, and produce more eggs, produce brown eggs like local hens. These birds give their best performance when reared free range. |
|
3. |
Objective |
To introduce the improved breeds of backyard poultry To improve the nutritional status and economic status of the farm families. |
|
4. |
Crop |
- |
|
5. |
Nature of the Trial |
Front Line Demonstration |
|
6. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 10 location (b) Organized : 10 location |
Results :
Observations recorded |
Gagas birds |
Local birds |
Bird weight (6 months) |
Cock weight- 1.5 to2.2kg Hen weight- 1.8-2.0 kg |
Cock weight- 1.3to 1.6kg Hen weight- 1.2-1.6 kg |
Average egg weight |
50 – 55 grams |
50-60 grams |
No.of eggs layed (till now) |
20-30 no’s |
15-20 no’s |
Nutritional benefits |
Increased consumption of Eggs when compared to local birds |
Consumption rate is less when compared with treatment |
B: Cratio |
2.5 |
1.25 |
One day Training programmes
S.No |
Title |
Place |
No. of participants |
1 |
Importance of nutrition to the pregnant and lactating women |
Indiramma colony, Kalikiri |
23 |
2 |
Importance of millets to the farm women |
Chintaparthy, Vayalpad |
32 |
3 |
Enterpreneurship development through value addition to millets |
Somala |
25 |
4 |
Role of millets in reducing malnutrition |
Girls residential school, Kalikiri |
20 |
5 |
Nutritional importance of minor millets |
Kalikiri |
25 |
6 |
Importance of women health and nutritrion |
Durgasamudram |
30 |
Vocational training programmes
S.no |
Name of the training programme |
No. of days |
Dates |
Venue |
No.of participants |
1 |
Value addition to Tomato |
05 |
25-08-2022 to 30-08-2022 |
Kalikiri |
20 |
2 |
Value addition to Millets (Sc-Sp) |
05 |
14-12-2022 to 19-12-2022 |
Kalikiri |
20 |
3 |
Value addition to Tomato (Sc-Sp) |
05 |
31-01-2023 to 04-02-2023 |
Kalikiri |
20 |
S.NO |
Activity |
Number |
1 |
Group discussions |
2 |
2 |
Method demonstrations |
2 |
3 |
Feild visits |
4 |
4 |
Press note |
9 |
5 |
Folders/ leaflets |
- |
6 |
Popular articles |
3 |
7 |
Video/film preparation |
- |
8 |
National nutrition day |
1 |
9 |
International womens day |
1 |
10 |
World food day |
1 |
11 |
Kisan mobile advisory services |
20 |
12 |
Radio talks |
2 |
Animal Husbandry
TRIAL NO 1/ KVK/Kalikiri/ Veterinary/2022-23
Assessment of diagnosis and management of sub-clinical mastitis using SFMT reagent (IInd year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Assessment of diagnosis and management of sub-clinical mastitis using SFMT reagent (IInd year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
On Farm Trial |
3. |
Objective |
- To diagnose sub-clinical cases of mastitis using SFMT (Surf field mastitis test) - Initiate treatment at early stages - Initiate control and preventive measures |
4. |
Crop |
Cattle |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 100 samples (b) Organized : 72 samples |
Treatments:
TO-1:Testing of milk with SFMT reagent
- Pre washing of udder with potassium permanganate
- Post washing of udder with 1%Povidone idoine + 10%glycerine
If found positive, Pow. Trisodium citrate-30g/day for 1-2 weeks (based on subclinical form)
TO-2:Testing of milk samples with TANUCHEK SCC kit
FP: No preventive measures and disease is diagnosed at late stage-clinical stage
Result:
Year 2022-23:
Positive (%) |
Negative (%) |
Net returns (Rs./unit) |
B:C Ratio |
|
SFMT |
27 |
45 |
6000 |
2.8 |
TANUCHECKSCC kit |
28 |
44 |
5700 |
2.6 |
FP |
Clinical stage |
4200 |
2.0 |
|
Incidence of mastitis decreased by 70%. |
Total samples screened – 72 samples
No. of Locations |
Treatments |
Animals positive for SCM (%) |
Net returns (Rs./unit) |
B:C Ratio |
01 (Milk samples-56) |
TO-1 |
19.6 |
5760 |
2.60 |
TO-2 |
5.35 |
5460 |
2.52 |
|
FP: |
Clinical stage |
4000 |
1.85 |
|
Incidence of mastitis decreased by 63%. |
Year 2020-21:
Conclusion: Examination of milk samples using SFMT reagent revealed that this is of inexpensive test to test the milk for the presence of subclinical mastitis and can be done at farmer level and the mastitis can be detected at early stage of which decease the economical loss to the farmers and restores the well being and productive capacity of the dairy animal.
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Using SFMT, diagnosis of Mastitis (subclinical) is very easy and inexpensive. |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Demonstrate the farmers how to prepare and use this SFMT in diagnosis of mastitis. |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
TRIAL NO 2/ KVK/ Kalikiri/ Veterinary/2022-23
Assessment of fodder crop in horticulture gardens for effective land utilization (IInd year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Assessment of fodder crop in horticulture gardens for effective land utilization (IInd year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
On Farm Trial |
3. |
Objective |
-To assess intercropping cultivation of fodder crops in horticulture gardens - Utilisation of land effectively - Increase the productivity per acre |
4. |
Crop |
Fodder |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 5 (b) Organized : 3 |
Treatments:
TO-1:Fodder grass (Guniea grass) as intercrop in horticulture gardens
TO-2:Fodder grass (Anjan grass) as intercrop in horticulture gardens
FP: Fodder as a sole crop
Result:
Year 2022-23:
Fodder seed was distributed to the farmers and sown in their fields but germination percentatage of guinea grass is only 5% and that of Anjan grass is 10% only.
Year 2020-21:
No. of Locations |
Treatments |
Yield (t) |
Net returns (Rs./unit) |
B:C Ratio |
05 |
TO-1: |
Germination and uniform growth noted. Three harvestings done. Shade tolerance noted. Yield: 97.8 |
1890 |
3.01 |
TO-2: |
Delayed germination and non-uniform growth. Yield: 54.75 |
1190 |
2.96 |
|
FP |
60.00 |
1130 |
1.99 |
|
One of the farmers is utilising the land for vegetable production. (Earlier the land was used for fodder production; as fodder is now grown in mango orchard) |
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Germination of grass is very low. |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
- |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
TRIAL NO 3/ KVK/ Kalikiri/ Veterinary/ 2022-23
Assessment of ecofriendly herbal anti tick acaricide on large and small ruminants (Ist year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Assessment of ecofriendly herbal anti tick acaricide on large and small ruminants (Ist year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
On Farm Trial |
3. |
Objective |
Elimination of ectoparasites and prevention of tick borne diseases |
4. |
Crop |
Cattle and sheep |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 10 (b) Organized : 10 |
Treatments:
TO-1:Herbal anti tick acaricide
TO-2:acaricides (Butox)
FP:General acaricides or nil
Result:
Year 2022-23:
S.No |
Treatments |
Result |
T1 |
Herbal anti tick acaricide |
Ecto Parasites reduced by 50% |
T2 |
acaricides (Butox) |
Ecto Parasites reduced by 10% only. |
FP |
General acaricides or nil |
|
Conclusion: Spraying of herbal anti-tick acaricide (AllGone N) solvent in cattle resulted in 50% suppression of ectoparasites. Also spraying with Butox resulted in only 10% control of ectoparasites and the ectoparasites in Kalikiri and Madanapally areas became tolerant to Butox. The use of herbal anti-tick acaricides has reduced the cost to the farmer of ectoparasite eradication by an average of 30%.
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Spraying of herbal acaricide is better as it has no harmful health effect either on animal or human being. |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Elimination of ectoparasites should be done collectively by the whole area. |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
TRIAL NO 4/ KVK/Kalikiri/ Veterinary/ 2022-23:
Demonstration of legume fodders along with non legume fodders (IInd year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Demonstration of legume fodders along with non legume fodders (IInd year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Front Line Demonstartion |
3. |
Objective |
-Daily practice of feeding legume along with non legume fodders -Yield, growth and amount of the fodder crops |
4. |
Crop |
Cattle |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 10 (b) Organized : 10 |
Treatments:
TO1:Cultivation of legume fodders (cowpea) along with non legume fodders (CoFS31)
FP:Nonlegume grass fodders - as sole fodder
Result:
Year 2022-23:
Yield (q/ha) |
Increase in DCP(%) |
Net returns Rs./ha |
B:C Ratio |
|||
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
|
92.3 |
70 |
1.04 |
7820 |
5750 |
2.83 |
2.7 |
Fat %- 1- 1.5% increase Hardening of stem at the base after 2 cuttings. So acceptance by the animal is less after 2 cuttings. Feeding pulses along with fodder reduces fodder waste Reducing the cost of feeding |
Year 2020-21:
Yield (q/ha) |
Increase in DCP(%) |
Net returns Rs./ha |
B:C Ratio |
|||
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
|
91.7 |
68.8 |
0.75 |
7720 |
5600 |
2.72 |
2.60 |
Early maturity/ Flowering in CO(FS) 31. Hardening of stem at the base after 2 cuttings. So acceptance by the animal is less after 2 cuttings. |
Conclusion: As part of the demonstration on Cultivation of Cereal Fodder with Legume Fodder, Alasanda and COFS 31 fodder seeds were sown by the farmers. Giving the mixed fodder (legume+non legume) increase the protein availability to the farmer and decrease the cost spent on concentrate feed.
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Intercropping of legumes and non legumes decreased the quantity of concentrate feed required. |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Awareness should be created on intercropping of legumes and non legumes. |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
TRIAL NO 5/ KVK/ Kalikiri/ Veterinary/ 2022-23:
Demonstration of mineral supplementation and improving digestibility in milch animals through urea molasses mineral blocks. (IIIrd year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Demonstration of mineral supplementation and improving digestibility in milch animals through urea molasses mineral blocks. (IIIrd year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Front Line Demonstartion |
3. |
Objective |
- To evaluate the milk and reproductive performance |
4. |
Crop |
Cattle |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 10 (b) Organized : 10 |
Treatments:
TO-1: Grazing + Concentrate feed +UMMB licks in the animal sheds (advised farmers to offer 15min daily).
FP: Grazing + Concentrate feed.
Result:
Year 2022-23:
Units |
Digestibility and BCS |
% Improvement |
Net returns Rs./ha |
B:C Ratio |
|||
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
||
10 ACU |
68 |
35 |
65 |
4860 |
4090 |
2.05 |
1.90 |
Fat % increased by 0.5%. |
Year 2021-22:
Units |
Digestibility and BCS |
% Improvement |
Net returns Rs./ha |
B:C Ratio |
|||
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
||
10 ACU |
75 |
42 |
80 |
6320 |
5860 |
2.61 |
2.45 |
Fat % increased by 1.5%. |
Year 2020-21:
Units |
Digestibility and BCS |
% Improvement |
Net returns Rs./ha |
B:C Ratio |
|||
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
Demo |
FP |
||
10 ACU |
70 |
40 |
75 |
5960 |
4200 |
2.59 |
2.40 |
Fat % increased by 1%. |
Conclusion: Supplementation of mineral salts to cattle through UMMB bricks increase milk yield and milk fat% and decrease the risk of mastitis and less incidence of repeat breeding.
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Usage of UMMB blocks increased milk yield and milk fat%. |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Awareness should be created on usage of UMMB blocks |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
No |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
TRIAL NO 6/ KVK/ Kalikiri/ Veterinary/ 2022-23:
Demonstration of effect of supplemental feeding in pregnant ewes and creep feeding in pre weaning lambs. (Ist year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Demonstration of effect of supplemental feeding in pregnant ewes and creep feeding in pre weaning lambs. (Ist year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Front Line Demonstartion |
3. |
Objective |
- To evaluate the growth rate of lambs that are fed with creep feed and ewes fed on supplemental feed - To reduce the mortality rate due to unbalanced feed |
4. |
Crop |
Sheep |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 5 (b) Organized : 5 |
Treatments:
TO-1:Supplemental feed @ 250-300g/day during mid and late gestation period and creep feeding @ 50 g/day, 75 g/day and 100 g/day in the intervals of 15 days.
FP: Sole dam milk feeding
Result:
Year 2022-23:
Treatments |
Result |
Cost (per sheep) |
Returns (per sheep) |
Net returns (per sheep) |
B:C ratio |
||
birth wt (kg) |
Weight at weaning (kg) |
Weight at 3 months (kg) |
|||||
T1 |
3.5 |
6.2 |
16 |
1250 |
7200 |
5950 |
3.64 |
T2 |
2.8 |
5.3 |
10 |
900 |
4000 |
3600 |
3.44 |
Conclusion: Supplemental feeding in direct ewes and creep feeding in lactating lambs resulted in less trouble at weaning time, lamb weight 700g at birth than in farmer system. 6 kg more than normal lambs at 3 months of age.
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Feeding of supplemental feed to ewes and creep feed to the lambs is economical. |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Awareness should be created to the farmers on the importance and formulation of concentrate and creep feed. |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
TRIAL NO 7/ KVK/ Kalikiri/ Veterinary/ 2022-23:
Demonstration of Influence of diet on the Incidence of mastitis (Clinical or subclinical) in cows or buffaloes (Ist year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Demonstration of Influence of diet on the Incidence of mastitis (Clinical or subclinical) in cows or buffaloes (Ist year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Front Line Demonstartion |
3. |
Objective |
- Provide optimal feeding along with supplementation of Vit.A, E, Se and mineral mixture during the transition period -Test the milk from even apparently normal animals with California Mastitis Test (CMT) at 15 days interval till 2 months of calving for sub clinical mastitis. -Observe for the onset of any symptoms of clinical mastitis and further confirm by CMT. |
4. |
Crop |
Cattle |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 10 (b) Organized : 10 |
Treatments:
TP: i) Basic diet to be given during last 3 weeks of pregnancy and 4 weeks after calving for the present study under Indian conditions.
ii) Vit A injectable @Dose 5000 I.U/Kg b.wt, I/M , at the beginning of the last one month of pregnancy. Single dose.
III) Vit E & Selenium@ Dose: 10ml/ day, orally, (Approximately 1000 I.UVit E/day) (Approximately 5mg of Se’/ day)- during the last 3 weeks of pregnancy: 5 ml/day orally (Approximately 500 I.U Vit E/day)(Approximately 2.5mg of Se’/ day)- For 4 weeks after calving
IV) Mineral mixture @ 30-50 gm/day orally from the last 3rd week of pregnancy to 4th week after calving for the present demonstration.
1. Test the milk from even apparently normal animals with California Mastitis Test (CMT) at 15 days interval till 2 months of calving for sub clinical mastitis.
2. Observe for the onset of any symptoms of clinical mastitis and further confirm by CMT.
Any positive case (clinical or subclinical) in any group should be treated with
1. Parenteral antibiotics for 3 ( s.clinical) and 5 (clinical) days
2. Anti inflammatory drugs as per the need.
3. The positive cases may be checked for recurrence at monthly intervals till 6 months after calving
FP: (Diet given by the farmers during the study period is to be noted down.)
Result:
Year 2022-23:
Treatment |
Result |
Expenditure in 2 months (per cow) |
Returns in 2 months (per cow) |
Net returns in 2 months (per cow) |
B:C ratio |
|
(% incidenc) |
Milk yield (ltr) |
|||||
T1 |
10% |
6.5 |
6340 |
23400 |
17060 |
2.6 |
T2 |
50% |
5.5 |
5100 |
18000 |
12900 |
2.52 |
Conclusion: Administration of Vitamin-A, Vitamin-E & Selenium and mineral mixture in lactating cows resulted in 90 percent reduction in incidence of mastitis in 60 days and increased milk production of 60 liters. In the same normal herds, however, the incidence of mastitis was reduced by only 50 percent. The cost income ratio is recorded as 2.62.
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
Mastitis can be prevented by nutritional intervention |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
Awareness could be created on nutritional importance of feed. |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
TRIAL NO 8/ KVK/ Kalikiri/ Veterinary/ 2022-23:
Demonstration of 10 cent model fodder plot(Ist year)
1. |
Name of the technology |
Demonstration of 10 cent model fodder plot(Ist year) |
2. |
Nature of intervention |
Front Line Demonstartion |
3. |
Objective |
-Daily practice of feeding green fodders -Yield, growth and amount of the fodder crops |
4. |
Crop |
Cattle |
5. |
Numbers |
(a) Approved : 1 (b) Organized : 1 |
Treatments:
TO1:Super napier/co-4 in 4 cents; cofs-29/maize in 3 cents; cowpea/hedge lucerne in 3 cents and tree fodder seeds.
FP:feeding of availablr green grass
Result:
Year 2022-23:
Conclusion: Super napier yield 50tons/acre (two cuttings), COFS-29 yield 23tons/acre (two cuttings) and Alasanda 2tons/acre were observed from 10 cent sample fodder plot. A 10 cent sample Fodder Demonstration Field was organized at KVK Farm to create awareness among the farmers about fodder varieties and the importance of fodder trees.
6 |
Farmers Reactions |
They are satisfactory to know the different fodder crops and their nutritional value. |
7 |
Feed back (a) To the Scientists |
- |
(b) To the Extension Personnel |
- |
|
8 |
Whether continued during 2023-24 |
Yes |
9 |
Remarks |
- |
Extension activities (2022-23):
- 1.Training Programmes:
- 2.Problems identified in Diagnostic field visit
- Group Discussions conducted: 05
- Method demonstrations: 04
- Radio programme: 02
- Popular article: 01
- Press note: 04
- Booklet: 01
S.No |
Date |
Topic |
No. of days |
On / Off campus |
08.07.22 |
Nutritional management in cattle |
1 day |
Off (sakirevupalli) |
|
12.08.2022 |
Scientific management practices in dairy animals |
1 day |
Off campus (kota guntla palli) |
|
25.01.2023 |
Preparation of vermicompost |
1 day |
On campus |
|
27.01.2023 |
Prevention and control measures in backyard poultry. |
1 day |
On campus |
|
1.02.2023 |
Scientific Management practices in sheep/goats |
1 day |
Off campus (mallireddygari palli) |
|
11.04.2023 to 13.04.2023 |
Backyard poultry farmng |
4 days |
On campus |
Livestock |
Problem identified |
|
Cattle |
Repeat breeding |
|
Abcess at elbow joint |
||
Metritis |
||
Ecto parasitic infestation |
||
Mastitis |
||
Sheep |
Hair fall |
|
Ataxia |
||
Anorexia |
||
Diarrhoea |
||
Incordinated gait |
||
Poultry |
Sudden of death of 45 birds (RD) |
|
Worm infestation |
||
EXTENSION
Extension Study -1
Training need assessment of VAAs and VHAs of RBKs in Annamayya District
Table 1: Training needs of VAAs and VHAs
A. Training need in crop production
S. No |
Crop Production |
Most Important |
Important |
Not important |
|||
f |
% |
f |
% |
f |
% |
||
1. |
Integrated farming system |
60 |
100 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
0.00 |
2. |
Cropping system |
46 |
76.66 |
8 |
13.33 |
6 |
10 |
3. |
Weed management |
55 |
91.66 |
4 |
6.6 |
1 |
1.66 |
4. |
Soil and water conservation |
36 |
60.00 |
15 |
25.00 |
9 |
15 |
5. |
Soil and water sample collection |
41 |
68.33 |
13 |
21.66 |
6 |
10 |
6. |
Integrated nutrient management |
43 |
71.66 |
13 |
21.66 |
4 |
6.66 |
7. |
Natural farming practices |
50 |
83.34 |
7 |
11.66 |
3 |
5.00 |
8. |
Seed rate and method of sowing |
43 |
71.66 |
12 |
20.00 |
5 |
8.33 |
9. |
Fertilizer management |
33 |
55.00 |
14 |
23.33 |
13 |
21.66 |
B.Training need in plant protection
S. No |
Plant protection |
Most Important |
Important |
Not important |
|||
f |
% |
f |
% |
f |
% |
||
1. |
Seed treatment |
31 |
51.66 |
15 |
25.00 |
14 |
23.33 |
2. |
Pest and disease management in major crops |
30 |
50.00 |
11 |
18.33 |
19 |
31.66 |
3. |
Rodent management in paddy |
46 |
76.66 |
4 |
6.66 |
10 |
16.66 |
4. |
Integrated pest management practices |
54 |
90.00 |
4 |
6.66 |
2 |
3.33 |
5. |
Nature and damage of nematodes and their management |
38 |
63.33 |
15 |
25.00 |
7 |
11.66 |
6. |
Bio control of insects |
52 |
86.66 |
6 |
10.00 |
1 |
1.66 |
C.Training need in extension
S. No |
Extension |
Most Important |
Important |
Not important |
|||
f |
% |
f |
% |
f |
% |
||
1. |
Preparation and use of different audio visual aids |
28 |
46.66 |
19 |
31.66 |
13 |
21.66 |
2. |
Selection and use of extension teaching methods |
32 |
53.33 |
16 |
26.66 |
12 |
20.00 |
3. |
Information and communication technology (ICT) |
45 |
75.00 |
10 |
16.66 |
5 |
8.33 |
4. |
Current agriculture development programmes |
36 |
60.00 |
6 |
10.00 |
15 |
25.00 |
5. |
Techniques of conducting training programmes |
49 |
81.66 |
11 |
18.33 |
0 |
0.00 |
C.Training need in economics
S. No |
Economics |
Most Important |
Important |
Not important |
|||
f |
% |
f |
% |
f |
% |
||
1. |
Crop insurance scheme |
28 |
46.66 |
19 |
31.66 |
13 |
21.66 |
2. |
Marketing of agricultural products |
32 |
53.33 |
16 |
26.66 |
12 |
20.00 |
3. |
Sources of loan and knowledge of different credit institutions |
45 |
75.00 |
10 |
16.66 |
5 |
8.33 |
C. Other training needs
S. No |
Others |
Most Important |
Important |
Not important |
|||
f |
% |
f |
% |
f |
% |
||
1. |
Intellectual property rights |
35 |
58.33 |
14 |
23.33 |
11 |
18.34 |
2. |
Social forestry programmes |
17 |
28.33 |
27 |
45.00 |
16 |
26.66 |
3. |
Filling an application for a patent |
45 |
75.00 |
10 |
16.66 |
5 |
8.34 |
4. |
Climate resilient agricultural practices |
51 |
85.00 |
9 |
15.00 |
0 |
0.00 |
Table 2:Constraints faced by the VAAs and VHAs
S.No |
Constraints |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
1. |
Over loaded works |
87.00 |
13.00 |
2. |
Lack of Tranportation |
61.66 |
38.34 |
3. |
Lack of funds |
57.70 |
42.30 |
4. |
Training programmes are not need based |
63.33 |
36.34 |
5 |
Written material was not provided at the time of training programme |
76.66 |
23.40 |
6 |
Lack of sufficient staff |
85.00 |
15.00 |
Conclusion
From the study it was found that, majority of the respondents expressed the training need regarding crop production were Integrated farming system (100%), Weed management practices (91.66%). With regard to plant protection, training needs were Integrated pest management practices (90.00%), Bio control of insects (86.66%). In horticulture, training needs are Improved & HYVs in major vegetable crops (75.00%), Methods of pruning, grafting and staking (81.66%). Training needs with regard to extension, economics and other areas were Information and communication technology (ICT)(75.00%), Sources of loan and knowledge of different credit institutions (75.00%) and Climate resilient agricultural practices (85.00%) respectively
Extension study-2
Role of social media in agricultural extension: a stakeholder analysis
Table 1: Type of social media used
S.No. |
Social media |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
1. |
|
93.00 |
7.00 |
2. |
|
42.33 |
57.67 |
3. |
|
26.67 |
73.33 |
4. |
YouTube |
94.00 |
6.00 |
5. |
|
31.89 |
68.11 |
6. |
Blogs |
2.18 |
97.82 |
7 |
Web portals |
9.45 |
90.45 |
8 |
|
10.00 |
90.00 |
Table 2: Agricultural information accessed from the social media
S. No |
Item |
Most Important |
Important |
Not important |
|||
f |
% |
f |
% |
f |
% |
||
1. |
Improved crop varities |
28 |
31.11 |
52 |
57.78 |
10 |
11.11 |
2. |
Fertilizer management |
14 |
15.56 |
56 |
64.44 |
20 |
18.00 |
3. |
Agrochemicals |
44 |
48.89 |
24 |
26.67 |
22 |
24.44 |
4. |
Weed management |
33 |
36.67 |
28 |
31.11 |
29 |
32.22 |
5. |
Disease and pest management practices |
25 |
27.78 |
55 |
61.11 |
10 |
11.11 |
6. |
Processing and storage |
12 |
13.33 |
68 |
75.56 |
10 |
11.11 |
7. |
Marketing of Produce |
32 |
35.55 |
29 |
32.22 |
29 |
32.22 |
8. |
Weather information |
34 |
37.78 |
34 |
37.78 |
22 |
24.44 |
9. |
Government agricultural policies and plans |
30 |
33.33 |
31 |
34.44 |
29 |
32.22 |
10 |
Market trend, price, and stock available |
25 |
27.78 |
55 |
61.11 |
10 |
11.11 |
11. |
Credit facilities, source, terms & conditions |
12 |
13.33 |
24 |
26.67 |
54 |
60.00 |
Table 3:Challanges encountered when accessing agricultural information from the social media
S.No. |
Challanges |
Yes (%) |
No (%) |
1. |
High cost of data and smart phones |
58.00 |
42.00 |
2. |
Insufficient infrastructure in villages |
62.00 |
38.00 |
3 |
Lack of confidence in social media platforms |
55.00 |
45.00 |
4. |
Language problem in using social media |
66.00 |
34.00 |
5. |
Insufficient skills in using social media by farmers |
57.00 |
43.00 |
6. |
Poor network connectivity in rural areas |
76.00 |
24.00 |
7. |
Lack of awareness on available information sources |
53.00 |
47.00 |
8. |
Non availability of information in time |
63.00 |
37.00 |
9 |
Irrelevancy of content on social media |
74.00 |
26.00 |
10 |
Illiteracy |
68.00 |
32.00 |
Conclusion
From this study it was concluded that the type of social media used by the majority of the respondents were YouTube (94.00%) followed by Whatsapp (93.00%). Agriculture information accessed by the majority of the respondents from social media were information on agrochemicals (75.56%) and Weather information (74.56%). The major constraints faced by the respondents in utilizing the social media were Poor network connectivity in rural areas (76.00%), Irrelevancy of content on social media (74.00%).
Extension study-3
Knowledge level of the farmers towards biofertilizers in Annamayya district
Table 1: Level of knowledge on biofertilizers
S.No. |
Particulars |
Knowledge level |
||
F |
P |
|||
1. |
Type of biofertilizer used |
Rhizobium |
35 |
58.33 |
Azospirillum |
28 |
46.66 |
||
PSB |
37 |
61.66 |
||
Azatobacter |
21 |
35.00 |
||
2. |
Source of availability |
Research stations |
40 |
66.66 |
Dept.of agriculture |
36 |
60 |
||
KVK |
38 |
63.33 |
||
Fertilizer shops |
31 |
51.66 |
||
3. |
Method of application |
Seed treatment |
34 |
56.66 |
Seedling dipping |
23 |
38.33 |
||
Soil application |
29 |
48.33 |
||
Through irrigation (Drip) |
32 |
53.33 |
||
4. |
Quantity required |
Soil application 2 kg/acre |
30 |
50.00 |
Seed treatment |
49 |
81.66 |
||
Drip 5ml/lit |
22 |
36.66 |
||
5. |
Time of application |
35 |
58.33 |
|
6. |
Time gap within which the treated seeds to be sown |
37 |
61.66 |
|
7. |
Using biofertilizer without mixing with chemical fertilizers |
53 |
88.33 |
|
8. |
Using biofertilizer before expiry date |
6 months for powder form |
48 |
80.00 |
1 year for liquid form |
27 |
45.00 |
||
9. |
Cost of biofertilizers |
Rs. 80/- per kg |
14 |
23.33 |
Rs. 300/- per litre |
12 |
20.00 |
||
10. |
Forms of biofertilizer |
Powder form |
45 |
75.00 |
Liquid form |
19 |
31.66 |
Table 2: Constraints faced by the farmers
S.No. |
Constraints |
Frequency |
% |
1. |
Low shelf life of biofertilizers |
17 |
28.33 |
2. |
Non availability of biofertilizers locally at times when needed |
40 |
66.67 |
3. |
No visual difference in the crop growth immediately as that of chemical fertilizers |
29 |
48.33 |
5. |
Lack of availability of literature on biofertilizer usage |
25 |
41.66 |
6. |
Complicated process of biofertilizer usage |
31 |
51.66 |
7. |
Lack of subsidies on biofertilizers |
42 |
70.00 |
8. |
Lack of guidance from extension personal |
28 |
46.66 |
9. |
Lack of confidence towards different biofertilizer practices |
32 |
53.33 |
10. |
Lack of separate marketing facilities for crops produced using biofertilizers |
43 |
71.66 |
Table 3: Suggestions to overcome constraints
S.No. |
Suggestions |
Frequency |
% |
1. |
Biofertilizers should be available in time at local level |
46 |
76.66 |
2. |
Subsidy on biofertilizers |
43 |
71.66 |
3. |
Training on technical aspects of biofertilizers should be provided by extension agencies |
32 |
53.33 |
4. |
Awareness campaign on popularization of biofertilizers |
13 |
21.66 |
5. |
Proper guidance about use of biofertilizers |
19 |
31.66 |
6. |
Printed literature in simple local language can be distributed by the Dept. of Agriculture and the University or the Krishi Vigyan Kendra |
29 |
48.33 |
7. |
Assured quality of bio-fertilizers from production units |
38 |
63.33 |
8. |
Provision of better marketing facilities for crops produced using biofertilizers |
52 |
86.66 |
Conclusion
From the study it was revealed that majority 61.66 per cent of respondents have knowledge on PSB among the type of biofertilizers used, regarding source of availability 66.66 reported that they avail biofertilizers from research stations, (56.66%) of therespondents have knowledge on method of application of biofertilizers for seed treatment and (81.66%) have knowledge on quantity required for seed treatment, 88.33 of respondents were using biofertilizers without mixing with chemical fertilizers, 80.00 of respondents have knowledge on expiry date of powder form of biofertilizers. The major constraints faced by the respondents in utilizing the biofertilizers were Lack of separate marketing facilities for crops produced using biofertilizers (71.66%), Non availability of biofertilizers locally at times when needed (66.67%) and suggestions were Provision of better marketing facilities for crops produced using biofertilizers (86.66%), Biofertilizers should be available in time at local level (76.66%).
Popular articles
Title of the article |
Date of publication |
Publication details |
Herboliv–Adavijantuvulanupaaradrolu mariyu mokkaedugu dalakuuapayogapadu sendriyadravanam |
May, 2022 |
Vyavasayam |
Rabi kianuvainaverusenagarakalu |
November, 2022 |
Andhraprabha (newspaper article) |
Management of fall army worm in Maize |
February, 2023 |
Agriculture and Food e-Newsletter |
Training programmes organized during 2022-23
Sl. No |
Title |
Place |
Date |
1 |
Training programme on conservation of water resources |
KVK,Kalikiri |
26-8-2022 |
2 |
Enterpreneural opportunities for rural youth in Agriculture |
KVK,Kalikiri |
28-10-2022 |
3 |
Utilization of ICTs in agriculture |
KVK,Kalikiri |
05-11-2022 |
4 |
Sesamum management practices |
KVK,Kalikiri |
13.12.2022 |
5 |
Training programme on natural farming |
KVK,Kalikiri |
23.12.2022 |
6 |
Training programme on importance of millets |
Vepulabailu |
14.02.2023 |
Training programmes organized in collaboration with other organizations during 2022-23
S. No |
Title |
Date |
Duration |
Organized by |
Venue |
1. |
Training programme on Production technologies of Tomato and Papaya |
06.05.2022 |
01 |
Coramondal Pvt., limited - |
KVK, Kalikiri |
2. |
FoCT training Programme |
30th May to 04th June, 2022 |
05 |
Coconut Board |
KVK, Kalikiri |
3. |
Nursery Managemennt in Horticultural Crops |
31st March to 07th April, 2022 |
07 |
ATMA |
KVK, Kalikiri |
4. |
Sandalwood based Agroforestry models |
28-2-2023 |
01 |
Institute of Wood science and technology |
KVK, Kalikiri |
Other Extension activities
S.No. |
Extension activities |
Number |
1 |
Press notes |
32 |
2 |
Print and electronic media |
6 |
3 |
Mobile messages (Kisan sarathi) |
97 |
4 |
Farmers Calls received |
72 |
5 |
Short video |
2 |
6 |
Whatsapp messages |
47 |