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

03/ FLD/ CP /Rabi/2022-23/KVK/KLK

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

  1. Yella Reddy

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

  1. Chalapathi, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)
  2. Kiran, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)

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

  1. To assess the pulp yield,
  2. Sensory evaluation of the product.
  3. Shelf life studies of the product.

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:

  1. Pulp yield for 1 kg of raw tomatoes % Recovery,
  2. Organoleptic evaluation
  3. 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 assess the performance of hand operated chaff cutter.

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

  1. 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 establish the nutrition garden at schools
  • To increase the consumption of vegetables.
  • Students able to get pesticide free vegetables from their school campus
  • Expenditure on purchasing vegetables were reduced.

           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:

T1T1:-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-