Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Munger
Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur

Achievements on technologies assessed and refined

 

OFT   (2014-15)

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of different  pre emergence weedicides  for        

       Controlling weeds in onion crop.

2.

Problem diagnose

Generally hand weedings is in Practice. It is drudgery, costly & time consuming. By the use of weedicides in onion farmers can uplift their income.

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

F.P.- Hand weeding

Tech.Option.1- Pendimethalin (3 lit/ha)(Pre emerging chemical) weedicide

Tech.Option.2- Oxyflorfen (800ml/ha)(Pre emerging chemical) weedicide

4.

Source of Technology

National weed control Research centre Jabalpur.

5.

Production system and thematic area

Irrigated & weed management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

The performance of the technology option II performed best with Performance indicator

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Use ofPendimethalin (3 lit/ha) can be recommended for the control of pre emergence weeds in onion crop

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Farmer always hesitate for the use of chemical weedicides in controlling weeds in their crop

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

The farmer are motivated to use chemical for controlling weed in onion crop by Training & visit of fields

Thematic area:  Weed management

Technology assessed: Assessment of different  pre emergence weedicides  for controlling weeds in onion crop.

Table:

 

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Av. Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net reurn

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

 Av. wt. of bulb/ plant(gm)

Av.plant height (cm)

 

F.P.

10

30

30

 

200

65000

200000

135000

3.07

Technology option I

10

33

35

 

220

55000

220000

165000

4.0

Technology option II

10

31.50

32

 

210

55000

210000

155000

3.81

 

Results: The highest yield was recorded in Technology option II- i.e. 220 q/ha, BC ratio 4.0 followed by Technology option II & FP.

 

OFT-1(2015-16)

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of Borax (Boron) application against fruit cracking in tomato.

2.

Problem diagnose

Fruit cracking hampers the price of tomato.

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

F.P.- Chemical fertilizers

Tech.Option 1- 0.4 % spray of Borax on seedlings & plants

(Foliar spray of Borax)

Tech.Option.2 - 20 kg Borax per ha soil application at field preparation

4.

Source of Technology

University of horticulture and forestry Nanni,Solan (H.P.)

5.

Production system and thematic area

Irrigated & vegetable cultivation

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Better performance of the Technology with performance indicators

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

It is advisable to the farmers that 0.4 % spray of borax both on seedlings & plant reduces fruit cracking in tomato.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Micro nutrients containing fertilizer has not been applied by farmers.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Training, field visit and regular mobile interaction motivated the farmers for participation. Now Farmers have faith and they are happy.

 

Thematic area: Nutrient Management

Problem definition: Fruit cracking in tomato hampers its marketing value

Technology assessed: 0.4 % foliar application in seedling and standing crop of tomato

Table: Effect of 0.4% of Boron  foliar application on yield of tomato & analysis of cost economics.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Av. Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

Av.Plant height (cm)

Av.No. of plants/ ha

Av. No. of cracked fruits / plant

Av.No. of fresh fruits / plant

F.P.

10

59

37037

5.2

7

196.5

33000

157200

124200

3.76

Technology option I-   

10

63

37037

3.2

14

251.5

35000

201200

166200

4.74

Technology option II-   

10

60

37037

4.0

13

244

34500

195200

160700

4.65

 

Results:  Max. yield 251.5 qt/ha, & BC ratio 4.74 were found in treatment T1( Spray of 0.4 % Borax in nursery and plant ) followed by T2& FP consecutively.

 

OFT-2 (2015-16)

 

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of different  pre emergence weedicides  for Controlling weeds in onion crop.

2.

Problem diagnose

Generally, hand weeding is in Practice. It is drudgery, costly & time consuming. By the use of weedicides in onion, farmers can uplift their income.

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

F.P.- Hand weeding

Tech.Option.1- Pendimethalin (3 lit/ha)(Pre emerging chemical) weedicide

Tech.Option.2- Oxyflorfen (800ml/ha)(Pre emerging chemical) weedicide

4.

Source of Technology

National weed control Research centre Jabalpur.

5.

Production system and thematic area

Irrigated & weed management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

 

Result awaited

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

 

OFT-3 (2015-16)

 

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of weedicides for weed control in pigeon pea.

2.

Problem diagnose

Low yield due to weed infestation in Pigeon pea crop

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement 

(F.P.): One hand weeding or No weeding at 25 days after sowing.Tech Option – 1 : Pendimethaline (Stomp) 1000 g a.i./ha at 2-3 days after sowing

Tech Option – 2 : Imezathepyr (Pursuit) 40 g a.i./ha at 20-25 days after sowing.

4.

Source of Technology

BAU, Sabour

5.

Production system and thematic area

Cropping system in medium land rainfed fallow land & thematic area integrated weed management .

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Maximum yield and yield attributing characters were obtained with application of Imezathapyr (Pursuit) 40 g a.i./ha at 20-25 days after sowing of arhar . This technological option was found less number of weed density in compared to other options

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Application of Imezethapyr (Pursuit) 40 g a.i./ha at 20-25 days after sowing of arhar was  recorded less number of weeds in arhar crop & higher grain yield

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Sorghum helepense,digitaria, patharchatta, lahsua, doob, savan, mandua, gokharu, hulhul & banmirchi are dominant weed and labour scarcity for untimely weeding and did not apply correct dose of herbicide to properly control these weeds.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers are participated actively by training personal  interaction . They are excited to control these weeds by application of weedicides

 

Thematic area: Integrated weed management in pigeon pea

Problem definition: Low yield due to weed infestation in Pigeon pea field.

Technology assessed:

F.P.: One hand weeding at 25 days after sowing.         

Tech Option – 1: Pendimethaline (Stomp) 1000 g a.i./ha at 2-3 days after sowing.

Tech Option – 2 : Imezethapyr (Pursuit) 40 g a.i./ha at 20-25 days after sowing.

Table: Effect of weedicides & cost economics 

Technology option

No. of trials

Weed population (per m2 )

Yield component

Disease/ insect pest incidence (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

Av.No. of branches/ plant

Av.No. of pods per plant

Av.Test wt. (1000 grain wt.)

F.P.

10

72

5

89

85.6

10-12

8.7

20960

54800

33840

1.61

Tech Option – 1

10

31

7

121

87.1

5-6

10.5

17540

66700

49160

2.80

Tech Option – 2

10

8

9

145

88.1

3-5

13.6

18100

86600

68500

3.78

 

Results: F.P. hand weeding at 25 days after sowing in pigeon pea has achieved maximum number of weed (72) in comparison to technical option -1(31) and technical option -2 (8). The technical option -2 has recorded highest  number  of branches(9), number of pods(145), test wt. (88.1g), grain yield(13.6 q/ha), net return (Rs. 68500/ha) and B:C ratio (3.78) followed by technical option -1 and F.P. consecutively .

 

OFT-4(2015-16)

 

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of integrated nutrient management strategies in rabi maize in diara land of Munger

2.

Problem diagnose

Low yield of maize due to imbalance fertilizer application

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

 F.P.- ( 80:40:20 NPK kg/ha)

Tech Option –1 100% recommended NPK ( 120:75:50 NPK kg/ha)

 Tech Option – 2 75 % recommended NPK + 2.5 kg/ ha vermi compost

Tech Option – 3  75 % recommended NPK + 2.5 ton/ ha azotobacter + 2.5 kg/ ha PSB

4.

Source of Technology

Diara land maize follow mono-cropping system

5.

Production system and thematic area

Irrigated & Cropping system

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Maximum yield and yield attributing character were obtained with application of 75  % recommended NPK(90kg N, 67 kg P2S, 37.5kg K2O per hectare + 2.5 ton/ ha vermi compost in rabi maize over other technical option.

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Application of 75  % recommended NPK(90kg N, 67 kg P2S, 37.5kg K2O per hectare + 2.5 ton/ ha vermi compost was recommended for farmers.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

High infestation of weeds due to compost application 

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers are motivated to participate in OFT by personal interaction during field visit, training and Kisan gosthi. They are happy to control weeds by application oaf accurate amount of chemical weedicides.

 

Thematic area:  Integrated nutrient management

Problem definition: integrated nutrient management in rabi maize in diara land of Munger was found in initial stage

Technology assessed:

F.P. -( 80:40:20 NPK kg/ha)

Tech Option – 1 100% recommended NPK ( 120:75:50 NPK kg/ha)

Tech Option – 2 75 % recommended NPK + 2.5 ton/ ha vermin compost

Tech Option – 3 75 % recommended NPK + 2.5 kg/ ha azotobacter + 2.5 kg/ ha PSB

 Table – Effect of different weedicides on yield of maize & cost economics

 

Technology option

No. of trials

Av.Grain yield                    ( t/ha)

Av.Stover yield (t/ha)

Av.Cob length (cm)

Av.Grains

row/cob

Grains/ row

Av. grainweight (g) of 1000

Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net Return (Rs/ha)

B:C ratio

F.P.

 

06

4.71

9.62

14.5

12.6

26.3

218

27650

66140

38490

1.39

Tech Option – 1

6.53

11.25

16.9

15.5

34.6

249

34520

80610

55090

1.60

Tech Option – 2

7.26

13.14

17.8

16.9

37.4

262

31610

100260

68650

2.17

Tech Option – 3

6.40

10.80

16.4

15.2

33.7

240

29940

87600

57660

1.93

 

Results 2014-15: The technical option -3 has recorded highest av.cob length (17.8 cm), av.grains row/cob (16.9), av.grain per row (37.4), 1000 grain weight (262 gm) , av. grain yield (7.26 ton / ha), stover yield (ton/ ha), net return (Rs. 68650 /ha)  and BC ratio( 2.17) followed by technical option-3,  technical option-1,      and F.P. consecutively.      

 

Results 2015-16: awaited

OFT-5(2015-16)

 

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of the effect of different drainage  periods on grain yield of rice & irrigation water applied

2.

Problem diagnose

Low yield due to improper water management

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

F.P.     : Continuous Sub mergence of water in whole crop span of  paddy  crop

Technical option1      : One day drainage period after tillering stage in paddy.

 

Technical option2      : Two day drainage period after tillering stage in paddy..

 

Technical option3: Three day drainage period after tillering stage in paddy..

 

Technical option4      : Five day drainage period after tillering stage in paddy..

4.

Source of Technology

Sandhu et al 1980

5.

Production system and thematic area

Irrigated & water management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Very good yield total water applied, water use efficiency & B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

5 days Drainage period should done after tillering stage to achieve maximum yield with best quality.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Drainage is a problem during heavy rainfall due to lack of separate drainage channel. Farmers drain excess water from their field to another farmer’s field not in a separate drainage channel.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Face to face interaction and they  have responsed positively about this technique.

 

Thematic area: Water management

Problem definition: Low yield of paddy with deteriorated quality.

Technology assessed: Drainage five days period after tillering stage should be maintained to achieve max. yield with best quality.

Table: Assessment of effect of different drainage  periods in yield of paddy and water economics

 

Technology option

No. of trials

Total water applied (cm)

Saving of water in comparison to F.P. (%)

Average yield (q/ha)

Water use efficiency (q/ha-cm)

 
 

F.P.

 

05

180

-

46

0.26

 

Technology option –I

134

46.0

47

0.35

 

Technology option –II

115

65.0

48.5

0.42

 

Technology option –III

102

78

51

0.50

 

Technology option –IV

84

96

49

0.58*

 

 

Table: Technological option wise cost economical analysis

 

Technology option

Cost of cultivation Rs/ha

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

 
 

F.P.

26200

48300

22100

1.84

 

Technology option –I

21900

51300

29400

2.34

 

Technology option –II

22200

52400

30200

2.36

 

Technology option –III

23500

56500

33000

2.40

 

Technology option –IV

21300

53300

32000

2.5

 

 

Result: An OFT has been conducted to observe the impact of different drainage periods after tillering stage in paddy. Total irrigation water applied by farmer was 180cm but 84 cm water applied for 5 days drainage after tillering was found the best treatment in terms of saving of water(96%), water use efficiency(0.58 q/ha-cm), yield (49 q/ha) & B:C ratio (2.5) followed by TO-III,II , I & F.P. respectively

 

OFT-6 (2015-16)

 

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of the effect of various irrigation regimes on water use and tuber yield of potato

2.

Problem diagnose

lowyield due to improper water management.

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

F.P.     : 1.40 CPE irrigation water applied.

 

Technical option1      : 1.20 CPE irrigation water applied.

Technical option2      : 1.00 CPE irrigation water applied.

Technical option3      : 0.90 CPE irrigation water applied.

4.

Source of Technology

AICRP on water management, CSSRI, Karnal

5.

Production system and thematic area

Irrigated & water management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Very good yield total water applied, water use efficiency & B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Precise & calculated water should apply in Potato cultivation. 0.90 CPE irrigation water application has recommended.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Precise measurement of CPE  & measurement of water are tedious work in farmer’s field . However evaporated water is roughly measured and irrigation water applied.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Face to face interaction with farmers in field visit & training.

 

Thematic area: Water Management

Technology assessed:-  0.9 CPE irrigation water ( total 23.14cm water) should be applied in potato crop.

Table: Assessment of the effect of various irrigation regimes on water use and tuber yield of potato

 

Technology option

No. of trials

Total water applied (cm)

Saving of water in comparison to F.P. (%)

Average yield (q/ha)

Water use efficiency (q/ha-cm)

 
 

F.P.

 

06

36.00

-

180

5.0

 

Technology option –I

30.86

14.28

190

6.16

 

Technology option –II

25.72

28.56

210

8.17

 

Technology option –III

23.14

35.72

215

9.29*

 

 

Table: Cost economics of different technical options:

 

Technology Option

Irrigation Cost (Rs/ha)

Saving of irrigation cost comparision to farmer’s practice (Rs/ha)

Cost of cultivation (Rs/ ha)

Gross Return                   ( Rs/ha)

Net Income

( Rs/ha)

BC ratio

F.P.

24000

-

58300

144000

85700

2.47

T.O.-1

20000

4000

53200

152000

98800

2.86

T.O.-2

17000

7000

48500

168000

119500

3.46

T.O.-3

15000

9000

44300

172000

127700

3.88*

 

Potato =Rs 800/ quintal

 

Results: An OFT has been conducted to observe the impact of different irrigation regimes on water use and tuber yield of potato. Total irrigation water applied by farmer was 36.00cm  but 23.14cm irrigation water applied  TO-3was found the best treatment technology in terms of saving of water(35.72%), water use efficiency(9.29q/ha-cm), yield( 215 q/ha)& B:C ratio (3.88). Followed by TO-2,TO-1& F.P. respectively.

 

OFT-7 (2015-16)

 

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of different method of guava jelly preparation on its quality & storability

2.

Problem diagnose

Marketing of ripe guava jelly in rural areas is a problem due to its low keeping quality & heavy fruiting in rainy season

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

Farm women’s practice - traditionally guava jelly preparation

­­Tech .option- T1:Guava jelly Preparation  ( Using Sugar, lemon juice)

Tech. option- T2: Guava jelly Preparation ( Using Sugar, citric acid)

4.

Source of Technology

BAU,Sabour

5.

Production system and thematic area

PHT losses &Value addition

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Guava jelly Preparation by using Sugar, lemon juice was the best with performance indicator

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Guava jelly Preparation by using Sugar, lemon juice is recommended

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Point test is difficult in guava jelly preparation

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Interaction with farm women in training & in survey of village

 

Thematic area: Value addition

Problem definition:  Marketing of ripe guava jelly in rural areas is a problem due on its low keeping quality. Value addition technique is needed to enhance storability.

 

Technology assessed: Assessment of different method of guava jelly preparation of its quality & storability

Table: effect of different methods of preparation of Guava jelly on its quality & cost economics

.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Disease/ insect pest incidence (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./Kg)

Gross return (Rs./Kg)

Net return

(Rs./Kg)

BC ratio

Colour

Test

Storability (days)

Farm Women Practice

15

Deep Red

Not good

90

-

-

100

120

20

0.2

Technology option –I

15

Light Red

Very good

210

-

-

120

200

80

0.8

Technology option –II

15

Red

Good

180

-

-

110

70

60

0.6

 

Results:  Technology option I recorded highest BC ratio (0.8 ) & storability (210) followed by TO2 & Farm Women Practice respectively.

OFT-8

 

1.

Title of On farm Trial

 

Assessment of green Azolla feeding on production performance of diary animals of Munger District

2.

Problem diagnose

Poor production performance of dairy cattle due to non availability of protein rich feed throughout year.

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

Farmers Practice –  Garaging + Straw feeding.

Tech Option –  1        :           Farmers practice + 1.5 kg green azolla/day

Tech Option – 2         :           Farmers practice + 2.0 kg green azolla / day

4.

Source of Technology

Pillai, K.P etal (2005): Azolla : a sustainable feed for livestock ; LEISA Magazine, Sept. 2005

5.

Production system and thematic area

Milk production and feed management.

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Milk production, fat content and SNF.

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Result awaited

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

 

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

 

 

Thematic area:

Problem definition:

Technology assessed:

Table:

 

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Disease/ insect pest incidence (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

No. of effective tillers/hill

No. of spikelet per panicle

Test wt. (100 grain wt.)

Farmers Practice : Garaging + Straw feeding.

 

 

 

 

 10

 

 

To be continued in next year

 

 

 

Tech Option   1:Farmers practice + 1.5 kg green azolla/day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tech Option 2:Farmers practice + 2.0 kg green azolla / day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONFARM TRIAL FOR 2016-17

Sl. No.

Title of OFT

Scientist Name

1.

Assessment of fertilizer dose in rice based cropping system

 

Dr. Vinod Kumar

2.

Assessment of productivity of of rabi maize in different row spacing under  diara area

 

Dr. Vinod Kumar

3.

Assessment of different pre emergence weedicides for controlling weeds in coriander crop.

 

Sri. Mukesh Kumar

4.

Assessment of gum secretion in mango & its management

 

Sri. Mukesh Kumar

5.

Assessment of the effect of different drainage  periods on grain yiel of rice & irrigation water applied

Er. Ashok Kumar

6.

Assessment of the effect various irrigation regimes on water use and tuber yield of potato

 

Er. Ashok Kumar

7.

Assessment of different types of feed combination on goat rearing

 

Dr. G.R.Sharma

8.

Assessment of different mix fruit jam preparation

 

Smt. Rita lal

9.

Assessment of different method of green mango squash preparation and its quality & storability

 

Smt. Rita lal