Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

75% STBF + lime 0.2 LR  +  Biofertilisers (Rhizobium @ 20g/kg of seed + PSB @20g/kg of seed)

(Assessed)

SAU (AINP on soil on Biodiversity and Biofertiliser, OUAT, 2014)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

Post-emergence application of tembotrion 34.4% SC @100g/ha at 20 DAS

(Assessed)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Title of On farm Trial

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO_{1-Seed treatment with thiophanate methyl @ 1.5gm/Kg of seeds. Alternate Spraying of the combination fungicide Azoxystrobin+ difenoconazole (Godiwa super) and thifluzamide @ 1ml/lit at 15 days interval starting from initiation of the infection}

TO_{2- Alternate spraying of Trifloxystrobin 25%+Tebuconazole 50% 75 WG (Nativo) @ 0.5gm/liter and Propiconazole 13.9% +Difenoconazole 13.9% EC (Taspa) @ 1ml/lit   after 30 & 60 DAT  (Refined)}

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁– Hand picking and destruction of egg masses and neonate larvae and alternate spraying of 1500 ppm Azatirachtin at the initiation of damage and Beauveria bassiana @ 2ml/lit at 10 days interval

TO₂– Spraying of Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 % SC @ 0.4 ml /lit at the initiation of the infestation followed by a spraying of Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.5 gm/lit after 15 days  (Assessed)

NCIPM, Annual Report-2020

ICAR-RC for NEHR, Meghalaya, 2019

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁–Seed treatment with Carboxin 37.5% + Thiram 37.5 % (Vitavax power) @ 2.5 gm/kg seeds during sowing and  need-based  spraying of Chlorothalonil 75% WP @ 1.5 gm/lt. and Carbendazim @ 2 gm/lt alternatively at 15 days interval

TO₂–Seed treatment with Tebuconazole  @ 1.5 g/kg followed by furrow application of T. viride @ 4kg incubated in 50 kg FYM/ha at sowing, broadcasting of T. viride @ 4kg incubated in 250kg FYM/ha at 40 DAS & 2 sprays of Tebuconazole @ 1ml/lit. starting from initiation of the diseases and after 15 days

Ann. Report, OUAT-2016

Ann. Report, TNAU-2015

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Title of On farm Trial

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

Maize hybrids Viz., VNR 4226 and Kalinga Raj are sown at a spacing of 60×30 cm with proper seed treatment and land preparation. These seeds are sown in teak plantation leaving 1ft. from tree base.

Yield

(t/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Title of on farm Trial

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Title of On farm Trial

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

Assessment

Technology option-I (TO₁): Feeding of commercial broiler feed (added with probiotics mixture @ 0.05%) @50% of daily requirement and free range feeding for improved gut health and nutrient utilization

Technology option-II (TO₂): Feeding of commercial broiler feed (added with multi-enzyme mixture @ 0.05%) @50% of daily requirement and free range feeding and free range feeding improved nutrient utilization

PDP, 2017-18

CARI 2017-18

FP: Average Body weight at 12 weeks: 1.43 kg

TO1: Average Body weight at 12 weeks: 2.13 kg

TO1:Average Body weight at 12 weeks: 1.75 kg

B:C ratio

FP: 2.52

T.O₁: 3.64

T.O₂: 3.0

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./unit)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

FP: Feeding of straw and wheat bran

T.O₁: Straw + Concentrate mixture 1 (Maize-50%, Wheat bran -13%, mustard oil cake- 35%, mineral mix -1%, salt -1%)

T.O₂: Straw + Concentrate mixture 2 (Maize- 0, Wheat bran – 80%, mustard oil cake- 18%, mineral mix -1%, salt -1%)

FP: Body weight at puberty-244.17 kg;, age at first heat- 29 months, conception rate-33.3%

TO₁: Body weight at puberty-256.8 kg, age at first heat-26.17 months, conception rate-83.33%

TO₂: Body weight at puberty-267.17 kg ,  age at first heat-22 months, conception rate-83.33%

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

244.17 kg;

256.8 kg;

267.17 kg

·         Lower yield and income due to poor growth & survivability status of fish seed

·         Unscientific Feed Management

Use of  Soil probiotic  @ 1 kg/ac-m water area

Use of  water probiotic @ 5 Litre/ac-m water area

ICAR,CIFA,2004

Use of  water probiotic @ 5 Litre/ac-m water area twice daily at the time of feed application for rearing of fingerlings enhanced survival rate of fingerlings by 123.80 %.

Yield

(no./ha) & survival percentage

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

1,70,000/2 crops/3 months

(102.38 %)

Serpentine white lines appear on leaves.

Drying and dropping of leaves

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁:Removal of  alternate host, growing of seedlings in protected condition, prunning of affected leaves from the beginning and alternate spraying of Abamectin @ 1.4ml/l &Cyramazine 75WP @ 2gm/l  at 10 days  interval

TO₂:Removal of  alternate host, growing of seedlings in protected cultivation, prunning of affected leaves from the beginning and alternate spraying of  Cartap hydrochloride 50 SP @ 2gm/ l of water &Spinosad 45 SC @ 1ml/ 3 l of water at 10 days interval

% Disease incidence-14.56 (FP)

% Disease incidence-11.72 (TO₁)

% Disease incidence – 7.52 (TO₂)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO1:Spraying of the combination fungicide Azoxystrobin+ difenoconazole @ 1ml/l twice at 15 days interval starting from initiation of the infection

TO 2:Spraying of Trifloxystrobin 25%+Tebuconazole 50% 75 WG twice after 30 & 60 DAT

OUAT,AICRP RICE ,CHIPLIMA-2018

NRRI,ANNUAL REPORT-2014

% Disease incidence-11.72 (TO 1)

% Disease incidence-7.52 (TO 2)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

FP : Cultivation of P.florida by using  paddy straw as substrate

TO1: Cultivation of P.florida by using   paddy straw as substrate  + pasteurized sesame stalk in (50:50 basis)

TO2 : Cultivation of  P.florida by using  paddy straw  as substrate + pasturised banana stem and leaves in (50:50 basis)

Biological efficiency

Yield

(Kg/bed)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./unit)

Net return

(Rs./15bed/Unit)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

FP :   Value addition  of Finger millet by preparing only powder

TO1:Value addition  of Finger millet by preparing  Sev

Flour of finger millets,gram-flour,(2:1 ratio) ,chilli powder, salt, sesame mix and prepare dough  and  deep fry.

TO2 : Value addition  of Finger millet by preparing Muruku

Flour of finger millets,gram-flour,& rice-flour( 1:1:1 ratio),chilli powder, salt, sesame mix and prepare dough  and  deep fry

Sensory evaluation

( Nine point hedonic scale)

Net return

(Rs./5kg/ Unit)

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

FP: No supplement feeding

TO₁: Feeding of commercial broiler feed (added with probiotics mixture @ 0.05%) @50% of daily requirement and free range feeding for improved gut health and nutrient utilization

TO₂:Feeding of commercial broiler feed (added with multi-enzyme mixture @ 0.05%) @50% of daily requirement and free range feeding and free range feeding improved nutrient utillization

TO₁: PDP, 2017-18

TO₂: CARI 2017-18

FP: Average Body weight at 12 weeks: 1.57 kg

TO₁: Average Body weight at 12 weeks: 2.23 kg

TO₂: Average Body weight at 12 weeks: 1.80 kg

B:C ratio

FP: 3.05

T.O₁: 4.18

T.O₂: 3.39

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

42.03

14.64

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

FP: Feeding of straw and wheat bran

TO₁: Straw + Concentrate mixture 1 (Maize-50%, Wheat bran -13%, mustard oil cake- 35%, mineral mix -1%, salt -1%)

TO₂:Straw + Concentrate mixture 2 (Maize- 0, Wheat bran – 80%, mustard oil cake- 18%, mineral mix -1%, salt -1%)

FP: Body weight at puberty-, age at first heat-, conception rate-

TO₁: Body weight at puberty-, age at first heat-, conception rate-

TO₂: Body weight at puberty-, age at first heat-, conception rate-

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of Azoxystrobin 23%SC for management of root rot in greengram during Rabi season

2.

Problem diagnosed

Root rot in greengram causing yield loss

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

FP- Repeated spraying of mancozeb @ 2gm/lit of water during vegetative stage

TO₁– Spraying of cyamoxil 8% + mancozeb 64% @ 2gm / lit of water

TO₂– Spraying of Azoxystrobin @1ml/lit. of water during seedling stage

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

IIPR, 2010

5.

Production system and thematic area

Rice-vegetable-pulse system , Integrated disease Management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

% Infestation- 5.56 ,Yield-  7.6 ,B.C ratio-1.88

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Seed treatment should be done by farmers. Need base and alternate use of pesticides should be followed by the farmers for better result.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Indiscriminate use of a single pesticide i.eMancozebover a long period of time

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers accepted the technology demonstrated and promised for need base use of pesticides in time.

Technology option

No. of trials

Disease/ insect pest incidence (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

FP

10

23.51

4.51

18850

24805

5955

1.31

TO₁

10

10.56

5.98

19580

32890

13310

1.67

TO₂

10

5.56

7.6

22230

41800

19570

1.88

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of IDM practice for management of root rot in greengram during Kharif season

2.

Problem diagnosed

Root rot in greengram causing yield loss

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

FP- Repeated spraying of mancozeb @ 2gm/lit of water during vegetative stage

TO₁– Spraying of cyamoxil 8% + mancozeb 64% @ 2gm / lit of water

TO₂– Spraying of Azoxystrobin @1ml/lit. of water during seedling stage

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

IIPR, 2010

5.

Production system and thematic area

Rice-vegetable-pulse system , Integrated disease Management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

% Infestation- 5.34 ,Yield-  7.38 ,B.C ratio-1.82

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Seed treatment should be done by farmers. Need base and alternate use of pesticides should be followed by the farmers for better result.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Indiscriminate use of a single pesticide i.eMancozebover a long period of time

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers accepted the technology demonstrated and promised for need base use of pesticides in time.

Technology option

No. of trials

Disease/ insect pest incidence (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

FP

10

22.57

4.24

18835

23320

4485

1.23

TO1

10

10.19

5.64

19570

31020

11450

1.58

TO2

10

5.34

7.38

22232

40590

18358

1.82

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment on preparation of value added products from raw mango for income generation

2.

Problem diagnosed

Immature fruit drop due to heavy wind and storm

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

FP: No value addition only table purpose

TO₁: Preparation of green mango RTS with sugar, citric acid  and pasteurisation

TO₂: Preparation of amchur powder cutting into slices, dipping in 2% salt solution for an hour and dipping in 2000 ppm SO₂ solution for 2 hour and sun drying

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

TNAU, 2012

5.

Production system and thematic area

Homestead, value addition

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Sensory evaluation (colour, texture, flavour), overall acceptability, shelf life (days), TSS (Brix)

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Raw mango RTS with 20 percent pulp and 13 percent TSS and 0.24 percent acidity was found most acceptable and tray drying amchur powder was found most acceptable.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Tray drying method of preparation of amchur powder increases shelf life and storage period in comparison to sun drying method

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Method demonstration and farmers appreciated the technology due to  high return and good keeping of value added products

Technology option

No. of trials

Observation parameter

Gross return

(Rs/10kg)

Net return

(Rs./10kg)

BC ratio

Sensory evaluation (hedonic scale)

TSS (0brix)

Shelf life

Conversion ratio (10 kg mango)

FP

10

–

–

20 days

–

200

200

1

TO-1

10

8.4

20

3months

10:6

700

500

3.5

TO-2

10

8.2

68

4 months

10:1

1000

700

5

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment on Rice Transplanters for drudgery reduction of farm women

2.

Problem diagnosed

Decreased work efficiency and more drudgery during manual transplanting,

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

FP  : Manual transplanting

TO₁:Transplanting of rice seedling by three row rice transplante

TO₂:Transplanting of rice by Root wash type two row Rice transplanter

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

1-OUAT,2012

2- ESA, BSKKV, Maharastra, 2018-19

5.

Production system and thematic area

Rice-vegetable-pulse

Drudgery reduction

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Output (m^2/ hr)

Missing hill %

Cardiac cost(beat/ m²),

Saving in cardiac cost %, Net return, B:C Ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Three row manual rice transplanter is more suitable in comparision to two row root wash transplanter with less missing hill %

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Dropping of more nos of seedlings during the use of two row root wash transplanter

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Method demonstration , Farmers appreciated the technology

Technology option

No. of trials

Observation parameter

Saving in Cardiac cost(%)

Saving in labourMandays/ha(Rs)

BC ratio

Output (m^2/ hr)

Missing hill %

Heart rate beats/min

Cardiac cost(beat/ m²)

FP

10

40

–

115

45

–

1.28

TO-1

10

155

3

129

17.03

62

2100

1.57

TO-2

10

127

5

131

21.73

53

1800

1.47

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of two different herbal formulations on amelioration of infertility conditions in dairy cows

2.

Problem diagnosed

Infertility in cows post-partum period

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

FP  : No herbal treatment. Only AI twice at observed estrus

TO₁: Feeding of herbal formulation of dried Bel and curry leaves

TO₂: Feeding of herbal formulation with aloe vera, moringa and others

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

AICRP on NPIERPA at TANUVAS, 2017-18

5.

Production system and thematic area

Livestock based, LPM

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Cost of intervention, additional income over additional investment, B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

The herbal formulation works better comparison to treatment with supplementation of vitamin and mineral to overcome of infertility conditions as well as costs less compared to commercial allopathic medications

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Farmers were not aware about the herbal remedied for infertility treatment. They are completely dependent upon commercial allopathic medications.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Instead of treatment with allopathic medications the conception rate is very low, hence farmers showed interest for herbal medication.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Conception Rate (%)

Yield

(lts/unit)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./unit)

Gross return (Rs/unit)

Net return

(Rs./unit)

BC ratio

Heat detected (No. of cows)

Average body weight

Average age (Years)

FP

7

2

334.14

5.58

28.57

4350 lt/2 cows

99365

1,74,000

74635

1.75

TO₁

7

5

354.42

5.42

71.4

11,020 lt/ 5 cows

2,24,800

4,44,800

220000

1.97

TO₂

7

4

338.57

5.71

57.14

9048 lt/ 4 cows

1,80,880

3,61,920

181040

2.0

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of two different teat dip formulations for prevention and control of mastitis  in dairy cattle

2.

Problem diagnosed

Occurrences of mastitis leading to yield loss in cows during post partum period

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

FP  : Only washing udder with warm water

TO₁: Cleaning of udder with povidone iodine solution (0.5%), wiping the udder with clean cloth. Dipping the teats in povidone iodine solution after milking

TO₂: Cleaning of udder with KMnO₄ solution (3%), wiping the udder with clean cloth, Dipping the teats in KMnO₄solution after milking

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

Annual report NDRI, 2015

Annual report TANUVAS, 2016

5.

Production system and thematic area

Livestock based and Disease management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Cost of intervention, additional income over additional investment, B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

3% solution of KMnO₄ can be used as teat dip for effective control of mastitis in cows

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Initially farmers showed reluctance in order to accept the technology as they used to practice calf feeding just after milking, which controls the occurrences of mastitis in cows.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

By using this teat dip liquid farmers were able to decrease the incidence of occurrence of mastitis in cows and they were very much convinced with this technology.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

% increase over FP

Yield

(lts/ cow/ pm)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs/cow/pm)

Gross return (Rs/cow/pm)

Net return

(Rs/cow/pm)

BC ratio

% of Occurrence of Sub-Clinical Mastitis

Keeping quality of milk (MBRT) in Minute

FP

15

26.66% (4/15)

30.13±2.08^a  minutes

–

179.8±12.37^a

4580

7194.8

2614.80

1.57

TO₁

6.66% (1/15)

80.33±4.89^b  minutes

9.85

197.60±5.53^ab

4586.9

7904

3317.10

1.72

TO₂

Nil (0/15)

90.33±4.26 ^b minutes

14.3

205.60±3.13^b

4587.2

8224

3636.80

1.79

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of different Probiotics on the growth performance of IMC fingerlings

2.

Problem diagnosed

·         Lower yield and income due to poor growth & survivability status of fish seed

·         Unscientific Feed Management

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

Use of  feed probiotics as additive @ 5 gm/kg feed twice daily at the time of feed application for rearing of fingerlings

Use of water probiotics as additive @ 15 gm/kg feed twice daily at the time of feed application for rearing of fingerlings

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

ICAR,CIFA,2004

5.

Production system and thematic area

Intensive culture method and  feed management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Fish Yield in (no./ha.), % change in yield and B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Use of water probiotics as additive @ 15 gm/kg feed twice daily at the time of feed application for rearing of fingerlings enhanced survival rate of fingerlings by 89.47 %.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Non availability of quality seed in proper time, Non adoption of scientific techniques by farmers.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

About 80 Farmers are interested in practising this type of feeding management practice for enhancing the seed survival rate.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Change in parameter (%)

Yield

(no./ha) & survival percentage

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

Avg. fish growth after 3 months of observation (Fish wt. in gm)

FP

3

8

–

38000/2 crops/3 month

65000

114000

49000

1.75

TO₁

3

11

37.5

69000/2 crops/3 months

80000

207000

127000

2.58

TO₂

3

13

62.5

72000/2 crops/3 months (89.47%)

82000

216000

134000

2.63

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of stocking density of Labeobata in composite fish culture system

2.

Problem diagnosed

·         Lack of knowledge on proper stocking density resulting disease susceptibility

·         Improper utilization of pond biotic potential.

·         Extensive method of culture practice resulting low yield

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

TO1: Incorporation of Labeobata@ 15 % or 1500 no./ha in the Major Carp system i.e.  (Catla:Rohu :Mrigal) @ 10000 no. /ha  and   culture for  6 months

TO2:Incorporation of Labeobata@ 30 % or 3000 no./ha in the Major Carp system i.e.  (Catla:Rohu :Mrigal) @ 10000 no. /ha  and   culture for  6 months

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

Source & Year: CIFA, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar, 2004 www.cifa.nic.in/products

5.

Production system and thematic area

 Production Management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Fish Yield in (no./ha.), % change in yield and  B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Incorporation of Labeobata@ 30 % or 3000 no./ha in the Major Carp system i.e.  (C:R:M) @ 10000 no. /ha  and culture for 6 months increases yield 66.59 % over farmers practice leading to maximization of profit.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Non availability of quality seed in proper time, Non adoption of scientific techniques by farmers. Though this species is compatible for culture with IMC with short duration culture period and can be reached to marketable size within 5-6 months. So it should be included with major carps for increasing income.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Many Farmers are awared& interested in practising this type of mixed carp culture system along with diversified fish species like minor carps in place of conventional single Carp culture method through participation in Training & Demonstration programmes conducted by KVK.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Change in parameter (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

Avg. fish growth after 6 months of observation (Fish wt. in gm)

FP

3

482 gm (IMC)

–

19.2

81,000

2,68,800

1,87,800

3.31

TO₁

3

443 gm (IMC) + 310 gm (Labeobata)

56.22

31.4

90,000

4,39,600

3,49,600

4.88

TO₂

3

458 gm (IMC) + 345 gm (Labeobata)

66.59

32.9

92,500

4,60,600

3,68,100

4.97

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of BPH tolerant rice varieties

2.

Problem diagnosed

Low yield in rainfed /irrigated medium land transplanted rice due to use of old variety susceptible to BPH

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Pratikshya (142 days duration; Average yield: 50 q/ha; resistant to BPH)

TO₂: Hasanta (146 days duration, Average yield: 55 q/ha; resistant to BPH, WBPH, leaf blast, sheath rot)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

OUAT, 2005; OUAT, 2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

Rainfed medium land

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Grain yield, Net return & B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

By using var. Hasant, no BPH attack was seen with 46.8 q/ha production

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Availability of seeds in time

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Participatory

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 hoppers/ tiller

FP

10

14

5.08

12.79

42

28725

48800

20075

1.41

TO₁

10

14.2

4.8

6.42

42.3

29813

52630

22817

1.43

TO₂

10

14.8

0

Nil

46.8

26645

59870

36225

1.60

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of newly released tomato hybrids

2.

Problem diagnosed

High cost of tomato during summer and low yield from the prevailing variety

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Arka Samrat: It is a high yielding Fı hybrid with combined resistance to ToLCV & BW and tolerant to early blight. Plants semi-determinate with good foliar cover. Foliage dark green. Fruits oblate-high round, firm (8.0 kg/cm²), medium large (90-100g) with the light green shoulder. First fruit maturity 55-60 days and Develops deep red color on ripening. Yields 80 tons/ha. in 140 days. Suitable for summer, Rabi and Kharif seasons.

TO₂: Arka Rakhyak: It is a high yielding F1 hybrid developed by crossing IIHR-2834 X IIHR-2833. First F1 hybrid with triple disease resistance to ToLCV, BW and early blight. Fruits square round, large (90-100g), deep red colored and firm. Suitable for fresh market and processing. Yield: 75-80 t/ha in 140 days.

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

IIHR, Banglore

5.

Production system and thematic area

Medium land Irrigated, Paddy-Vegetable cropping system; Thematic area: Yield increment

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Arka Samrat: Fruit weight- 85-90 g, Yield on first harvest- 800 g per plant, Yield- 45 T/ha

Arka Rakhyak: Fruit weight- 90-95 g, Yield on first harvest- 1kg per plant, Yield- 46 T/ha

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Arka Rakhyak should be cultivated as a tomato hybrid for yield enhancement as its giving higher yield advantage of over 77% over some of the locally available private hybrids.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Some plants were affected with blight like symptoms which farmers were telling that they were wilting in their local language. The shelf lives of the products were very good ranging from 30 to 40 days even under normal room temperature.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

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

Fruit weight

Fruit weight per plant

 No of fruits per plant

FP

10

70-80 g

3.25 kg

43

Wilt incidence 30-40 %, Leaf curl virus 20 %

259

86,200

1,55,400

69,200

1.80

TO₁

10

85-90g

5.6 kg

64

Wilt incidence 4-5 %, Leaf curl virus 2-3 %

450

1,31,200

2,70,000

1,38,800

2.05

TO₂

10

90-95g

5.75 kg

63

Wilt incidence 5 %, Leaf curl virus 3-4 %

460

1,31,200

2,76,000

1,44,800

2.10

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of Integrated pest management of WBPH and BPH in rice

2.

Problem diagnosed

Low yield and heavy damage of the crop

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Making alleys at a distance of 2 m in paddy field. use of spider trap @ 25/ha, need based Alternate Spraying of flonicamid 50 WG @ 60 gm /acre and neem based pesticide 3000 ppm @ 600 ml/acre @ 10 days interval.

TO₂: Repeated with Spraying of pymetrozene 50 WG @ 120 gm/acre

(Assessed)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

 NRRI  2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

IPM

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

No. of hoppers/ tiller- 5.08, % Damage-7.45, Yield-40.06, B.C ratio-1.56

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Line sowing should be done by farmers to avoid BPH/WBPH population. Some distance should be left after 2m in paddy field for easy intercultural operations and spraying of pesticides. Pesticides should be spray to the basal portion of the plant.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Farmers were spraying pesticides to the whole plant randomly, but it should be to the basal position as the pest congregate there.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers were interested to know the technology by which the pest can be controlled and they promised to continue the same in the next season.

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 hoppers/ tiller

FP

10

8.06

12.79

34.71

36500

52065

15565

1.42

TO₁

10

7.04

11.04

36.43

37200

54645

17445

1.46

TO₂

10

5.8

7.45

40.06

38500

60090

21590

1.56

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of IDM practice for management of sigatoka disease in banana

2.

Problem diagnosed

No sucker treatment; Spraying of Carbendazim, (Carbendazim + Mancozeb) @ 1 kg/ha at advanced stage of infection

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Alternate spraying of Bordeaux mixture   1 % and (Propiconazole 25 EC + Carbendazim 50 WP) @ 500 gm/ha at 15 days interval and additional dose of 25 % potash (100:100:375)

TO₂: Alternate spraying of Bordeaux mixture 1 % and (Tebuconazole 50 WG +   Trifloxystrobi 25 WG) @ 200 gm/ha at15 days interval and additional dose of 25 % potash

(Assessed)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify)

 ICAR-NRC for banana Trichy,2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

IDM

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

% infestation-14.17, Cont….

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Need base and alternate use of pesticides should be followed by the farmers for better result.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Indiscriminate use of a single pesticide i.e Blitox 50 over a long period of time

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers accepted the technology demonstrated and promised for need base use of pesticides in time.

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

FP

10

33.04

TO₁

10

24.28

TO₂

10

14.17

Cont…..

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of Paddy straw mushroom cultivation in compost method 

2.

Problem diagnosed

Unavailability of Paddy straw due to mechanization in harvesting

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Mushroom cultivation in paddy straw bundles in Bed method with 2% lime soaking threshed straw in bed followed by Spawning

TO₂: Soaking threshed straw in 2 % Ca Co3+ Composting with 1.5% Poultry manure & 5 % wheat bran heaped in open condition covered with polythene for composting for 15 days followed by Spawning

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

CTMRT, OUAT-2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

Homestead, Mushroom production

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

No of fruits/ Bed, Fruit Weight (g), Initiation of Pinhead (days), Bio-efficiency (%), B:C Ratio, Yield (Kg/Bed)

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Good yield with increased nos. of fruiting bodies and size

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Initial investment is high for growing room and growing room will be pucca house with insulation otherwise chances of contamination is more

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Method demonstration and farmers appreciated the technology due to good yield.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Disease/ insect pest incidence (%)

Yield

Kg/bed

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./unit)

Gross return (Rs/(10bed/unit)

Net return

(Rs/(10bed/unit)

BC ratio

No of fruits/Bed

Fruit Weight(g)

Bio-efficiency (%)

FP

10

48

21.12

11

1.1

500

1650

1150

3.3

TO₁

10

52

23.1

11.8

1.18

500

1770

1270

3.54

TO₂

10

55

24.21

16.2

1.62

508

2430

1922

4.78

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of improved backyard poultry breed

2.

Problem diagnosed

Poor weight gain in local breed, high mortality, less egg production

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁:  Aseel kala (Body weight 20 wk-1220 gm, Egg production-167/annum)

TO₂: Kadaknath (Body weight 20 wk-1170gm, Egg production-190 /annum)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

CPDO

5.

Production system and thematic area

Poultry production

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Body weight at 20 weeks, Egg production/ annum Mortality %, Age of first laying (weeks), Net income, B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Kadaknath chicken is providing low cholesterol, high protein meat along with special medicinal value in homeopathy and nervous disorder. The meat is also suitable for cardiac patients as it increases blood supply to heart. Also it is having effectiveness in treating women’s habitual abortion and sterility. The eggs can also be utilized to treat severe headaches, asthma and nephritis. Hence, this indigenous breed should be popularized and practiced in backyard rearing system.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

It was observed that the colour of the meat is the only constraint in acceptability by the consumer, otherwise meat tastes good.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

The farmers were aware about the medicinal benefits of the meat and egg. They wanted to initiate this kadaknath chicken in commercial mode.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

mortality (%)

Yield

(Avg. body wt/bird+ No. of Egg/ 6 month)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./unit of 20 birds)

Gross return (Rs/ unit of 20 birds)

Net return

(Rs./ unit of 20 birds)

BC ratio

Avg body wt/25 wks

Avg. egg production/ 6 months

Age of first laying (weeks)

FP

5

Cock:1.1kg, Hen: 0.9 kg

Avg:1 kg

25 eggs

26 weeks

20%

1 kg

2100

7960

5860

3.8

TO₁

5

Cock:2.3kg, Hen:1.5kg

Avg: 1.9kg

88 eggs

25 weeks

3%

1.9 kg

5720

22,720

17,000

3.9

TO₂

5

Cock:1.7kg, Hen:1.4 kg

Avg:1.5kg

110 eggs

25 weeks

3%

1.5 kg

5720

26,500

20,780

4.6

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment on hydroponic fodder for feeding management in dairy cattle.

2.

Problem diagnosed

High rate of concentrate, scarcity of grazing land and lack of fodder

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: 10 kg Hydroponic fodder (Wheat) replacing 1 kg concentrate

TO₂: 10 kg Hydroponic fodder (Maize) replacing 1 kg concentrate              

Green fodder yield-15-20 kg / 2 kg seeds, Harvest after 8-12 days, 10 kg fodder can replace 1 kg concentrate feed and increases milk yield upto 1kg, labour requirement: 2-3 hrs/day, water requirement to grow 1 kg fodder-2-3lts.

4.

Source of Technology

TNAU, 2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

Feed management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Green fodder yield/ unit cost, Labour requirement, Duration of harvesting, milk yield, SNF%, Fat%, Net Income, reduction in cost of feed, B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Low cost hydroponic fodder cultivation models should be popularized in cases of fodder scarcity.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Availability of good quality seed is the major constraint, which reduces the fodder production by reducing the seed germination %.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers acceptability was low.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Yield

(milk yield/cow/ months)

Cost of cultivation (Rs./cow)

Gross return (Rs/cow)

Net return

(Rs./cow)

BC ratio

Avg daily milk yield(ltr)

Green fodder yield (kg/ unit)

FP

3

7.20 lts

–

216 lts

4200

6480

2280

1.54

TO₁

3

7.78 lts

6.0 kg/kg of wheat seed

233.4 lts.

4050

7002

2952

1.72

TO₂

3

7.89 lts

7.5 kg/kg of maize seed

236.7 lts.

4030

7101

3071

1.76

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of   stocking density of Amur Carp in Composite fish culture system

2.

Problem diagnosed

Slow growth rate of mrigal affects the average yield from composite carp culture

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

Mrigal as bottom feeder along with Catla and rohu fish with stocking rate up to 30% or more

TO₁:Use of Amur Carp fingerlings @ 1000 no./ha with (Catla 30 :Rohu 40 : Mrigal 20: A.C 10 )  and   culture for 5-6 months at a stocking density of 10,000 nos/ha (TO1)

TO₂Use of Amur Carp fingerlings @ 1500 no./ha with (Catla 30:Rohu 40 : Mrigal 15: A.C 15) @ 10,000 no. /ha  and   culture for 5-6 months (TO2)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

CIFA, 2012 / OUAT

5.

Production system and thematic area

Production Management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Yield in (q/ha), % change in yield and B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Use of Amur Carp fingerlings @ 1500 no./ha with (Catla 30:Rohu 40 : Mrigal 15: A.C 15) @ 10,000 no. /ha  and   culture for 5-6 months increases yield 135.36 % over farmers practice leading to maximization of profit.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Non availability of quality seed in proper time, Non adoption of scientific techniques by farmers

Amur carp is a bottom feeder and can suitably substitute mrigal. It is a genetically improved common carp with a slender body, late maturing and grows faster than Mrigal i.e. 700-800 gm within 1^st 5-6 months) in the first year of their culture. So it should be included with major carps for increasing income.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Many Farmers are awared & interested in practising this type of culture practice in place of traditional Major Carp culture through participation in Training & Demonstration programmes conducted by KVK. The farmers of the trial interested to adopt this Improved variety and realized the benefits of replacement of Amur Carp in place of Mrigal. So this year EOI Proposal of the progressive farmers will submit to NFDB for Amur Carp culture on large scale.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

change in parameter (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

Avg. Amur Carp growth after 5 months observation (Fish wt. in gm)

FP

3

240

16.4

73,600

2,29,600

1,56,000

3.12

TO₁

3

710

195.83

36.8

83,200

5,15,200

4,32,000

6.19

TO₂

3

721

200.41

38.6

85,400

5,40,400

4,55,000

6.33

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of BPH tolerant rice varieties

2.

Problem diagnosed

Low yield in rainfed /irrigated medium land transplanted rice due to use of old variety susceptible to BPH

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Pratikshya (142 days duration; Average yield: 50 q/ha; resistant to BPH)

TO₂: Hasanta (146 days duration, Average yield: 55 q/ha; resistant to BPH, WBPH, leaf blast, sheath rot)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

OUAT, 2005; OUAT, 2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

Rainfed medium land

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Grain yield, Net return & B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

By using var. Hasant, no BPH attack was seen with 46.8 q/ha production

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Availability of seeds in time

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Participatory

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 hoppers/ tiller

FP

10

14

5.08

12.79

42

28725

48800

20075

1.41

TO₁

10

14.2

4.8

6.42

42.3

29813

52630

22817

1.43

TO₂

10

14.8

0

Nil

46.8

26645

59870

36225

1.60

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of newly released tomato hybrids

2.

Problem diagnosed

High cost of tomato during summer and low yield from the prevailing variety

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Arka Samrat: It is a high yielding Fı hybrid with combined resistance to ToLCV & BW and tolerant to early blight. Plants semi-determinate with good foliar cover. Foliage dark green. Fruits oblate-high round, firm (8.0 kg/cm²), medium large (90-100g) with the light green shoulder. First fruit maturity 55-60 days and Develops deep red color on ripening. Yields 80 tons/ha. in 140 days. Suitable for summer, Rabi and Kharif seasons.

TO₂: Arka Rakhyak: It is a high yielding F1 hybrid developed by crossing IIHR-2834 X IIHR-2833. First F1 hybrid with triple disease resistance to ToLCV, BW and early blight. Fruits square round, large (90-100g), deep red colored and firm. Suitable for fresh market and processing. Yield: 75-80 t/ha in 140 days.

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

IIHR, Banglore

5.

Production system and thematic area

Medium land Irrigated, Paddy-Vegetable cropping system; Thematic area: Yield increment

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Arka Samrat: Fruit weight- 85-90 g, Yield on first harvest- 800 g per plant, Yield- 45 T/ha

Arka Rakhyak: Fruit weight- 90-95 g, Yield on first harvest- 1kg per plant, Yield- 46 T/ha

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Arka Rakhyak should be cultivated as a tomato hybrid for yield enhancement as its giving higher yield advantage of over 77% over some of the locally available private hybrids.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Some plants were affected with blight like symptoms which farmers were telling that they were wilting in their local language. The shelf lives of the products were very good ranging from 30 to 40 days even under normal room temperature.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

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

Fruit weight

Fruit weight per plant

 No of fruits per plant

FP

10

70-80 g

3.25 kg

43

Wilt incidence 30-40 %, Leaf curl virus 20 %

259

86,200

1,55,400

69,200

1.80

TO₁

10

85-90g

5.6 kg

64

Wilt incidence 4-5 %, Leaf curl virus 2-3 %

450

1,31,200

2,70,000

1,38,800

2.05

TO₂

10

90-95g

5.75 kg

63

Wilt incidence 5 %, Leaf curl virus 3-4 %

460

1,31,200

2,76,000

1,44,800

2.10

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of Integrated pest management of WBPH and BPH in rice

2.

Problem diagnosed

Low yield and heavy damage of the crop

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Making alleys at a distance of 2 m in paddy field. use of spider trap @ 25/ha, need based Alternate Spraying of flonicamid 50 WG @ 60 gm /acre and neem based pesticide 3000 ppm @ 600 ml/acre @ 10 days interval.

TO₂: Repeated with Spraying of pymetrozene 50 WG @ 120 gm/acre

(Assessed)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

 NRRI  2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

IPM

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

No. of hoppers/ tiller- 5.08, % Damage-7.45, Yield-40.06, B.C ratio-1.56

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Line sowing should be done by farmers to avoid BPH/WBPH population. Some distance should be left after 2m in paddy field for easy intercultural operations and spraying of pesticides. Pesticides should be spray to the basal portion of the plant.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Farmers were spraying pesticides to the whole plant randomly, but it should be to the basal position as the pest congregate there.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers were interested to know the technology by which the pest can be controlled and they promised to continue the same in the next season.

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 hoppers/ tiller

FP

10

8.06

12.79

34.71

36500

52065

15565

1.42

TO₁

10

7.04

11.04

36.43

37200

54645

17445

1.46

TO₂

10

5.8

7.45

40.06

38500

60090

21590

1.56

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of IDM practice for management of sigatoka disease in banana

2.

Problem diagnosed

No sucker treatment; Spraying of Carbendazim, (Carbendazim + Mancozeb) @ 1 kg/ha at advanced stage of infection

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Alternate spraying of Bordeaux mixture   1 % and (Propiconazole 25 EC + Carbendazim 50 WP) @ 500 gm/ha at 15 days interval and additional dose of 25 % potash (100:100:375)

TO₂: Alternate spraying of Bordeaux mixture 1 % and (Tebuconazole 50 WG +   Trifloxystrobi 25 WG) @ 200 gm/ha at15 days interval and additional dose of 25 % potash

(Assessed)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify)

 ICAR-NRC for banana Trichy,2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

IDM

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

% infestation-14.17, Cont….

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Need base and alternate use of pesticides should be followed by the farmers for better result.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Indiscriminate use of a single pesticide i.e Blitox 50 over a long period of time

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers accepted the technology demonstrated and promised for need base use of pesticides in time.

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

FP

10

33.04

TO₁

10

24.28

TO₂

10

14.17

Cont…..

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of Paddy straw mushroom cultivation in compost method 

2.

Problem diagnosed

Unavailability of Paddy straw due to mechanization in harvesting

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: Mushroom cultivation in paddy straw bundles in Bed method with 2% lime soaking threshed straw in bed followed by Spawning

TO₂: Soaking threshed straw in 2 % Ca Co3+ Composting with 1.5% Poultry manure & 5 % wheat bran heaped in open condition covered with polythene for composting for 15 days followed by Spawning

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

CTMRT, OUAT-2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

Homestead, Mushroom production

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

No of fruits/ Bed, Fruit Weight (g), Initiation of Pinhead (days), Bio-efficiency (%), B:C Ratio, Yield (Kg/Bed)

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Good yield with increased nos. of fruiting bodies and size

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Initial investment is high for growing room and growing room will be pucca house with insulation otherwise chances of contamination is more

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Method demonstration and farmers appreciated the technology due to good yield.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Disease/ insect pest incidence (%)

Yield

Kg/bed

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./unit)

Gross return (Rs/(10bed/unit)

Net return

(Rs/(10bed/unit)

BC ratio

No of fruits/Bed

Fruit Weight(g)

Bio-efficiency (%)

FP

10

48

21.12

11

1.1

500

1650

1150

3.3

TO₁

10

52

23.1

11.8

1.18

500

1770

1270

3.54

TO₂

10

55

24.21

16.2

1.62

508

2430

1922

4.78

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of improved backyard poultry breed

2.

Problem diagnosed

Poor weight gain in local breed, high mortality, less egg production

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁:  Aseel kala (Body weight 20 wk-1220 gm, Egg production-167/annum)

TO₂: Kadaknath (Body weight 20 wk-1170gm, Egg production-190 /annum)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

CPDO

5.

Production system and thematic area

Poultry production

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Body weight at 20 weeks, Egg production/ annum Mortality %, Age of first laying (weeks), Net income, B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Kadaknath chicken is providing low cholesterol, high protein meat along with special medicinal value in homeopathy and nervous disorder. The meat is also suitable for cardiac patients as it increases blood supply to heart. Also it is having effectiveness in treating women’s habitual abortion and sterility. The eggs can also be utilized to treat severe headaches, asthma and nephritis. Hence, this indigenous breed should be popularized and practiced in backyard rearing system.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

It was observed that the colour of the meat is the only constraint in acceptability by the consumer, otherwise meat tastes good.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

The farmers were aware about the medicinal benefits of the meat and egg. They wanted to initiate this kadaknath chicken in commercial mode.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

mortality (%)

Yield

(Avg. body wt/bird+ No. of Egg/ 6 month)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./unit of 20 birds)

Gross return (Rs/ unit of 20 birds)

Net return

(Rs./ unit of 20 birds)

BC ratio

Avg body wt/25 wks

Avg. egg production/ 6 months

Age of first laying (weeks)

FP

5

Cock:1.1kg, Hen: 0.9 kg

Avg:1 kg

25 eggs

26 weeks

20%

1 kg

2100

7960

5860

3.8

TO₁

5

Cock:2.3kg, Hen:1.5kg

Avg: 1.9kg

88 eggs

25 weeks

3%

1.9 kg

5720

22,720

17,000

3.9

TO₂

5

Cock:1.7kg, Hen:1.4 kg

Avg:1.5kg

110 eggs

25 weeks

3%

1.5 kg

5720

26,500

20,780

4.6

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment on hydroponic fodder for feeding management in dairy cattle.

2.

Problem diagnosed

High rate of concentrate, scarcity of grazing land and lack of fodder

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁: 10 kg Hydroponic fodder (Wheat) replacing 1 kg concentrate

TO₂: 10 kg Hydroponic fodder (Maize) replacing 1 kg concentrate              

Green fodder yield-15-20 kg / 2 kg seeds, Harvest after 8-12 days, 10 kg fodder can replace 1 kg concentrate feed and increases milk yield upto 1kg, labour requirement: 2-3 hrs/day, water requirement to grow 1 kg fodder-2-3lts.

4.

Source of Technology

TNAU, 2014

5.

Production system and thematic area

Feed management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Green fodder yield/ unit cost, Labour requirement, Duration of harvesting, milk yield, SNF%, Fat%, Net Income, reduction in cost of feed, B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Low cost hydroponic fodder cultivation models should be popularized in cases of fodder scarcity.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Availability of good quality seed is the major constraint, which reduces the fodder production by reducing the seed germination %.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers acceptability was low.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

Yield

(milk yield/cow/ months)

Cost of cultivation (Rs./cow)

Gross return (Rs/cow)

Net return

(Rs./cow)

BC ratio

Avg daily milk yield(ltr)

Green fodder yield (kg/ unit)

FP

3

7.20 lts

–

216 lts

4200

6480

2280

1.54

TO₁

3

7.78 lts

6.0 kg/kg of wheat seed

233.4 lts.

4050

7002

2952

1.72

TO₂

3

7.89 lts

7.5 kg/kg of maize seed

236.7 lts.

4030

7101

3071

1.76

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of   stocking density of Amur Carp in Composite fish culture system

2.

Problem diagnosed

Slow growth rate of mrigal affects the average yield from composite carp culture

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

Mrigal as bottom feeder along with Catla and rohu fish with stocking rate up to 30% or more

TO₁:Use of Amur Carp fingerlings @ 1000 no./ha with (Catla 30 :Rohu 40 : Mrigal 20: A.C 10 )  and   culture for 5-6 months at a stocking density of 10,000 nos/ha (TO1)

TO₂Use of Amur Carp fingerlings @ 1500 no./ha with (Catla 30:Rohu 40 : Mrigal 15: A.C 15) @ 10,000 no. /ha  and   culture for 5-6 months (TO2)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/ SAU/ other, please specify)

CIFA, 2012 / OUAT

5.

Production system and thematic area

Production Management

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

Yield in (q/ha), % change in yield and B:C ratio

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Use of Amur Carp fingerlings @ 1500 no./ha with (Catla 30:Rohu 40 : Mrigal 15: A.C 15) @ 10,000 no. /ha  and   culture for 5-6 months increases yield 135.36 % over farmers practice leading to maximization of profit.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Non availability of quality seed in proper time, Non adoption of scientific techniques by farmers

Amur carp is a bottom feeder and can suitably substitute mrigal. It is a genetically improved common carp with a slender body, late maturing and grows faster than Mrigal i.e. 700-800 gm within 1^st 5-6 months) in the first year of their culture. So it should be included with major carps for increasing income.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Many Farmers are awared & interested in practising this type of culture practice in place of traditional Major Carp culture through participation in Training & Demonstration programmes conducted by KVK. The farmers of the trial interested to adopt this Improved variety and realized the benefits of replacement of Amur Carp in place of Mrigal. So this year EOI Proposal of the progressive farmers will submit to NFDB for Amur Carp culture on large scale.

Technology option

No. of trials

Yield component

change in parameter (%)

Yield

(q/ha)

Cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs/ha)

Net return

(Rs./ha)

BC ratio

Avg. Amur Carp growth after 5 months observation (Fish wt. in gm)

FP

3

240

16.4

73,600

2,29,600

1,56,000

3.12

TO₁

3

710

195.83

36.8

83,200

5,15,200

4,32,000

6.19

TO₂

3

721

200.41

38.6

85,400

5,40,400

4,55,000

6.33

1.

Title of On farm Trial

Assessment of Integrated management practices against BPH and WBPH in rice

2.

Problem diagnosed

Low yield and heavy damage of the crop

3.

Details of technologies selected for assessment/ refinement

(Mention either Assessed or Refined)

TO₁-Making alleys at a distance of 2 m in paddy field, use of spider trap @ 25/ha, need based Alternate Spraying of flonicamid 50 WG @ 150 gm /ha and neem based pesticide 3000 ppm @ 1500 ml/ha at 10 days interval.

TO₂– To 1+Repeated with Spraying of Dichlorovous 76% EC @ 200ml /acre at 15 days interval commencing from insect appearance(Refined)

4.

Source of Technology (ICAR/ AICRP/SAU/other, please specify)

RRTTS, Ranital,2018

5.

Production system and thematic area

IPM

6.

Performance of the Technology with performance indicators

No. of hoppers/ tiller- 5.26, % Damage-7.52, Yield-39.05, B.C ratio-1.52

7.

Final recommendation for micro level situation

Line sowing should be done by farmers to avoid BPH/WBPH population. Some distance should be left after 2m in paddy field for easy intercultural operations and spraying of pesticides. Pesticides should be spray to the basal portion of the plant.

8.

Constraints identified and feedback for research

Farmers were spraying pesticides to the whole plant randomly, but it should be to the basal position as the pest congregate there.

9.

Process of farmers participation and their reaction

Farmers were interested to know the technology by which the pest can be controlled and they promised to continue the same in the next season.

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 hoppers/ tiller

No. of spikelet per panicle

Test wt. (100 grain wt.)

FP

10

17.66

14.54

30.46

36500