ON FARM TRIAL ON MANGO ANTHRACNOSE AND DIE-BACK DISEASES
Title:To assess the productivity increase of Mango by using appropriate fungicide along with proper cultural practice against fungal diseases (Die-back and Anthracnose) of mango
Problem diagnosed:Decreasing the quality and quantity of Mango due to Die-back and Anthracnose
Technology assessed:Need based and proper use of fungicides along with appropriate cultural practice
Technologies:
Farmers’ Practice (FP): Indiscriminate and improper spraying of inappropriate fungicides viz. Carbendazim
Technology option-I (TO-I): Fungal disease management by pruning of dead woods up to 5-10 cm green portion and with Copper oxychloride @ 4g/L (2 times) and Sulphur @ 2g/L
Technology option-II (TO-II): Fungal disease management with Carbendazim + Mancozeb @ 1g/L (2 times)
Source of Technology: SAU
Final recommendation for micro level situation: From the present study, it can be concluded that Fungal disease management by pruning of dead woods up to 5-10 cm green portion and with Copper oxychloride @ 4g/L (2 times) and Sulphur @ 2g/L showed highest yield (289.99 and 393.70 q/ha as compared to Tech. Opt. 1 (256.79 and 369.30 q/ha) and FP (236.63 and 288.90 q/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (22.55% and 39.79%) and per cent of avoidable yield loss (18.40% and 25.73%) with B:C ratio of 1.73 and 3.18 than 0.58 and 1.15 of traditional one during respective years
Constraints identified and feedback for research: No such practice due to lack of knowledge about fungal disease infestation among farmers
Year of conduction: 2019 and 2020
| Anthracnose on leaf, inflorescence and fruit in FP | Inflorescence without disease symptom in TO-I and TO-II | Spraying of fungicides | Application of copper oxychloride on cut end of dead branch of mango | |||
ON FARM TRIAL ON MUSTARD APHID
| Title | : | To assess the productivity increase of Mustard by application of proper insecticides at appropriate time against Mustard aphid |
| Problem diagnosed | : | Reduction in productivity of Mustard due to Decreasing the quality and quantity of Mustard oil caused by mustard aphid |
| Technology assessed | : | Need based and proper time to use of insecticides along with optimum sowing time |
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Indiscriminate and improper spraying of inappropriate pesticides viz. Lamda-cyhalothrin, Imidacloprid, Acetamiprid, Acephate
Technology option-I (TO-I): Sowing of seeds within 15th October to 15th November + Spraying of Thiacloprid @ 1 gm/L and Acetamiprid @ 0.5g/L alternatively at 10-15 days interval (1st spray of each before flowering and 2nd spray of each after flowering) + Installation of Yellow Sticky Traps @ 10/acre Technology option-II (TO-II): Sowing of seeds within 15th November to 15th December + Spraying of Acephate @ 1g/L and Neem oil 10,000 ppm @ 1.5ml/L alternatively at 10-15 days interval (each spray before flowering) + Installation of Yellow Sticky Traps @ 10/acre |
| Source of Technology | : | ICAR-IARI |
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that Mustard aphid management by Sowing of seeds within 15th October to 15th November + Spraying of Thiacloprid @ 1 gm/L and Acetamiprid @ 0.5g/L alternatively at 10-15 days interval (1st spray of each before flowering and 2nd spray of each after flowering) + Installation of Yellow Sticky Traps @ 10/acre showed highest yield 13.58 and 14.65 q/ha as compared to Tech. Opt. II (12.59 and 13.09 q/ha) and FP (10.16 and 8.80 q/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (34.51% and 67.02%) and per cent of avoidable yield loss (25.05% and 39.84%) with B:C ratio of 2.09 and 2.03 than 1.01 and 1.08 of traditional one during respective years |
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | There is no specific sowing time and proper management due to lack of knowledge among farmers about time and nature of infestation by mustard aphid |
| Year of conduction | : | 2020 and 2021 |
| Infestation of Aphid at flowering (FP) | Installation of yellow sticky traps | ||
| Mustard field in full flowering stage in TO1 and TO2 | Full pod (siliqua) stage (TO-1 and TO-2) | ||
ON FARM TRIAL ON MAIZE FALL ARMY WORM
| Title | : | To assess the productivity increase of Maize by controlling Fall Army Worm |
| Problem diagnosed | : | Reduction in productivity of maize due to decreasing the quality and quantity caused by Fall Army Worm |
| Technology assessed | : | Need based and proper time to use of microbial insecticides as appropriate IPM component against FAW |
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Indiscriminate and improper spraying of inappropriate insecticides viz. Lamda-cyhalothrin, Imidacloprid, Acetamiprid, Acephate
Technology option-I (TO-I): Application of dry sand to the leaf whorl + 3 Sprayings of Neem oil 10,000 ppm @ 1.5 ml/L starting from 5-10% infestation at 15 days interval Technology option-II (TO-II): Application of dry sand to the leaf whorl + 3 Sprayings of Thiodicarb 75% WP @ 1 g/L starting from 5-10% infestation at 15 days interval Technology option-III (TO-III): Application of dry sand to the leaf whorl + 3 Sprayings of Spinosad 45% SC @ 0.2 ml/L starting from 5-10% infestation at 15 days interval Technology option-IV (TO-IV): Application of dry sand to the leaf whorl + 3 Sprayings of Novaluron 5.25% + Emamectin benzoate 0.9% SC @ 2 ml/L starting from 5-10% infestation at 15 days interval |
| Source of Technology | : | ICAR-IARI |
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that maize fall army worm management by TO-4 i.e. application of dry sand to the leaf whorl + 3 Sprayings of Novaluron 5.25% + Emamectin benzoate 0.9% SC @ 2 ml/L starting from 5-10% infestation 15 days interval showed highest yield (7.03 and 7.67 t/ha) as compared to TO-1 (4.98 and 5.11 t/ha), TO-2 (5.7 and 5.92 t/ha), TO-3 (6.46 and 6.29 t/ha) and FP (3.66 and 3.89 t/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (92.23% and 97.17%) and per cent of avoidable yield loss (47.98% and 49.28%) with ICBR of 2.31 and 3.1 than TO-1 (1.18 and 1.36), TO-2 (1.31 and 2.16) and TO-3 (1.59 and 2.11) during respective years. |
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | Farmers use only chemical method with synthetic insecticides against this pest but do not follow any mechanical method and chemical method with microbial insecticides |
| Year of conduction | : | 2021 and 2022 |
| Fall army worm infestation on leaf (FP) | Sand application in leaf whorl | Maize field under TO-I | |
| Maize field under TO-II | Maize field under TO-III | Maize field under TO-IV | Fresh and healthy cob |
ON FARM TRIAL ON RICE BROWN PLANT HOPPER
| Title | : | To assess the productivity of Rice by controlling BPH through appropriate IPM component |
| Problem diagnosed | : | Reduction in productivity of Rice due to sucking of plant sap leading to hopper burn caused by BPH |
| Technology assessed | : | Introduction of skip row planting during transplanting time and application of suitable and appropriate insecticide at proper dose and time |
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Spraying of OP and SP insecticides at improper dose viz. Chlorpyriphos, Lamda-cyhalothrin
Technology option-I (TO-I): FP + Skip 2 lines after every 8 lines of rice during transplanting Technology option-II (TO-II): Skip 2 lines after every 8 lines of rice during transplanting + Spraying of Pymetrozine 50% WG @ 300 g /ha |
| Source of Technology | : | ICAR-NCIPM |
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | Rice brown plant hopper management by skipping of 2 lines after every 8 lines of rice during transplanting and spraying of Pymetrozine 50% WG @ 300 g /ha showed highest seed yield 70.77 and 69.32 q/ha as compared to Tech. Opt. 1 (63.68 and 57.54 q/ha) and FP (53.23nd 46.86 q/ha) and maximum per cent increase over control in seed yield (32.96% and 47.93%) and in straw yield (37.18% and 52.63%) and per cent of avoidable seed yield loss (24.79% and 32.4%) and straw yield loss (27.10% and 34.48%) with ICBR of 1.91 and 1.96 in TO-2 than 1.06 and 1.04 of TO-1 during respective years. TO-2 also showed lowest BPH infestation (7.71% and 7.92%), highest per cent protection from BPH (75.49% and 71.54%) and good quality of growth and yield attributes than TO-1 and FP during successive years. |
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | There is no such practice of skip row planting during transplanting time and application of proper insecticide due to lack of knowledge among farmers about cultural method depending on the nature of habitat of BPH and new insecticide |
| Year of conduction | : | 2022 and 2023 |
| Rice field under TO-1 | Rice grain under TO-1 | Rice field under TO-2 | Rice field under TO-2 |
| Rice field at early vegetative stage under TO-2 | Rice field at mid vegetative stage under TO-2 | Rice field at reproductive stage under TO-2 | Healthy rice grain after harvesting from TO-2 |
ON FARM TRIAL ON BRINJAL FRUIT AND SHOOT BORER
| Title | : | To assess the productivity increase of Brinjal by controlling Fruit and Shoot Borer |
| Problem diagnosed | : | Reduction in productivity of Brinjal due to drooping and wilting shoots, large exit holes in the fruit leading to reduction of good quality of marketable fruits caused by Fruit and Shoot Borer |
| Technology assessed | : | Introduction of pheromone trapping and new molecule of insecticide against brinjal fruit and shoot borer |
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Indiscriminate and improper spraying of inappropriate insecticides viz. Lamda-cyhalothrin, Imidacloprid, Acetamiprid, Acephate
Technology option-I (TO-I): FP + Installation of pheromone traps @ 25/ha from 25 DAT up to the last harvesting of fruit. Technology option-II (TO-II): Installation of pheromone traps @ 25/ha from 25 DAT up to the last harvesting of fruit + 3 Sprayings of Novaluron 5.25 % + Emamectin Benzoate 0.9% SC @ 875 ml/ha starting from 30 DAT at 10 days interval. |
| Source of Technology | : | ICAR-NCIPM |
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | Brinjal fruit and shoot borer management by installation of pheromone traps @ 25/ha from 25 DAT up to the last harvesting of fruit and 3 sprayings of novaluron 5.25 % + emamectin benzoate 0.9% SC @ 875 ml/ha starting from 30 DAT at 15 days interval showed highest good fruit yield (109.29 and 108.0 q/ha) as compared to Tech. Opt. 1 (82.29 and 95.14 q/ha) and FP (61.71 and 65.57 q/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (77.10% and 64.71%) and per cent of avoidable yield loss (43.53% and 39.29%) with ICBR of 4.13 and 3.56 in TO-2 than 1.72 and 2.33 of TO-1 during respective years. TO-2 also showed lowest overall mean of infestation (10.49% and 8.55%) and damaged fruit (34.7% and 34.14%) and highest per cent protection from fruit and shoot borer (70.92% and 79.0%) as compared to TO-1 and FP during respective years. |
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | There is no such practice of installation of pheromone trap during vegetative and reproductive stages and application of proper insecticide due to lack of knowledge among farmers about bio-rational insect control method depending on the nature of the insect and new molecule of insecticide against this insect |
| Year of conduction | : | 2022 and 2023 |
| Brinjal field under FP | Brinjal field under TO-1 | |||
| Brinjal field under TO-2 without drooping symptom | Uninfested brinjal fruit under TO-2 | |||
ON FARM TRIAL ON YELLOW VEIN MOSAIC VIRUS ON BLACK GRAM
| Title | : | To assess the productivity increase of black gram by controlling vector and yellow vein mosaic virus |
| Problem diagnosed | : | Reduction in productivity of black gram due to yellow vein mosaic virus |
| Technology assessed | : | Performance of bio-rational and chemical method against vector and disease causing YVMV |
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Indiscriminate and improper spraying of inappropriate insecticides and fungicides viz. Lamda-cyhalothrin, Imidacloprid, Carbendazim + mancozeb
Technology Option-I (TO-I): FP + Installation of yellow sticky traps @ 90/ha from 30 DAS up to flower initiation stage Technology Option-II (TO-II): Installation of yellow sticky traps @ 90/ha from 30 DAS up to flower initiation stage + 2 Sprayings of Thiacloprid 21.7% SC @ 450 ml/ha starting from 35 DAS at 15 days interval Technology Option-III (TO-III): Installation of yellow sticky traps @ 90/ha from 30 DAS up to flower initiation stage + 2 Sprayings of Flonicamid 50 WG @ 450 gm/ha starting from 35 DAS at 15 days interval |
| Source of Technology | : | ICAR-NCIPM |
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that yellow vein mosaic virus and its vector management by Installation of yellow sticky traps @ 90/ha from 30 DAS up to flower initiation stage + 2 Sprayings of Flonicamid 50 WG @ 450 gm/ha starting from 35 DAS at 15 days interval showed highest seed and fodder yield of 18.52 and 24.07 q/ha, respectively as compared to TO-1, TO-2 (13.99 and 17.9 q/ha) and FP (10.76 and 13.55 q/ha) and maximum per cent increase over FP in seed and fodder yield (72.15% and 77.61%) and per cent of avoidable yield loss (41.91% and 43.7%) with BCR of 2.59 in TO-3 than 2.07 of TO-1 and 2.42 in TO-2. TO-3 also showed lowest percentage of yellow vein mosaic virus incidence (4.5%) and lowest whitefly population (4%) and good quality of growth and yield attributes than TO-1, TO-2 and FP. |
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | There is no such practice of installation of yellow sticky traps to control yellow vein mosaic virus by trapping the vectors of the viral disease. Farmers do not have enough knowledge about the new molecules of insecticide i.e. flonicamid (pyridine carboxamide) to control such type of sucking insects i.e. whitefly. |
| Year of conduction | : | 2024 |
| Black gram under FP | Black gram under TO-1 | Black gram under TO-2 | Black gram under TO-3 |
ON FARM TRIAL ON MODERN TRAINING METHOD OVER TRADITIONAL TRAINING METHOD.(2021)
| Title | : | Assessing the efficiency of modern training method over traditional training method. |
| Problem diagnosed | : | Lack of efficacy of training methods. |
| Technology assessed | : | Study were Classroom (Offline) Training, Online (Video Conferencing) Training, and Video Film/Social Media-based Training. |
| Technologies | : | TO- I: To train the farmers through classroom
TO- II: To train the farmers through Video conferencing TO- III: To train the farmers through Video film/Social Media-based Training. |
| Source of Technology | : | SAU |
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | Based on the present trial, it is recommended that offline training method should be adopted as the most suitable approach for rural respondents. Face-to-face interaction ensures better understanding, instant problem solving, and higher satisfaction, as 95% respondents expressed positive feedback. Offline mode allows direct communication with scientists and trainers, which helps participants clarify doubts immediately and gain confidence in applying knowledge at field level. Although online training is cost-effective and some skilled respondents performed well, poor internet connectivity, low digital literacy, and risk of misuse limit its effectiveness. Video or social media-based training may be used only as supplementary material. Therefore, for micro-level rural situations, offline training is the most practical and effective method for capacity building. |
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | Respondents faced poor internet connectivity, low digital literacy, limited concentration in class, and superficial online learning with risk of misuse. Future research should focus on blended training models, digital literacy enhancement, monitoring tools, and interactive content to strengthen knowledge transfer. |
|
|
||
|
On Farm Trial on “Assessing the efficiency of modern training method over traditional training method”
|
||
On Farm Trial (OFT) – Agricultural Extension(2022&2023)
Title: Analyzing the efficiency of different initiative (Individual and community-based organization) for developing Agripreneurship among the rural farmers
| Title | Analyzing the efficiency of different initiative (Individual and Community Based Organization) for developing Agripreneurship among the rural farmers |
| Problem diagnosed | Lack of efficiency in promoting agripreneurship through existing institutional and individual initiatives |
| Technology assessed | Study compared three initiatives: Individual agripreneurs, Farmers’ Clubs, and Farmers’ Producer Organizations (FPOs) |
| Technologies | TO–I: Individual initiative (progressive farmer-driven)
TO–II: Farmers’ Club (community-based peer support) TO–III: Farmers’ Producer Organization (collective marketing & resource mobilization) |
| Source of Technology | SAU / KVK-based field study |
| Final recommendation (Micro level situation) | Based on the two-year trial, FPOs and Individual initiatives are more suitable for promoting agripreneurship at the micro level than Farmers’ Clubs. FPOs ensure better collective market linkage, aggregation, and resource mobilization, while Individual agripreneurs show higher risk-taking ability, independence, and faster adoption of new practices. Farmers’ Clubs, though useful for social networking, were less effective due to weak leadership and low entrepreneurial orientation. Therefore, strengthening FPOs and individual entrepreneurs with training, ICT exposure, and institutional support is recommended for rural agripreneurship development. |
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | Farmers’ Clubs showed weak efficiency due to older age profile, low education, and weak risk orientation. Respondents also faced limited access to credit, poor market linkage, and lack of entrepreneurial training. Future research should focus on restructuring Farmers’ Clubs, strengthening FPO governance, digital literacy, and blended support models (FPO + individual champions) for effective agripreneurship development. |
|
|
||
|
Analyzing the efficiency of different initiative (Individual and Community Based Organization) for developing Agripreneurship among the rural farmers |
||
Year 2022 (OFT – Phase I)
Action:
- Baseline survey of 75 respondents (25 from Individual, 25 from Farmers’ Club, 25 from FPO).
- Collected data on age, education, landholding, family size, mass media exposure, attitude towards enterprise development, and risk orientation.
- Focus on identifying entrepreneurial attributes and existing gaps.
Key Results:
- Majority respondents were in medium education level and had small to medium landholding.
- Individual & FPO members showed higher risk-taking ability and positive attitude towards enterprise development.
- Farmers’ Clubs showed weaker orientation—older members, lower education, and limited media exposure.
- Correlation analysis: Education and cultivated land positively influenced entrepreneurial attitude. Age had a negative relation with risk orientation, while mass media exposure improved it.
Micro-level Recommendation (2022):
Strengthening individual agripreneurs and FPOs should be the first priority as they demonstrated higher efficiency.
- Provide skill-based training on enterprise management.
- Encourage ICT and mass media exposure for confidence building.
- Restructure Farmers’ Clubs with younger and better-trained members.
- Pilot market linkage activities (aggregation, packaging, branding) through FPOs.
Year 2023 (OFT – Phase II)
Action:
- Continued monitoring of same groups with interventions (training, exposure visits, linkage with input dealers and agri-markets).
- Evaluated changes in knowledge, skills, and income orientation.
- Conducted T-test comparison between FPOs, Farmers’ Clubs, and Individuals for entrepreneurial attitude and risk orientation.
Key Results:
- FPOs performed best in collective marketing and resource mobilization.
- Individuals improved further with targeted training, showing independence in decision-making and faster adoption of technologies.
- Farmers’ Clubs lagged behind, still showing lower risk-taking ability and weak market linkages.
- Statistical analysis showed significant positive association of education, cultivated land, and media exposure with entrepreneurial attitude.
- Risk orientation was significantly higher in younger farmers and those exposed to digital/market information.
Final Recommendation
The two-year On Farm Trial clearly established that promoting agripreneurship among rural farmers requires a differentiated strategy based on initiative type. Farmers’ Producer Organizations (FPOs) emerged as the most efficient model for collective resource mobilization, aggregation, and market linkage. Individual agripreneurs, on the other hand, showed greater independence, higher risk-taking ability, and faster adoption of new technologies, making them effective local champions. Farmers’ Clubs, although useful for social networking, proved less efficient due to an older membership base, weaker leadership, and limited entrepreneurial orientation. Statistical analysis highlighted that education level, cultivated land size, and mass media exposure were positively correlated with entrepreneurial attitude, while age was negatively associated with risk orientation. This indicates that younger, educated, and well-informed farmers are more likely to succeed as agripreneurs. At the micro level, it is recommended to strengthen FPOs with institutional support, financial literacy, and collective marketing facilities while simultaneously encouraging individual agripreneurs through targeted skill training, ICT exposure, and credit access. Farmers’ Clubs should be restructured with younger leadership and integrated into broader agripreneurship programs. Such a dual strategy will enhance rural entrepreneurship, improve market access, and ensure long-term livelihood security.
On Farm Trial (OFT) – Agricultural Extension(2024)
Title: Assessing the impact of agricultural initiatives (NICRA-adopted vs Non-NICRA villages) on livelihoods of rural farmers.
| Particulars | Details |
| Title of OFT | Assessing various agricultural initiatives aimed at enhancing livelihoods among rural farmers, including both NICRA-adopted and non-NICRA villages. |
| Problem diagnosed | Smallholder farmers face climate variability, low productivity, weak market access, and uneven extension support. |
| Technology assessed / refined | Climate-smart interventions (NICRA) vs Traditional interventions (Non-NICRA). • NICRA: Soil & water conservation, Integrated Farming Systems, weather advisories, climate-resilient varieties. • Non-NICRA: Improved traditional farming, watershed management, input use, market access. |
| Technological Options (TOs) | TO-I: Farmers in NICRA-adopted villages (climate-smart package). TO-II: Farmers in non-NICRA villages (improved traditional practices). |
| Source of Technology | CRIDA, SAU |
| Production system & thematic area | Farming system, natural resource management, and livelihood resilience |
| Study Area / Sample size | Malda district (Ratua Block) Ramayanpur (NICRA village) – 50 farmers Paschim Rukundipur (Non-NICRA village) – 50 farmers |
| Performance indicators | Socio-economic profile, training received, mass media use, annual income, knowledge scores, risk orientation, adoption of CRA technologies, Benefit-Cost ratio |
| Results (Highlights) | • Knowledge: Beneficiaries mean 15.90 vs Non-beneficiaries 13.02
• Income: Beneficiaries mean ₹68,200 vs Non-beneficiaries ₹59,200 • Risk orientation: 48% beneficiaries high vs 18% non-beneficiaries • Training: 36% beneficiaries attended ≥3 vs 22% non-beneficiaries • Attitude: Beneficiaries overwhelmingly positive; non-beneficiaries mostly undecided Overall: NICRA interventions significantly improved resilience, income, and adoption. |
| Final recommendation (Micro level) | Promote NICRA-like climate-smart models in more villages. Prioritize capacity building, soil-water conservation, integrated farming, and weather advisories. Strengthen training (short & frequent), social media/TV-based extension, input supply and market linkages. Focus on marginal and low-educated farmers for inclusive livelihood improvement. |
| Constraints identified | • Limited awareness among non-beneficiaries • Poor extension reach during adverse weather • Weak market linkages • Input and credit availability gaps |
| Feedback for research | • Study heterogeneity in NICRA impact across farm sizes • Develop blended extension models (field + ICT) • Design strategies to convert “undecided” non-beneficiaries into adopters • Assess long-term resilience and income sustainability |
| Location | Malda KVK,Ratua. |
|
|
||
| Assessing various agricultural initiatives aimed at enhancing livelihoods among rural farmers, including both NICRA-adopted and non-NICRA villages. | ||
ON FARM TRIAL ON EFFECT OF MANGOSPECIAL APPLICATION ON INFLORESCENCE DEVELOPMENT, FRUIT SETTING AND FRUIT QUALITY OF MANGO
(2nd year)
| Title | : | Effect of Mango Special application on inflorescence development, fruit setting and fruit quality of mango | |||||||||||||||||||
| Problem diagnosed | : | Low inflorescence development leading to less fruit setting and declining quality fruit | |||||||||||||||||||
| Technology assessed | : | Performance of suitable micronutrient for better production | |||||||||||||||||||
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Boron and Zinc application
Technology option-I (TO-I): Micro nutrient Grade V @2g/lit (Twice Before Flowering & Twice After Flowering)
Technology option-II (TO-II): 4 times application (Twice Before Flowering & Twice After Flowering) @ 5g/L |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Source of Technology | : | ICAR-IIHR, Bangalore | |||||||||||||||||||
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that application of Mango special @ 5g/L (TO-II) showed highest yield 88.44 q/ha as compared to TO-I (62.09 q/ha) and FP (47.42 q/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (26.35 %). The B:C ratio is 3.58 for TO-II than FP is 1.74. Mango special @ 5g/L (TO-II) in mango orchard is very much effective for good mango production than normal farmer practice and application of micronutrient mixture grade V (TO-I). | |||||||||||||||||||
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | Farmers apply only boron and zinc, but mango special contains zinc, boron, manganese, iron and copper with recommended concentration which is responsible for fast correction of deficiency, less fertilizer consumption, early crop maturity and big bunch with good colour of mango | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Distribution of Mango special | Mixing of Mango special at farmers field | Spraying of Mango special
|
| Emergence of inflorescence after application of mango special | Mango during harvesting stage at mango special treated plot
|
Harvested mango from mango special treated plot
|
ON FARM TRIAL ON ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT BORDER CROPS ON PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT OF OKRA FOR MALDA DISTRICT
(2nd year)
| Title | : | Assessment of the effect of different border crops on productivity enhancement of Okra for Malda District | |||||||
| Problem diagnosed | : | Low productivity due to viral disease of Okra | |||||||
| Technology assessed | : | Performance of suitable border crop | |||||||
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Only Okra
Technology option-I (TO-I): Okra with Maize as a border crop
Technology option-II (TO-II): Okra with Marigold as a border crop |
|||||||
| Source of Technology | : | BCKV | |||||||
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that okra with maize as a border crop (TO-I) showed highest yield 197.64 q/ha as compared to TO-II (195.15 q/ha) and FP (190.95 q/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (6.69 %). The B:C ratio is 4.33 for TO-I than FP is 2.58. Okra with maize as a border crop (TO-I) cultivation of is very much effective for good okra production than normal farmer practice and okra with marigold as a border crop. (TO-II).
|
|||||||
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | Farmers cultivate only okra, but Okra with Maize as a border crop which is responsible to control the low productivity due to viral disease of Okra and increase the performance of suitable border crop like maize. | |||||||
| Okra with maize as border crop | Okra with maize as border crop |
| Okra with maize as border crop | Okra with marigold as border crop |
| Title | : | Assessment of the productivity and profitability of Capsicum by using different types of mulching material. | |||||||
| Problem diagnosed | : | Low productivity due to crop-weed competition at seedling stage | |||||||
| Technology assessed | : | Reduce cost of cultivation by using eco-friendly weed management practices | |||||||
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Manual weeding with recommended fertilizer dose (40:60:30)
Technology option-I (TO-I): Capsicum cultivation using paddy straw mulch with recommended fertilizer dose (40:60:30)
Technology option-II (TO-II): Capsicum cultivation using polythene mulch with recommended fertilizer dose (40:60:30) |
|||||||
| Source of Technology | : | BCKV | |||||||
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that cultivation of capsicum using polythene mulch (TO-II) showed highest yield 187.66 q/ha as compared to TO-I (180.80 q/ha) and FP (169.89 q/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (17.77 %). The B:C ratio is 4.26 for TO-II than FP is 2.72. Cultivation of capsicum using polythene mulch (TO-II) is very much effective for good quality capsicum production than normal farmer practice and cultivation of capsicum using rice straw mulch (TO-I). | |||||||
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | Farmers are not using any mulching materials for capsicum cultivation, but using polythene mulch with recommended fertilizer dose (40:60:30) is responsible for good productivity and profitability of Capsicum by controlling the weed competition. | |||||||
ON FARM TRIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY OF LITCHI BY USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF BAGGING MATERIAL TO IMPROVED POST-HARVEST FRUIT QUALITY.
(1st year)
| Title | : | Assessment of the productivity and profitability of Litchi by using different types of bagging material to improved post-harvest fruit quality. | |||||||
| Problem diagnosed | : | Low productivity due to physiological disorder and pest infestation | |||||||
| Technology assessed | : | Performance of Litchi production by using different bagging materials | |||||||
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): Litchi cultivation without using any bagging material
Technology option-I (TO-I): Litchi cultivation using mosquito net Technology option-II (TO-II): Litchi cultivation using brown paper bag/pink paper bag as a bagging material |
|||||||
| Source of Technology | : | BCKV, National Research Centre for Litchi (ICAR), Muzaffarpur, Bihar. | |||||||
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that using of pink paper bunch cover bag (TO-II) showed highest yield 67.89 q/ha as compared to TO-I (61.12 q/ha) and FP (53.05 q/ha) and maximum per cent yield increase over control (14.84 %). The B:C ratio is 3.57 for TO-II than FP is 2.46. Litchi orchard is very much effective for good Litchi production than normal farmer practice and using of mosquito net (TO-I). | |||||||
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | Farmers cultivate litchi without using any bagging material, but using using pink paper bag as a bagging material in litchi orchard which is responsible for high productivity and to control from to physiological disorder and pest infestation with good colour and big big bunchces. | |||||||
| Litchi bunch cover with bag | Litchi cultivation using mosquito net |
ON FARM TRIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY OF BRINJAL BY USING PROPER MICRONUTRIENT FORMULATION
(1st year)
| Title | : | Assessment of the productivity and profitability of Brinjal by using proper micronutrient formulation | ||||||||||
| Problem diagnosed | : | Low yield due to Improper use of micronutrient | ||||||||||
| Technology assessed | : | Effect of micronutrient application on brinjal cultivation | ||||||||||
| Technologies | : | Farmers’ Practice (FP): No micronutrient application
Technology option-I (TO-I): Use of Boron and Zinc as micronutrient @ 1 gm/lit
Technology option-II (TO-II): Use of Arka Vegetable Special (Micronutrient Formulation) @ 5 gm/lit |
||||||||||
| Source of Technology | : | ICAR-IIHR, Bangalore | ||||||||||
| Final recommendation for micro level situation | : | From the present study, it can be concluded that using of Arka Vegetable Special (Micronutrient Formulation) (TO-II) showed highest yield 32.72
q/ha as compared to TO-I (23.28 q/ha) and FP (18.81 q/ha). The B:C ratio is 3.37 for TO-II than FP is 1.57. Using of Arka Vegetable Special (Micronutrient Formulation) (TO-II) in Brinjal is very much effective for good Brinjal production than normal farmer practice and using of Boron @ 1 gm/lit and Zinc @ 1 gm/lit (TO-I).
|
||||||||||
| Constraints identified and feedback for research | : | Farmers cultivate brinjal without micronutrient application, but application of Arka Vegetable Special (Micronutrient Formulation) @ 5 gm/lit which is responsible for recovery from deficiency of micronutrient, increase the yield and quality of brinjal. | ||||||||||
| Mixing of vegetable special at farmers field | Spraying of vegetable special
|
Spraying of vegetable special
|
Spraying of vegetable special
|
|||||||||
On Farm Trial
| Title | : | Assessment of productivity and profit of different cropping system through Resource conservation Technology (RCT) |
| Problem diagnose | : | Low system productivity and declining profitability in the production system. |
| Technology Assessed | : | Introduction of Pulse crop in new cropping system and RCT |
| Technology Options | : | Farmers’ Practice: Rice-wheat-jute (Traditional Method)
Tech. Opt. I: Rice(short duration)-wheat-jute (by Zero Tillage method) Tech. Opt. II: Rice(short duration)-wheat-Mung (by Zero Tillage method) Tech. Opt. III: Rice(short duration)-maize ( by Zero Tillage method) |
| Source of Technology | : | SAU (UBKV) |
| Final Recommendation for micro-level situation | : | From this OFT, it is revealed that the Technology Option:2 Rice(short duration)-wheat-Mung (by Zero Tillage method) though yielded less than Tech. Opytion:1 Rice(short duration)-wheat-jute (by Zero Tillage method) and at par to the Tech. Option: 3 Rice(short duration)-maize ( by Zero Tillage method), but the treatment derived highest B:C ration of 2.59 as compared to the others. It is also to include pulses for sustainability whereas, Technology Option: 3 is exhaustive one. So, It is recommended that Technology Option: 2 i.e. Rice (short duration)-wheat-Mung (by Zero Tillage method) is recommended for the micro level situation as new cropping system with inclusion of Pulse crop by Resource Conservation Technology. |
| Constrains identified and feedback | : | Availability of short duration rice variety and Zero Till Drill at the micro-level |
| Year of conduction and season | : | 2021-22, year round |
On Farm Trial
| Title | : | Assessment of production potentiality and profitability of different technologies for rice cultivation. |
| Problem diagnose | : | Low productivity and profitability |
| Technology Assessed | : | Rice cultivation through Mechanical Rice Transplanter |
| Technology Options | : | Farmers’ Practice: Traditional method of Transplanting
Technology Option 1: Rice by Zero Till Drill Technology option 2: Rice by Mechanical Rice Transplanter |
| Source of Technology | : | SAU (UBKV) and SRFSI |
| Final Recommendation for micro-level situation | : | From this OFT, it is revealed that the Technology Option: Rice by Mechanical Rice Transplanter gave highest yield, gross return and net return than all the other treatments. Tech. Opytion:2 Mechanical Rice Transplanter was at par to the Tech. Option: 1 (Rice by Zero Till Drill), it has highest B:C of 1.81 than Tech. Option:1(1.67). So. It is recommended that Technology Option : 2 i.e. Rice by Mechanical Rice Transplanter is recommended for the micro level situation as Resource Conservation Technology for sustainable higher production. |
| Constrains identified and feedback | : | Availability of Rice trans planter at the micro-level, lack of knowledge and awareness about cluster approach and benefits of MTR |
| Year of conduction and season | : | 2021, kharif |
On Farm Trial
| Title | : | Assessment of production potentiality and profitability of different technologies for rice cultivation. |
| Problem diagnose | : | Low productivity and profitability |
| Technology Assessed | : | Rice cultivation through Mechanical Rice Transplanter |
| Technology Options | : | Farmers’ Practice: Traditional method of Transplanting
Technology Option 1: Un-Puddled Transplanted Rice (UPTR) Technology option 2: Rice by Mechanical Rice Transplanter |
| Source of Technology | : | SAU (UBKV) and SRFSI |
| Final Recommendation for micro-level situation | : | From the result of the OFT, it is revealed that the Technology Option-II i.e. Rice by Mechanical Rice Transplanter gave highest yield, highest spikelet number and highest effective tiller/panicle, and is significantly superior to Farmers’ practice and Technology Option-I i.e. Un-Puddled Transplanted Rice. Though, it is at par with Tech. Option-I i.e. Un-Puddled Transplanted Rice but significant in respect to yield and spikelet number. Technology Option-II recorded higher gross return, net return and B:C Ratio (1.63) than Tech. Option-I i.e. Un-Puddled Transplanted Rice (1.47). So, it is recommended that Technology Option: II i.e. Rice by Mechanical Rice Transplanter is recommended for the micro level situation as Resource Conservation Technology for sustainable higher production and more profitability. |
| Constrains identified and feedback | : | Availability of Rice trans planter at the micro-level, lack of knowledge and awareness about cluster approach and benefits of MTR |
| Year of conduction and season | : | 2022, kharif |
On Farm Trial
| Title | : | Assessment of rice growth and productivity using bio-inoculant and bio-fertilizer |
| Problem diagnose | : | Low NUE, poor crop stand, productivity and profitability |
| Technology Assessed | : | Bio inoculant and bio-fertilizer in rice |
| Technology Options | : | Farmers’ Practice: Rice in traditional method (no bio-fertilizer and organic inputs)
Technology Option- I: Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) NPK @ 80:40:40 kg/ha Technology option -II: RDF + Bio fertilizer (Azospirillum and PSB) soil application Technology option -III: RDF + Bio fertilizer (Azospirillum and PSB) root dipping and foliar application at 30 DAT |
| Source of Technology | : | SAU(UBKV) |
| Final Recommendation for micro-level situation | : | From the result, it is observed that Tech. Option II (RDF + Bio fertilizer (Azospirillum and PSB) soil application) showed significant difference with Farmers’ Practice and TO-I (Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) NPK @ 80:40:40 kg/ha) in respect to tillers/hill and Effective Tillers/hill whereas significantly higher spikelet number/panicle was found with TO- III (RDF + Bio fertilizer (Azospirillum and PSB) root dipping and foliar application at 30 DAT). However, TO-II and TO-III are at par with each other not only in these parameters and no difference found in plant height and test weight. Significantly highest yield (35.40t/ha) found with Tech. Option II followed by 34.35 q/ha found with Tech. Option III, which are again found to be significant with other two treatments (i.e. Farmers’ practice and Tech. Option I). Though there is not much difference in BC ratio TO-II (1.63) and TO-III (1.54). So, TO-II is found to be superior in respect to yield and other parameters and recommended that Tech. Option II (RDF + Bio fertilizer (Azospirillum and PSB) soil application) may be adopted in the district of Malda to enhanced rice productivity and more profitability. |
| Constrains identified and feedback | : | Lack of knowledge and awareness about benefits and use bio-inoculants application |
| Year of conduction and season | : | 2022 and 2023, kharif |
On Farm Trial
| Title | : | Assessment of production and profitability of maize inter cropping with Natural Farming components (dynamic solution) under old alluvial conditions. | |||
| Problem diagnose | : | Low NUE, productivity and profitability | |||
| Technology Assessed | : | Inter cropping with use of Jeewamrita and Ghanajeewamrita | |||
| Technology Options | : |
|
|||
| Source of Technology | : | SAU(UBKV) & PDFSR | |||
| Final Recommendation for micro-level situation | : | TO-II (Maize and Green gram/pea (4:2) + Jeewamrita with irrigation water @ 200L/ha) + 10% Jeewamrita (Three times foliar spray) and TO-I (Maize and Green gram//pea (4:2) + Ghanajeewamrita (soil application @ 200kg/ha) + 5% Jeewamrita (Three times foliar spray) showed significant difference with Farmers’ Practice Maize cultivation with NPK (150:100:50) in respect to cob length, number of grains and yield. However, TO-II resulted highest number of grains (654.25) and highest yield/ha (104.65 q/ha) but at par with TO-I Maize and Green gram//pea (4:2) + Ghanajeewamrita (soil application @ 200 kg/ha) + 5% Jeewamrita (Three times foliar spray). Though there is not much difference in BC ratio among the treatments other than Farmers practice, highest BC was found with TO-II (2.86) followed by TO-I (2.77). So, TO-II (Maize and Green gram/pea (4:2) + Jeewamrita with irrigation water @ 200L/ha) + 10% Jeewamrita (Three times foliar spray) is found to be superior in respect to yield and other parameters and recommended for adoption in micro-level to enhance maize productivity and more profitability. | |||
| Constrains identified and feedback | : | High dose of Chemicals, Lack of knowledge and awareness about benefits Natural Farming. | |||
| Year of conduction and season | : | 2023 and 2024, rabi |
On Farm Trial
| Title | : | Assessment of rice growth and productivity with natural farming component Beejamrita and jeewamrita. |
| Problem diagnose | : | Nutrient locking and lower yield |
| Technology Assessed | : | Natural farming components beejamrita and jeewamrita as use of Bio-concoction may increase rice productivity profitability. |
| Technology Options | : | Farmers’ practice (FP) : Rice in traditional method with (RDF) NPK @ 80:40:40 kg/ha and (no bio-fertilizer and organic inputs)
Technology option (TO) -I: Beejamrita (seed treatment) + Ghanjeewamrita soil application @ 200kg/acre + jeewamrita @ 100lit/acre at 30 DAT Technology option (TO)-II: Beejamrita (seed treatment) + Ghanjeewamrita soil application @ 200kg/acre + jeewamrita @ 100lit/acre two times @ 30 and 50 DAT Technology option (TO)-III: Beejamrita (seed treatment) + Ghanjeewamrita soil application @ 200kg/acre + 10% jeewamrita spray at 20, 40 and 60 DAT |
| Source of Technology | : | PDFSR & NCONF |
| Final Recommendation for micro-level situation | : | TO-II (Beejamrita (seed treatment) + Ghanjeewamrita soil application @ 200kg/acre + jeewamrita @ 100lit/acre two times @ 30 and 50 DAT) showed significant difference with Farmers’ Practice and TO-I (Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) NPK @ 80:40:40 kg/ha) in respect to tillers/hill and Effective Tillers/hill whereas significantly higher spikelet number/panicle was found with TO-III (Beejamrita (seed treatment) + Ghanjeewamrita soil application @ 200kg/acre + 10% jeewamrita spray at 20, 40 and 60 DAT). TO-II (Seed treatment with Beejamrita) + Ghanjeewamrita soil application @ 200kg/acre + jeewamrita @ 100lit/acre two times @ 30 and 50 DAT) is found to be superior in respect to yield and other parameters and recommended that TO-II may be adopted for micro-level farming situation in Malda district to enhanced rice productivity and more profitability.
|
| Constrains identified and feedback | : | Fragmented land holding and injudicious use of chemical fertilizer and also limited awareness about Natural farming components among the farmers to adopt NF components. |
| Year of conduction and season | : | 2024-25,Kharif |