Krishi Vigyan Kendra

Veterinary Science

OFT/01/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of improved poultry breeds suitable for backyard poultry

2. Nature of intervention : OFT-Kharif- 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Backyard Poultry

4. Objective : To provide farmers with dual purpose poultry breed in backyards, which in turn helps to increase income to farmers

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. No. of farmers : 5 5

6 - 13

S. no	Farmers name		Village/Mandal		Name of the Tech.		Avg. body weight (gm.)
							Ghagus (weeks)						Vanashree (weeks)					Desi/ ND
							4	8	12		16	20	4	8	12	16	20	4	8	12	16	20
1	M. Gopal		Chennapuram		T1:Ghagus T2:Vanashree T3: Desi/ ND		190	271	378		620	1024	186	284	395	630	1186	160	235	310	578	890
2	M. Dodappa		Chennapuram				194	284	401		654	1036	190	292	410	635	1184	154	234	320	575	885
3	K. Bajari		Venkatapuram				189	276	410		640	1048	188	286	405	630	1190	158	224	315	560	870
4	E. Venkataswami		Kotekal				187	276	386		625	1048	190	294	410	645	1185	162	239	305	570	860
5	K. Raju		Banavasi				196	279	385		630	1024	189	286	400	628	1180	168	240	310	578	900
Average							191	277	388		636	1036	188	287	408	633	1184	158	234	310	560	885
Treatment		Mortality (%)		Age at first lay (days)		No.of eggs	Total expenditure (Rs.)			Gross Returns (Rs.)			Net Returns (Rs.)		Benefit Cost Ratio (B: C)
T1 (Ghagus)		1.1		168		103	390			950			560		1:2.4
T2 (Vanashree)		1.8		168		162	450			1310			890		1:3.11
T3 (Desi/ ND)		3.1		190		190	150			310			160		1:2

14. Farmers reaction :Satisfactory due to more egg production and increased body weight.

15. Constraints : --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : --

2. To the extension personnel:Popularize the rearing of the ghagus and vanashree birds in the backyard.

17. Whether continued during : continued to 2023-24

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks :--

OFT/02/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology : Assessing the effect of supplementation of Moringa leaf meal in weaned lambs

2. Nature of intervention : OFT-Kharif- 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Sheep extensive rearing system

4. Objective : To decrease the post weaning stress and increase body weight in the post-weaning phase in lambs

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. No. of farmers : 5 5

6 - 13

S. no	Farmers name		Village/Mandal		Name of the Tech.	Avg. body weight (Kg.)
						T1 (days)								T2 (days)					FP (days)
						0		20	40		80	120		0	20	40	80	120	0	20	40	80	120
1	K Yeeranna		Mantralayam		T1:Concentrate feed with 15% moringa leaf meal, T2: 18% Concentrate feed T3: FP	7.0		10.3	15.7		20.3	24.2		7.2	9.2	12.6	18.4	21.4	7.2	8.4	11.4	13.9	16.6
2	H Shyam kumar		Chennapuram			7.1		11.1	16.3		21.4	24.7		7.3	9.3	12.4	18.1	20.9	7.3	8.1	11.2	13.6	16.34
3	E Mahesh		Venkatapuram			7.5		11.8	15.9		20.3	23.9		6.8	9.1	11.8	18.3	20.3	6.8	8.0	11.4	14.1	16.5
4	D Mangamma		Banavasi			6.9		11.4	14.8		19.6	24.4		7.0	9.3	11.7	18.4	20.2	6.9	7.9	10.8	13.6	16.7
5	M Ramanji		Kotekal			7.2		10.8	15.2		20.2	25.5		7.0	9.1	11.8	18.4	20.5	7.1	8.4	11.8	13.9	16.3
Average						7.2		11.1	15.6		20.5	24.5		7.1	9.2	12.1	18.3	20.1	6.9	8.2	11.2	13.9	16.5
Treatment		Mortality (%)		Total expenditure (Rs.)			Gross Returns (Rs.)			Net Returns (Rs.)			Benefit Cost Ratio (B:C)
T1		11		1250			9800			8550			1:7.84
T2		18		1100			8200			7100			1:7.45
FP		27		1000			6600			5600			1:6.6

14. Farmers reaction :Satisfactory due to decreased mortality and increased body weight in weaned lambs.

15. Constraints : --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : --

2. To the extension personnel: To create awareness in the sheperds regarding of moringa concentrate feeding to the weaned lambs.

17. Whether continued during

2022-23 or not reasons: continued to 2023-24

18. Remarks: --

OFT/03/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology : Assessing the effect of bypass fat supplementation to fattening ram lambs

2. Nature of intervention : OFT-Rabi - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Sheep extensive rearing system

4. Objective : To increase the daily body weight gain in lambs

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. No. of farmers : 5 5

6 - 13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.		Avg. body weight (Kg.)
					T1 (days)						T2 (days)				FP (days)
					0		30	60		120	0	30	60	120	0	30	60	120
1	Venkatesh naidu	Mantralayam	T1:Concentrate feed along with bypass fat T2: Concentrate feed T3: Farmer practice		10.8		14.6	19.3		24.8	10.3	13.4	17.5	20.4	10.2	12.1	15.2	18.8
2	Anil kumar	Banavasi			11.2		15.2	20.1		25.3	9.8	12.8	17.0	20.6	9.9	11.9	15.4	18.1
3	Bala veerayya	Banavasi			11.4		15.1	20.3		25.8	10.6	12.9	17.5	21.0	10.4	12.1	15.6	18.9
4	Thayappa	Muguthi			10.6		14.6	19.5		24.3	9.9	12.7	17.3	20.1	10.1	11.7	15.1	18.1
5	Farooq	Kotekal			11.2		15.2	19.9		25.8	10.2	13.0	17.2	20.1	10.4	11.8	14.3	18.1
Average					11.1		15.0	19.5		25.5	10.2	13.0	17.4	20.2	10.0	11.8	14.9	18.1
Treatment		Mortality (%)		Total expenditure (Rs.)		Gross Returns (Rs.)			Net Returns (Rs.)			Benefit Cost Ratio (B:C)
T1		10 %		1250		10200			8950			1:8.1
T2		22 %		1100		8080			8080			1:7.3
FP		32 %		1000		6400			5400			1:6.4

14. Farmers reaction :Satisfactory due to decreased mortality and increased body weight.

15. Constraints : --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist: --

2. To the extension personnel: Create awareness in the farmers regarding of bypass fat feeding to the weaned lambs.

17. Whether continued during

2022-23 or not reasons : continued to 2023-24

18. Remarks : --

OFT/04/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology : Assessing the effect of probiotic yeast supplementation on milk yield in milch animals

2. Nature of intervention : OFT-Rabi - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Dairy farming

4. Objective : Improving the animal health condition thereby increasing milk yields using probiotics

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. No. of farmers : 5 5

6 - 13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Technology		Avg. body weight (Kg.)
					T1 (days)				T2 (days)		FP (days)
					Milk (L)		Fat (%)		Milk (L)	Fat (%)	Milk (L)	Fat (%)
1	Giddayya	Kotekal	T1:Probiotic yeast (15gms/day) + 2 % sodium bi carbonate T2: Probiotic yeast (15gms/day) T3:Farmer practice		720		4.4		690	4.0	648	3.1
2	J Vasanth kumar	Banavasi			711		4.3		685	3.9	650	3.0
3	V Ramudu	Venkatapuram			690		4.1		670	3.8	635	3.15
4	P Jaleel basha	Kosgi			722		4.2		692	4.0	620	3.20
5	B Rangappa	Chennapuram			695		3.9		690	3.78	618	3.15
Average					707.5		4.18		685	3.9	634.5	3.1
Treatment		Total expenditure (Rs.)		Gross Returns (Rs.)		Net Returns (Rs.)		Benefit Cost Ratio (B:C)
T1		700		2920		2220		1:4.17
T2		520		2020		1500		1:3.8
FP		-		-		-		-

14. Farmers reaction :Increased milk yield and fat% in animals supplemented with probiotics.

15. Constraints : --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : --

2. To the extension personnel: To popularise usage of probiotics to milch animals

17. Whether continued during

2022-23 or not reasons:continued to 2023-24

18. Remarks:: --

FLD/01/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology :Demonstration of double PgF₂α protocol to improve the breeding efficiency in milch buffaloes

2. Nature of intervention : FLD-Kharif - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Dairy farming

4. Objective : To increase the reproductive, productive performance and to decrease the calving interval

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : -- --

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Heat detected (%)		Conception (%)
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	T1	Farmer Practice	T1	Farmer Practice
1	G Krishna	Chinnatumbalam	T1: Double PgF2α Protocol T2: Farmer Practice	95.1	64	98	58
2	K Sriramulu	Chinnatumbalam		89.5	66	92	55
3	K. Narsanna	Banavasi		92.3	64	93	56
4	V. Raghuveera	Yemmiganur		93.5	60	90	50
5	Yellappa	Banavasi		94.5	61	90	52
6	E. Srinivasulu	Hamnumapuram		91.6	60	92	50
7	K. Satyanarayana	Errakota		93.4	60	93	52
8	K. Lakshmikanth	Errakota		94.4	61	89	50
9	Ashok	Merugudhoddi		95	68	87	52
10	Ramanjaneyulu	Banavasi		89	58	85	52
Average of Treatments				93.4	61.6	92.2	52.9

Treatments

Cost of expenditure

Gross returns

(Rs)

Net returns

(Rs)

Cost benefit ratio (C:B)

240

1600

1360

1:6.6

Farmers practice

160

14. Farmers reaction :Farmers were satisfied with the technology and it effectively increased the oestrous rate in dairy animals.

15. Constraints :--

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : --

2. To the extension personnel:Create awareness on usage of PgF₂α protocol in milch animals

17. Whether continued during :Continued to 2023-24

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks :--

FLD/02/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology :Demonstration of Influence of diet along with supplementation on the Incidence of mastitis (Clinical and/subclinical) incows or buffaloes.

2. Nature of intervention : FLD-Rabi - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Dairy farming

4. Objective : To diagnose and manage sub clinical mastitis in dairy cattle and minimize the economic loss to the farmer from occurrence of Sub

clinical mastitis

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : -- --

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Mastitis incidence (%)		Milk yield (L)
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	T1	Farmer Practice	T1	Farmer Practice
1	G Govindhu	Banavasi	T1:Mineral mixture (40 gms/day 4 weeks before calving), Vit-A and Vit-E+ selenium tonic (4 weeks before calving) T2: FP	3.0	92	13	45
2	KKrishnayya	Hamnumapuram		2.0	88	15	48
3	K. V. Naidu	Errakota		2.5	85	17	47
4	V. Raghavendra	Errakota		1.5	90	12.5	44
5	P. Yeeranna	Merugudhoddi		1.5	84	16	43
6	E. Srinivasulu	Banavasi		2	90	18	42
7	M. Kiran kumar	Chinnatumbalam		2	88	16	41
8	S. Lakshmanna	Banavasi		2.5	90	19	40.5
9	P.Yesu	Yemmiganur		1.5	88	15	47
10	Ramanjaneyulu	Banavasi		2.0	92	16.5	41
Average of Treatments				2.0	88.0	15.5	44.3

Treatments

Cost of expenditure

Gross returns

(Rs)

Net returns

(Rs)

Cost benefit ratio (C:B)

1200

3520

2320

1:2.9

Farmers practice

1760

14. Farmers reaction :Farmers were satisfied with the technology and effectively decreased the mastitis percent in milch animals.

15. Constraints :--

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist: --

2. To the extension personnel:Create awareness on usage of vit-A,vit-E and selenium injection before one month of parturition.

17. Whether continued during: Continued to 2023-24

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks :--

FLD/03/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology :Demonstration of mixed fodder production (cereal + Legume)

2. Nature of intervention : FLD-Kharif - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Fodder

4. Objective : Intercropping of legume fodders with non-legume fodders improves the nutritional value of the fodder produced.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : -- --

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –14

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Yield (t/ha)		Milk yield (L) for 30 days
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	T1 (6-7 cuts/year)	Farmer Practice (single cut/year)	T1	Farmer Practice
1	M. Sundaramma	Masumandoddi	T1: COFS 29 + Hedge lucerne T2: FP	210.5	45.5	90.5	63.5
2	K.VenkataSubbamma	Errakota		212.5	50.6	91.6	62.4
3	K.Chinnodu	Errakota		220.1	51.6	98.5	61.4
4	B.Uthayya	Masumandoddi		225.2	49.6	93.4	63.1
5	M.Subbarayudu	Banavasi		221.5	48.5	91.5	60.4
6	D.Obuleshu	Kotekal		220.5	49.5	92.5	62.1
7	D.Balaraju	Venkatagiri		215.4	54.8	90.1	63.1
8	M.Obuleshu	Banavasi		215.8	52.7	92.1	61.2
9	S.Sekhar	Yemmiganur		228.4	52.4	90.1	66.5
10	Nagamani	Banavasi		228.5	52.1	92.1	61.5
Average of Treatments				219.2	50.73	92.24	62.52

Treatments

Cost of expenditure

Gross returns

(Rs)

Net returns

(Rs)

Cost benefit ratio (C: B)

1600

3700

2100

1:2.32

Farmers practice

1200

2500

1300

1:1.9

14. Farmers reaction :Farmers were satisfied with the technology and effectively increased fodder yield and milk yield in milch animals.

15. Constraints :--

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist: --

2. To the extension personnel:To promote mixed fodder cultivation.

17. Whether continued during: Continued to 2023-24

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks :Palatability is good, fodder yields are optimum under normal irrigation conditions.

FLD/04/AH/ KVK/Banavasi/2022-23

1. Name of the technology :Demonstration of milk replacer for pre-waned lambs

2. Nature of intervention : FLD-Rabi - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Sheep extensive rearing system

4. Objective : Milk replacer provides adequate nutrients for growing lambs

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : -- --

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Mortality (%)		Weight gain (Kg)
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	T1	Farmer Practice	T1	Farmer Practice
1	T. Sivamma	Kotekal	T1: Milk replacer T2: FP	8.5	21.5	17.5	11.2
2	A. Sumalatha	Venkatagiri		6.1	20.2	18.1	10.2
3	G. Ramalakshamma	Banavasi		7.2	21.6	19.5	10.5
4	C. Parvathi	Yemmiganur		6.8	21.3	18.5	11.3
5	C. Narayana	Banavasi		7.1	21.5	18.5	10.4
6	V. Mallikarjuna	Masumandoddi		8.1	24.6	18.2	12.6
7	G. Rama Devi	Errakota		7.5	23.4	17.9	10.8
8	G. Mohan	Errakota		7.5	22.4	17.6	9.5
9	K. Bala Guravaih	Masumandoddi		6.5	21.3	17.5	9.8
10	G. Prathap	Banavasi		6.1	20.1	18.6	10.2
Average of Treatments				7.14	21.88	18.19	10.6

Treatments

Cost of expenditure

Gross returns

(Rs)

Net returns

(Rs)

Cost benefit ratio (C:B)

1250

5430

4680

1:4.3

Farmers practice

3210

14. Farmers reaction:The farmers said that they the pre weaned feed with milk replacer gained weight and showed low mortality and were satisfied with the technology.

15. Constraints :--

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist: --

2. To the extension personnel: To popularize the usage of milk replacer in lambs.

17. Whether continued during: Continued to 2023-24

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks : --

Home Science

1.ON FARM TRAIL

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of Coating Formulations to improve the Shelf life of Fruits and Vegetables

2. Nature of intervention : OFT- Kharif/ Rabi 2022-23

3. Crop & Farming Situation: Fruits and Vegetables

4. Purpose : To increase the shelf life

5. Number : Approved Achieved

1. Area : -- --

2. No. of farmers :5 5

6 –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Duration (Days)
				Demo	Farmer practice
1	Siridha. D	Bodebanda	Coating Formulations to improve the Shelf life	7	7
2	Shyamala.H	Kotekal
3	Veeresh.P	Kotekal
4	Diwakar	Venkatapuram
5	Bhavitha	Nandavaram

Fruits/ vegetables	T1 (CONC)				T2 (DILUTED with water )			T3 (F.P)
Fruits/ vegetables	Qty (no.)	Shelf life	Loss (%)	Colour	Shelf life	Loss (%)	Colour	Shelf life	Loss (%)	Colour
Brinjal	5	5	25	No Change	4	25	No Change	3	75	Change
Beans	20	4	35	No Change	3	37.5	No Change	2	55	Change
Ridge guard	4 .	4	25	No Change	4	25	No Change	2	50	Change

Fruits/ vegetables	T1 (CONC)				T2 (DILUTED with water)			T3 (F.P)
Fruits/ vegetables	Qty (no.)	Shelf life	Loss (%)	Colour	Shelf life	Loss (%)	Colour	Shelf life	Loss (%)	Colour
Tomato	4	5	25	No Change	7	25	No Change	2	75	Change
Bhendi	20	5	30	No Change	3	40	No Change	3	60	Change

There is an increase in shelf life of vegetables with 40 to 60 %

No change in taste after cooking

14. Farmers reaction : Farmers expressed their willingness to adopt the technology

15. Constraints : Nil

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist:

2. To the extension personnel:

17. Whether continued during : Discontinued as per the instructions given at Action Plan Review Meeting 2023-24

2023-24 or not reasons

18. Remarks :

2.ON FARM TRAIL

1. Name of the technology : Assessing the performance of different hand weeder for weeding as

drudgery reducing equipments

2. Nature of intervention : OFT- Kharif/ Rabi 2022-23

3. Crop & Farming Situation : Vegetable crops

4. Purpose : To reduce drudgery during weeding

To assess the time taken for harvesting the crop by traditional method and

improved method

5. Number : Approved Achieved

1. Area : 5 ha 5 ha

2. No. of farmers : 5 5

6 –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Duration (Days)
				Demo	Farmer practice
1	J.P.Swamy	Kotekal	CRIDA and CRIJAF wheel hoe	90 days	90 days
2	B. Chinnaeranna	Banavasi
3	E.Yogendra	Mekadona
4	Narayana.M	Chennapuram
5	P.Keshamma	Thimmapuram

Parameters	T1	T2	T3
Work done area	0.4 ha	0.4 ha	0.4ha
Labour required	6	8	14
Labour wages	Rs.900 per ha @ 150/labour	Rs.1200 per ha @ 150/labour	Rs.2100 per ha @ 150/labour
Time taken for weeding	4 hr	6 hr	8hr
Drudgery index Score	35% (Minimum)	42% (Minimum)	68% (Moderate)

It was observed that drudgery was reduced to minimum with 35% when compare to farmers practice i.e. 68 % (Moderate)

When compare to farmers practice, weeding with CRIDA wheel hoe has saved an amount of Rs. 1200/- per acre

Farm Women able to work easily with wheel hoe and accepted the technology

14. Farmers reaction :bhendi crop without causing any health problems

15. Constraints : NIL

16. Feed back : Farm women accepted the technology as it is user friendly and drudgery was

reduced with the use of wheel hoe when compare to farmers practice.

1. To the Scientist :

2. To the extension personnel:

17. Whether continued during : Discontinued as per the instructions given at Action Plan Review Meeting 2023-24

2023-24 or not reasons

18. Remarks :

1.FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology :Demonstration of Nutri kitchen garden

2. Nature of intervention : FLD- Kharif/ Rabi 2022-23

3. Crop & Farming Situation: Vegetable crops

4. Purpose : To demonstrate the role of Nutrition garden in farmer’s house holds

Maintaining the nutritional adequacy of adopted farm family

5. Number : Approved Achieved

1. Area : 5 cents 5cents

2. No. of farmers :10 10

6 –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Duration (Days)
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Demo	Farmer practice
1	N.Maheshwari	Mugathi	Nutri kitchen garden kits	90 days	90 days
2	P.Keshamma	Thimmapuram
3	K.Umamaheswari	Adoni
4	Chandrakala	Adini
5	Sridevi	Gajuladenne
6	Madamma	Gajuladenne
7	Suvarnamma	Mugathi
8	Bhavitha	Nandavaram
9	J.P.Swamy	Kotekal
10	Dastagiri	Bichigeri

Particulars

Expenditure incurred(Rs)

Vegetable Gross yield (Kg)

Household consumption

(4 no.) in Kg

Total

(Rs)

Amount saved(Rs)

Kg-Rs 15 (Appox)

Additional Income generated (Rs)

1 Month

150

900

575

375

6 Months

360

210

5400

3150

2250

40 per cent increase in consumption of vegetables was observed with the nutri kitchen garden

Saved and amount of Rs.375 /- with sales of vegetables after consumption

14. Farmers reaction : Establishment of a nutri-kitchen garden has reduced nutritional deficiencies and also providing a source of Supplementary income

15. Constraints:

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist:

2. To the extension personnel:

17. Whether continued during

2019-20 or not reasons : Continued

18. Remarks :

2.Front line Demonstrations

1. Name of the technology : Demonstration on value addition to tomato

2. Nature of intervention : FLD -Kharif-2023-24

3. Crop & Farming Situation : Tomatoes

4. Purpose : Value addition to tomato

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : -- --

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Crop	Name of the Tech.
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Crop	Name of the Tech.
1.	Sravani	Venkatapuram	Tomato	Tomato value addition
2.	Adilakshmi	Venkatapuram
3.	Vasavi	Kurnool
4.	N. Sekhar	Kurnool
5.	Md. Althaf	Kurnool
6.	Diwakar	Venkatapuram
7.	HB.Goverdhanreddy	Pedda Harivanam
8.	K.Gopi	Pedda Harivanam
9.	U.Venkatesh	Kadivella
10.	G.Suresh	Chilakadona

Previous results:

1. Total Antioxidants

S.No	Name of the test	Results(mg/100g)
1.	Sun dried	0.181
2.	Dehydrator	0.192

2. Lycopene content

S.No	Name of the test	Results (mg/100g)
1.	Sun dried	17.72
2.	Dehydrator	17.84

3.Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)

S.No	Name of the test	Results (mg/100g)
1.	Sun dried	0.0064
2.	Dehydrator	0.0077

It was observed that total antioxidants, lycopene and ascorbic acid content was found to be high in dehydrated dried powder compare to the sun dried powder.These observations may serve as guidance on selection of dehydrated tomato powder that can be consumed to meet the daily requirements.

Demonstrations on value-added products with tomato like tomato jam, toffee, Candies and ketchup were given to farmers, farm women, and rural youth.

14. Farmers reaction :Accepted the technology and interested to take up as an entrepreneur activity

15. Constraints :

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :

2. To the extension personnel:

17. Whether continued during

2023-24 not reasons : Continued under OFT on Assessment of capacity of drying equipment for fruits & vegetables 2023-24

18. Remarks :

3. Front line Demonstrations

1. Name of the technology : Demonstration on value addition to pulses

2. Nature of intervention : FLD-2023-24

3. Crop & Farming Situation : Red gram

4. Purpose : Value addition

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Crop	Name of the technology
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Crop	Name of the technology
1	E.Rangaswamy	Arekal	Red gram	Dall mill
2	C. Ravi kumar	Arekal
3	J.Parameshwara swamy	Arekal
4	A.Sharamma	Arekal
5	S.hanthi bai	Bichegeri
6	B.Jakkapa	Bichegeri
7	Basavaraju	Chennapuram
8	Diwakar	Venkatapuram
9	S.Gowsia begum	Yemmiganur
10	M.Satish Chandra	Kurnool

Previous results

Cost estimates of Red gram Dal for 1 Quintal

Redgram	Rs. 7000/-
Processing charges	Rs. 500/-
Labour charges	Rs. 500/-
Packing and labelling charges	Rs. 400/-
Total	Rs. 8400/-
Quantity of dal obtained after processing	80 kg
Cost of 1 kg dal	130/-
Total Income	Rs. 10,400/-

Value addition to red gram to toor dal has increased the farmer's income by Rs. 2000.

Converting surplus production to value added product has increased the income of the farmer

14. Farmers reaction : Expressed interest in the establishment of the dall mill under entrepreneurship development

15. Constraints :

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Converting surplus production to value added product has increased the income of the farmer

2. To the extension personnel:

17. Whether continued during

2019-20or not reasons : Discontinued and changed to method demonstration as per the instructions given at Action Plan Review Meeting 2023-24

18. Remarks : --

Plant Protection

1. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessing the performance of improved varieties of Redgram against Wilt and SMD.

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop & Farming Situation: Redgram, Rainfed – Black / Red Soils

4. Purpose : There is a need to assess the performance of recently released tolerant varieties i.e.LRG 105 and TRG 59 to Wilt and SMD

for the management of disease and improving the yield.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 5 5

S. no	Farmers name		Village/Mandal		Name of the Tech.		Duration (Days)			Yield (Kgs/Ha)			Per cent Disease incidence
							T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3	LRG 105		TRG 59		TS -3R
													Wilt	SMD	Wilt	SMD	Wilt	SMD
1	N Ananda Padmanabha		Bommireddipalli		T1: LRG105 T2: TRG-59 T3: LRG 41		170	170	135	1020	1050	1480	0	0	0	0	1.4	0
2	A. Venkataramana Chary		Yelkalacheruvu							980	1000	1410	0	0	0	0	0.8	0
3	E. Kiran Kumar Reddy		Maddikera							1000	1080	1450	0	0	0	0	0.4	0
4	B. Parndhama		Venkatagiri							1050	1180	1480	0	0	0	0	1.1	0
5	S. Krishna Naik		Pattikonda							930	1030	1400	0	0	0	0	0.9	0
Average										996 (-31)	1068 (-26)	1444	0	0	0	0	0.92	0
		Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha)		Gross returns (Rs./ha)		Net returns (Rs./ha)		Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
T1		37148		65736		28584		1.76:1
T2		37148		70488		33340		1.89:1
T3		35880		95885		60005		2.67:1

During 2022-2023, SMD incidence was not recorded in operational villages of KVK and Wilt incidence was also negligible in operational villages of KVK. Among varieties assessed for Wilt and SMD, LRG 105 and TRG 59 are found free from Wilt and Sterility Mosaic Disease, but in local variety (TS-3R) 0.9 % Wilt was recorded in initial stages of crop. Maximum yield was recorded in Local varieties (14.44 q/ha) than the LRG 105 (9.96 q/ha) and TRG 59 (10.68 q/ha) due to terminal moisture stress in long duration varieties.

7. Farmers reaction : No incidence of Wilt and SMD was recorded in LRG 105 and TRG 59. Farmers were satisfied with the yield of TRG 59 and requested for short duration Wilt and SMD Tolerant varieties.

8. Constraints :

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : required short duration Wilt and SMD Tolerant varieties

2. To the extension personnel :

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued, OFT converted in to FLD.

11. Remarks : --

2. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of different technology options for the management of Pink Boll Worm in Bt. Cotton.

2. Nature of intervention : OFT-Kharif- 2021

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Cotton, Irrigated /Rainfed – Red / Black Soils

4. Purpose : The main objective of the intervention is to assess the Specialized Pheromone Lure Application Technology for

the management of Pink Boll Worm.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. No. of farmers : 5 5

6. Irrigated Condition

S. no	Farmers name			Village / Mandal	Name of the Tech.		% Rosette flower			Yield (Kgs/Ha)
S. no	Farmers name			Village / Mandal	Name of the Tech.		T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1	K. Sriramulu			Kalugotla	T1:CREMIT +ANGRAU RP. T2:ANGRAU recommended practice. T3:Farmers practice		4.9	9.9	19.8	3750	3270	3090
2	M. Basvaraju			Kotekal			5.7	10.2	18.2	3890	3140	3070
3	Ch. Madhusudhan			Palakalu			5.0	13.3	16.7	3560	3080	2990
Average							5.2 (-71.4)	11.1 (-39)	18.2	3730	3160	3050
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)	Gross returns (Rs//ha)			Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
T1		95333	261333			142666	2.74:1
T2		89633	221433			131800	2.47:1
T3		90613	213500			122887	2.35:1

S. no	Farmers name		Village / Mandal		Name of the Tech.		% Rosette flower			Yield (Kgs/Ha)

							T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1	K. Naganna		Chennapuram		T1: CREMIT +ANGRAU RP. T2: ANGRAU recommended practice. T3:Farmers practice		18.9	39.1	51.8	1450	1240	1030
2	B. Chandra		Betinahle				20.0	31.7	49.1	1750	1520	1310
Average							19.45 (-61.4)	35.4 (-29.8)	50.4	1600 (36.8)	1380 (17.9)	1170
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)		Gross returns (Rs//ha)		Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)
T1		68500		112000		43500	1.63:1
T2		59500		96600		37100	1.62:1
T3		61440		81900		20460	1.33:1

Rainfed

Condition

Seasonal incidence of PBW in Bt Cotton in adopted villages of KVK, Banavasi

Standard Week	Month	Moth catches per trap (Irrigated)	Moth catches per trap (Rainfed)
27-31	July	0.8	0
32-36	August	5.64	10.6
37-40	September	23.4	30.1
41-44	October	30.8	42.1
45-49	November	66.1	81.4
50-53	December	Harvested	104.2

During 2022-2023, the incidence of PBW was recorded in 04^th week of July and later incidence reached peak in the month of December under irrigated condition. In rainfed condition, Incidence of PBW was recorded in 02^nd week of August and later incidence reached peak in the month of December. Among three technologies assessed CREMIT along with ANGRAU Recommended practice was found effective in reducing PBW damage to 71 and 61 per cent in irrigated and rainfed conditions than the farmer practice. CREMIT along with ANGRAU Recommended practice recorded 23.2 and 36.8 per cent increased yields in irrigated and rainfed conditions respectively than the farmer practice.

7. Farmers reaction :: Farmers realized the importance of pheromone traps for monitoring and mass trapping of Pink Boll Worm adults and also realized the importance of IPM practice along with CREMIT PBW paste.

8. Constraints :

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : --

2. To the extension personnel : Popularization of technology by imparting demonstrations and trainings.

10. Whether continued during

2023-274 or not reasons : Concluded

18. Remarks : --

3. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of Organic farming in Groundnut.

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Groundnut, Rainfed/Irrigated – Black / Red Soils

4. Purpose : Excessive and indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides causing environmental problems and

increased cost of cultivation. So, to assess the use of Organic sources like FYM, Vermicompost, Neem cake,

Botanicals, Bio-pesticides and cultural practices for Pest management and to reduce cost of cultivation.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 5 4

6. Rainfed Condition: Kadiri Lepakshi

Calculated with price of Rs.5000/q

S. no	Farmers name		Village / Mandal		Name of the Tech.		% Hopper		Yield (Kgs/Ha)
							T1	T2	T1	T2
1	S. Diwakar		Venkatapuram		T1:Recommended Practice (ANGRAU). T2:Farmers practice		4.1	8.6	1200	1310
2	N. Ramu Naik		Pattikonda				3.7	3.1	1150	1290
Average							3.9 (-33.3)	5.8	1175 (-9.6)	1300
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)		Gross returns (Rs//ha)		Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)
T1		54044		58750		4706	1.08:1
T2		59938		65000		5063	1.08:1

Irrigated condition: TCGS 1694

S. no	Farmers name		Village / Mandal		Name of the Tech.		% Hopper		Yield (Kgs/Ha)

							T1	T2	T1	T2
1	K. Govindarajulu		Hanumapuram		T1:Recommended Practice (ANGRAU). T2:Farmers practice		8.2	14.6	3350	3680
2	B. Balaraju		Venkatapuram				9.1	15.4	3520	3750
Average							8.6 (-42.6)	15	3440 (-7.5)	3720
		Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)		Gross returns (Rs//ha)		Net returns (Rs /ha)	Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)
T1		58544		223275		164731	3.81:1
T2		61938		241475		179538	3.89:1

Calculated with price of Rs.6500/q

Two drought and Pest tolerant varieties were assessed for suitability in Organic farming practice in rainfed and irrigated conditions.

Under rainfed condition (Kadiri Lepakshi), Recommended practice has recorded 9.6 % reduction in yield (13.0 q/ha.) than farmer practice (11.75 q/ha). Under irrigated condition (TCGS 1694), Recommended practice has recorded 7.5 % reduction in yield (37.2 q/ha.) than farmer practice (34.4 q/ha).

7. Farmers reaction : Farmers are not getting good remunerative prices for their organic produce, requested for organic certification

8. Constraints : Farmers are not getting good remunerative prices for their organic produce, requested for organic certification

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :

2. To the extension personnel :

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued.

11. Remarks:: --

4. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of different technology options for the Management of Black Thrips, T.parvispinus in Chilli.

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Chilli, Irrigated / Rainfed – Black / Red Soils

4. Purpose : There is a need to assess the performance of different technology options for the Management of Black Thrips,

T.parvispinus in Chilli. As Black Thrips is a new invasive insect pest recorded during October, 2021 in Chilli crop in western

part of Kurnool District, by which drastic reduction in yields were recorded.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 5 5

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name			Village/Mandal		Name of the Tech.	No of Thrips per flower		Yield (Kgs/Ha)
							T1	T2	T1	T2

1	M. Basvaraju			Kotekal		T1: Recommended Pratice (DR YSRHU) T2: Farmer Practice			42.5	39.1
2	M. Narayana			Chennapuram					43.1	36.8
3	Madhusudhan			Polekalu					40.5	37.5
4	Madanmohan Reddy			Yemmiganur					41.8	39.0
5	Satyanarayana Reddy			Kadimetla					40.0	36.8
Average							13.3 (63.9)	21.8	41.58 (9.8)	37.84
		Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha)	Gross returns (Rs./ha)		Net returns (Rs./ha)		BCR
T1		234330	1247400		1013070		5.32:1
T2		265176	1135200		870024		4.28:1

Incidence of Western Black Thrips, T.parvispinus in Chilli

Standard Week	Month	Thrips population per flower
37-40	September	2.4
41-44	October	8.6
45-49	November	12.4
50-53	December	15.2
01-04	January	7.2
05-09	February	0.8

Incidence of Black Thripswas recorded in the month of September and reached peak in the month of December, later declined trend was recorded. No insecticide and Biopesticide were found effective during the peak activity of Thrips, only regular spraying of novel insecticides reduced the intensity. Thrips population. 9.8 % increase in yield was recorded in recommended practice (41.58 q/ha) than farmer practice (37.84 q/ha). 63.9 per cent reduction damage was recorded in recommended practice than farmer practice. Due to infestation Black Thrips and Fruit Rot in Chilli 25 per cent reduction in yield was recorded

14. Farmers reaction :

15. Constraints : --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :

2. To the extension personnel :

17. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued.

18. Remarks:: --

1. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology : Demonstration on Biointensive Pest Management in Rice

2. Nature of intervention : FLD - Kharif, 2021

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Rice, Irrigated - Black soils

4. Purpose : The main objective of the intervention is to assess the Bio-Intensive Pest Management in Rice.

5. Number : Approved Achieved

1. Area : 4 ha 4 ha

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6 –13

RNR 15048

S. no

Farmers name

Village/Mandal

Name of the Tech.

Duration (Days)

Pest incidence (%)

Demo

Farmer practice

Blast

BPH

S. Diwakar

Venkatapuram

BIPM in Rice

120 Days

K. Eranna

Banavasi

K. Krishna

Kolamanpeta

K. Satyanarayana

Kadimetla

K. Lakshmikanth Reddy

Kadimetla

Govardhan Reddy

Kirawadi

V. Chandra Goud

Nandavaram

K. Srinivasulu

Banavasi

D. Veerasena Reddy

Yemmiganur

G. Dhasrath Reddy

Bapuram

Average

0.8

2.4

Treatments

Yield (kg/ha)

Increase in Yield over control (%)

Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)

Gross returns

(Rs/ha)

Net returns (Rs/ha)

Benefit cost Ratio

T1 (Demo Plot)

6125

-12.5 % reduction in yield

48940

245000

196060

4.0:1

T2 (Farmers practice)

7000

50860

175000

124140

2.4:1

NDLR 7

S. no

Farmers name

Village/Mandal

Name of the Tech.

Duration (Days)

Pest incidence (%)

Demo

Farmer practice

Blast

BPH

S. Diwakar

Venkatapuram

BIPM in Rice

140 Days

K. Eranna

Banavasi

K. Krishna

Kolamanpeta

K. Satyanarayana

Kadimetla

K. Lakshmikanth Reddy

Kadimetla

Govardhan Reddy

Kirawadi

V. Chandra Goud

Nandavaram

K. Srinivasulu

Banavasi

D. Veerasena Reddy

Yemmiganur

G. Dhasrath Reddy

Bapuram

Average

2.1

4.06

8.9

10.8

Treatments

Yield (kg/ha)

Increase in Yield over control (%)

Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)

Gross returns

(Rs/ha)

Net returns (Rs/ha)

Benefit cost Ratio

T1 (Demo Plot)

5600

-21.9 % reduction in yield

50240

224000

173760

3.45:1

T2 (Farmers practice)

7175

59890

208075

148185

2.47:1

BPT 5204

S. no

Farmers name

Village/Mandal

Name of the Tech.

Duration (Days)

Pest incidence (%)

Demo

Farmer practice

Demo

Farmer practice

Blast

BPH

Blast

BPH

S. Diwakar

Venkatapuram

BIPM in Rice

K. Eranna

Banavasi

K. Krishna

Kolamanpeta

K. Satyanarayana

Kadimetla

K. Lakshmikanth Reddy

Kadimetla

Govardhan Reddy

Kirawadi

V. Chandra Goud

Nandavaram

K. Srinivasulu

Banavasi

D. Veerasena Reddy

Yemmiganur

G. Dhasrath Reddy

Bapuram

Average

8.3

15.6

12.6

17.5

Treatments

Yield (kg/ha)

Increase in Yield over control(%)

Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)

Gross returns

(Rs/ha)

Net returns (Rs/ha)

Benefit cost Ratio

T1 (Demo Plot)

5075

19.8 % reduction in yield

52500

203000

150500

2.86:1

T2 (Farmers practice)

6825

61860

197925

136065

2.19:1

Recommended practice has recorded 12.5% reduction in yield (61.25 q/ha.) than farmer practice (70.0 q/ha) in RNR 15048. Same trend was recorded in NDLR 7, 21.9% reduction in yield in recommended practice (56 q/ha) in comparison to farmer practice (71.75q/ha) and in BPT 5204, 25.6% reduction in yield in recommended practice (50.75 q/ha) in comparison to farmer practice (68.25/ha). RNR 15048 followed by NDLR 7 were found suitable for organic farming.

14. Farmers reaction :: Farmers were satisfied with the technology, as there produce were sold at higher remunerative price .

15. Constraints :: -

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: Management of BPH and Blast with organic products may be developed.

2. To the extension personnel :: --

17. Whether continued during :: Concluded.

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks :: --

2. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology : Demonstration on Integrated Pest Management of Pin Worm in Tomato.

2. Nature of intervention : FLD- Rabi 2021-22

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Tomato, Irrigated – Red Soils

4. Purpose : The main objective of the intervention is to evaluate and demonstrate the recommended practice of IIHR,

Bengaluru for the management of Pin Worm in Tomato.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : 4 ha 4 ha

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Duration (Days)		Yield (t/ha)		Fruit Damage
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Demo	Farmer Practice	Demo	Farmer Practice	Demo	Farmer Practice
1	S. Diwakar	Venkatapuram	T1: Recommended practice (IIHR, Bengaluru) T2: Farmer Practice	150	150	58.46	54.80
2	A. Bapi Raju	Kolmanpet				58.80	56.97
3	K. Maheswar Reddy	Venkatapuram				58.98	57.58
4	K. Narashimulu	Ontaldina				59.70	55.00
5	Ram Chander	Kulumala				60.90	54.90
6	Lakshmi Devi	Kulumala				56.40	54.80
7	K. Veerash	Neeraduppala				58.94	56.00
8	B. Dastagiri	Ralladoddi				58.60	56.00
9	ChinnaGolari	Puttapasam				58.88	57.95
10	K. Srinivasulu	Alurdinne				58.65	57.00
Average						58.83	56.10	12.3	15.8

Treatments

Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha)

Gross returns

(Rs/ha)

Net returns

(Rs/ha)

Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)

Recommended Practice (Demo.)

138960

235320

96360

1.69:1

Farmers practice

159860

224400

64540

1.40:1

Seasonal incidence of Pin Worm in Tomato.

Standard Week	Month	Thrips population per flower
41-44	October	0
45-49	November	4.0
50-53	December	15.8
01-04	January	22.0
05-06	February	4.1

Incidence of Pin Worm was recorded in the month of November and reached peak in the month of January, later declined trend was recorded. In recommended practice (12.3) 22.1 % reduction of Pin worm damage was recorded than the farmer practice (15.8). Recommended

practice has recorded 4.8 % increase in yield (58.83 t/ha) than farmer practice (56.10 t/ha).

14. Farmers reaction : Farmers were satisfied with the technology and effectively managed the new invasive pest.

15. Constraints ::--

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel: Create awareness on IPM practices Pin worm Management

17. Whether continued during ::Concluded.

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks ::--

3. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology : Demonstration on Integrated Pest Management in Onion.

2. Nature of intervention : FLD- Kharif 2022-23

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Onion, Irrigated – Black / Red soils

4. Purpose : The main objective of the intervention is to evaluate and demonstrate the recommended practice of DR YSRHU for the

management of Pest in Onion.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : 4 ha 4 ha

2. No. of farmers : 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Duration (Days)		Yield (q/ha)
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Demo	Farmer Practice	Demo	Farmer Practice
1	A. Ramalinga	Bodibanda	T1: Recommended practice (IIHR, Bengaluru) T2: Farmer Practice	150	150	198.1	196.8
2	Bojjanna	Gonegandla				203.0	198.4
3	B. Veerash	Veldurthi				199.8	196.4
4	K. Nagireddy	Nandavaram				201.8	200.0
5	M. Narayana	Chennapuram				202.8	199.4
6	M. Peddaiah	Chennapuram				205.4	195.9
7	Kaza Hussain	Gonegandla				202.8	198.0
8	Khaza	Gonegandla				201.5	192.4
9	G Raju	Venkatagiri				205.4	200.0
10	B. Veranna	Gonegandla				204.9	197.8
Average Treatments						202.5	197.5

Treatments

% Damage

Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha)

Gross returns

(Rs/ha)

Net returns

(Rs/ha)

Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)

Recommended Practice (Demo.)

3.3

122350

137700

15350

1.1:1

Farmers practice

5.4

131642

134300

15342

1.0:1

In recommended practice (3.3) 63.6 % reduction of bulb rot was recorded than farmer practice (5.4). Recommended practice has recorded 2.44 %

increase in yield (202.5 q/ha) than farmer practice (197.5 q/ha).

15. Constraints ::--

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel: Create awareness on IPM practices in Onion.

17. Whether continued during ::Disontinued

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks ::--

4. FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology : Demonstration on Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Chickpea.

2. Nature of intervention : FLD- Rabi 2022-23

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Chickpea, Rainfed – Black Soils.

4. Purpose : The main objective of the intervention is to evaluate and demonstrate the recommended practice of ANGRAU for

the management of Pest in Chickpea.

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

1. Area : 4 ha 4 ha

2. No. of farmers :: 10 10

6. –13

S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Duration (Days)		Yield (q./ha)
S. no	Farmers name	Village/Mandal	Name of the Tech.	Demo	Farmer Practice	Demo	Farmer Practice
1	P. Prasad	Johrapuram	T1: Recommended practice (IIHR, Bengaluru) T2: Farmer Practice	150	150	18.0	16.4
2	K. Ramanjineyulu	Molgavalli				18.2	16.1
3	K. Ravi Kumar	Molgavalli				17.0	16.9
4	V. Venugopal	Maddikera				17.4	16.8
5	H. Kowlataiah	J. Agraharam				17.0	16.9
6	N. Suryanarayana	Burujjula				16.9	16.0
7	S. Devendra Naik	Pattikonda				16.5	15.0
8	B. Bhishyanna	Maddikera				18.0	15.8
9	P. Chandra mouli	Johrapuram				17.9	16.0
10	K. Venkatesh	Banavasi				18.1	16.1
Average						17.5	16.2

Treatments

% Damage

Cost of cultivation(Rs/ha)

Gross returns

(Rs/ha)

Net returns

(Rs/ha)

Benefit Cost ratio (B: C)

Recommended Practice

0.8

44550

85750

41200

1.92:1

Farmers practice

5.4

46840

79380

32540

1.69:1

In recommended practice (0.8) 85 % reduction of Root rot was recorded than farmer practice (5.4). Recommended practice has recorded 8.0% increase in yield (17.5 q/ha) than farmer practice (16.2 q/ha).

14. Farmers reaction : Farmers were satisfied with the technology.

15. Constraints ::--

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel: Create awareness on IPM practices in Chickpea

17. Whether continued during ::Discontinued

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Remarks ::--

Horticulture

1.ON FARM TRIAL

1. Name of the technology :: Assessment of chilli varieties.

2. Nature of intervention :: OFT

3. Crop ::Chilli

4. Purpose ::To assess the yield potential and disease resistance of LCA-625 and LCA-680 over the local varieties

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area :: 0.5 0.5

2. No. of farmers :: 5 5

S. No	Name of the farmer	Village	Variety			Name of the techno logy	Duration (days)			Number of Fruits per plant			Fruit length (cm)			Yield ( q/ha )
S. No	Name of the farmer	Village	T1	T2	T3	Name of the techno logy	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1.	B. Basava raju	Chenna puram	LCA- 625	LCA- 680	HP 2043	Assess ment of chilli varieties	210	210	210	221	216	241	8.5	7.8	10.5	36.78	35.50	41.82
2	A. Venkata swami	Chenna puram														37.90	36.43	40.40
3	E. Krishna Goud	Kotekal														38.88	37.88	39.55
4	E. Khasimanna	Kotekal														39.76	36.10	40.80
5	G. Viswanath	Kalu gotla														37.60	35.42	39.64
	Average Yield (q/ha)															38.20	36.30	40.40
	Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha)															2,69,453	2,70,342	2,80,003
	Gross income ( Rs. /ha)															11,46,000	10,89,000	12,12,000
	Net income (Rs./ha)															8,76,547	8,18,658	9,31,997
	B : C Ratio															4.25	4.03	4.33

Assessment of Chilli varieties: Maximum number of Fruits per plant (241) and Fruit length (10.5 cm) were recorded in HP-2043 followed by LCA 625

with number of Fruits per plant (221) and Fruit length (8.5 cm) than LCA 680 variety (216 no. & 7.8 cm). Maximum yield was recorded in HP-2043

(40.40 q/ha) followed by LCA-625 (38.20 q/ha) and LCA-680 (36.30 q/ha).

14. Farmers reaction :: Farmer satisfied with the HP-2043, as they were found resistant to diseases and high yield potential.

15. Constraints :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel :: Variety need to be popularized.

17. Whether continued during ::Concluded.

2022- 23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations ::

1.ON FARM TRIAL

1. Name of the technology ::Evaluation of Organic farming in Chilli.

2. Nature of intervention :: OFT

3. Crop ::Chilli

4. Purpose ::To evaluate performance of organic farming in Chilli

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area :: 0.5 0.5

2. No. of farmers :: 5 5

S. No	Name of the farmer	Village	Variety			Name of the technology	Duration (days)			Number of Fruits per plant			Fruit length (cm)			Yield ( q/ha )
S. No	Name of the farmer	Village	T1	T2	T3	Name of the technology	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1.	S. Diwakar	Venkapuram	Organic farming	University recommendation (Dr YSRHU)	Farmer practice	Evaluation of Organic farming in Chilli	210	210	210	98	246	241	6.5	9.5	8.8	18.5	42.12	41.82
2	S. Govinda Rajulu	Venkapuram														20.2	42.40	40.40
3	H.Govardhan Reddy	Pedda harivanum														19.2	41.55	39.55
4	E. Shankar	Chetnahalli														18.5	42.80	40.80
5	G. Viswanath	Kalugotla														18.5	42.80	40.80
	Average Yield (q/ha)															18.90	42.30	40.80
	Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha)															266483	248342	252483
	Gross income ( Rs. /ha)															567000	1269000	1224000
	Net income (Rs./ha)															300517	1020658	971517
	B:C Ratio															2.13	5.11	4.85

Assessment of Organic farming in Chilli: Maximum number of Fruits per plant (246) and Fruit length (9.5 cm) was recorded inDr.YSRHU recommendation followed by farmer practice with number of Fruits per plant (241) and Fruit length (8.8 cm) and followed by the Organic farming

(98 no. & 6.5 cm). Maximum yield was recorded in Dr. YSRHU recommendation (42.30 q/ha) than farmer practice (40.80 q/ha) and the lowest was recorded in Organic farming (18.90 q/ha).

14. Farmers reaction :: --

15. Constraints :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel:: ---

17. Whether continued during :: Concluded.

2022- 23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations ::

2.ON FARM TRIAL

1. Name of the technology ::Assessment of high yielding Ridge guard variety Arka Prasan

2. Nature of intervention :: OFT

3. Crop :: Ridge guard

4. Purpose ::To assess the yield potential and disease resistance of Arka Prasan and Arka Vikram over the local varieties

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area :: 0.5 0.5

2. No. of farmers :: 5 5

S.No	Name of the farmer		Village	Variety			Name of the technology	Duration(days)			Yield ( t/ha )
S.No	Name of the farmer		Village	T1	T2	T3	Name of the technology	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1.	G.HariKumar		Mugathi	Arka Prasan	Arka Vikram	Jaipur long	Assessment of high yielding Ridge guard variety Arka Prasan	135	135	135	27.5	29.5	24.5
2	G.Hanumanthu		Mugathi								25.2	28.5	21.2
3	E.Veeranna		Ragimandoddi								24.2	26.2	22.2
4	A.Thulasappa		Nandavarum								26.5	28.4	23.5
5	H.Ramudu		Hanumpuram								26.2	28.2	24.2
		Average Yield (t/ha)									25. 9	28. 2	23.1
		Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha)									165850	143825	185685
		Gross income ( Rs. /ha)									310800	338400	277200
		Net income (Rs./ha)									144950	194575	91515
		B:C Ratio									1.87	2.35	1.49

Assessment of high yielding Ridge guard variety Arka Prasan: Maximum yield was recorded in Arka vikram (28.2 t/ha) and Arka Prasan (25.9 t/ha) than compared to Jaipur long (23.1t/ha). Arka vikram fruits were found attractive, long, straight, tender green and preferred very much in the market..

14. Farmers reaction :: --

15. Constraints :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel:: ---

17. Whether continued during :: 2 ^nd year

2022- 23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations ::

4.ON FARM TRIAL

1. Name of the technology ::Assessment of high yielding Onion variety Arka Bheem

2. Nature of intervention :: OFT

3. Crop :: Onion

4. Purpose ::To assess the yield potential and disease resistance of Arka Bheem and Arka Kalyan over the local varieties

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area :: 0.5 0.5

2. No. of farmers :: 5 5

S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Variety			Name of the technology	Duration(days)			Yield ( t/ha )
S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	T1	T2	T3	Name of the technology	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
1.	G.Sunkanna	Ralladoddi	Arka Bheem	Arka Kalyan	Nasik Red	Assessment of high yielding Onion variety Arka Bheem	130	130	130	38.58	35.50	29.80
2	B.Nagaraju	Ragimandoddi								37.50	36.43	28.60
3	C.Mohammed Ali	Masumandoddi								38.28	37.88	26.20
4	K.Chennappa	Hanumpuram								40.76	37.10	28.45
5	B.Ranganna	Vemugodu								37.60	34.42	28.28
	Average Yield (t/ha)									38.54	36.27	28.26
	Cost of cultivation ( Rs. /ha)									152568	155754	175754
	Gross income ( Rs. /ha)									385400	362700	282600
	Net income (Rs./ha)									232832	206946	106846
	B:C Ratio									2.53	2.33	1.61

Maximum yield was recorded in Arka Bheem (38.54 t/ha) and Arka Kalyan (36.27 t/ha) than compared to Nasik red (28.26 t/ha).

14. Farmers reaction :: --

15. Constraints :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel:: ---

17. Whether continued during :: 2 ^nd year

2022- 23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations ::

I FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology ::Demonstration of Coriander variety Susthira

2. Nature of intervention :: FLD

3. Crop :: Coriander

4. Purpose :: To popularize new Coriander variety i.e. Susthira.

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area :: 2 2

2. No. of farmers :: 10 10

S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Variety		Name of the technology	Duration (days)		Yield ( q/ha )
S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Demo	Check	Name of the technology	Demo	Check	Demo	Check
1.	N B.Mallikarjuna	Vemugodu	Susthira	Local variety	Demonstration of Coriander variety Susthira	90	90	6.5	5.3
2	T.Krishna	Peddamarrivedam						6.8	5.4
3	G. Sathyanarayana Reddy	Vendhavakili						7.1	6.0
4	N.Ranganna	Aluru						6.5	5.2
5	K. Mallayya	Kowthalum						6.2	5.7
6	K. Purushotham Reddy	Vendavakili						6.8	5.4
7	B. Eranna	Mittasamudraum						6.9	5.8
8	B. Linganna	Kanakaveedu						7.2	5.1
9	M. Gowvardan	Chinaneltur						6.3	5.3
10	G. Durgappa	Doddanagiri						6.0	5.7
Average Yield (q/ha)								6.63	5.49
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)								38826	39650
Gross income (Rs. /ha)								53048	43920
Net Income (Rs./ha)								14222	4270
B:C Ratio								1.37	1.11

14. Farmers reaction :: Farmers were unsatisfied with the performance of Susthira but due to heavy rains in November, its potential yield was not achieved and this trial will be continued for next year.

15. Constraints :: Availability of Seed

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel:: --

17. Whether continued during :: Continued

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations ::

II FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology ::Demonstration of ICM in Onion

2. Nature of intervention :: FLD

3. Crop :: Onion

4. Purpose ::To create awareness on ICM and reduce the cost of cultivation, as farmers are indiscriminately using insecticides and fertilizers.

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area :: 2 2

2. No. of farmers :: 10 10

S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Variety		Name of the technology		Yield ( t/ha )
S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Demo	Check	Name of the technology		Demo	Check
1	B. Nagaraju	Ragimandoddi	Arka Bheem	Nasik Red	Demonstration of ICM in Onion		29.50	26.80
2	K. Chennappa	Hanumapuram					30.43	27.60
3	B. Ranganna	Vemugodu					33.50	30.20
4	G. Sunkanna	Ralladoddi					32.10	29.45
5	E. Veeranna	Ragimandoddi					30.42	28.28
6	H. Ramudu	Hanumapuram					32.25	28.80
7	Y. Thulasamma	Nandavarum					33.00	30.60
8	G. Harikumar	Mugathi					30.25	26.20
9	G. Govardan Reddy	Venkatapuram					30.20	27.25
10	M. Sanker	Chetanhalli					31.25	29.28
Average Yield (t/ha)						31.29		28.45
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)						136458		149346
Gross income (Rs. /ha)						312900		284500
Net Income (Rs./ha)						176442		135174
B:C Ratio						2.29		1.90

14. Farmers reaction :: Farmers were satisfied with the technology.

15. Constraints :: New Twister disease has been diagnosed, which reducing the yields were drastically.

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel :: Technology must be popularized.

17. Whether continued during : Continued.

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations :: --

III FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology :: Demonstration of IPM in Chilli

2. Nature of intervention :: FLD

3. Crop :: Chilli

4. Purpose :: To create awareness on the IPM approach to the farming community and to increase Yields.

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area ::4 4

2. No. of farmers :: 10 10

S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Name of the technology	Duration(days)		Yield ( q/ha )
S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Name of the technology	Demo	Check	Demo	Check
1.	B. Basavaraju	Chennapuram	Demonstration of IPM in Chilli	210	210	46.00	37.10
2	G. Raghavendra	Chennapuram				45.50	39.50
3	G. Venkata Swami	Chennapuram				44.00	41.60
4	G. Pimabsab	Kotakonda				42.80	42.00
5	E.Khasimanna	Kotekal				46.75	39.80
6	E.Krishna Goud	Kotekal				44.00	40.50
7	A.Narashimudu	Bodubanda				42.10	41.65
8	Satyanarayana Reddy	Masedpuram				48.30	42.80
9	T.Anjinayya	Kadimetla				47.00	39.00
10	V.Thimmappa	Chennapuram				44.60	38.75
Average Yield (q/ha)						45.10	38.45
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)						182483	224342
Gross income (Rs. /ha)						300800	297840
Net Income (Rs./ha)						118317	73498
B:C Ratio						1.64:1	1.32:1

14. Farmers reaction :: Farmers were satisfied with the ICM package

15. Constraints :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel :: Technology need to be popularized

17. Whether continued during :: Continued.

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations :: --

IV FRONT LINE DEMONSTRATIONS

1. Name of the technology :: Demonstration of Root rot management in Sweet orange

2. Nature of intervention :: FLD

3. Crop :: Sweet orange

4. Purpose :: To create awareness on the IDM approach to the farming community and to increase yields.

5. Numbered :: Approved Achieved

1. Area :: 4 4

2. No. of farmers :: 10 10

S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Name of the technology	Duration(days)		Yield ( t/ha )
S.No	Name of the farmer	Village	Name of the technology	Demo	Check	Demo	Check
1.	B. Basavaraju	Chennapuram	Demonstration of Root rot management in Sweet orange			22.0	20.0
2	G. Raghavendra	Chennapuram				21.2	18.2
3	G. Venkata Swami	Chennapuram				22.2	18.5
4	G. Pimabsab	Kotakonda				22.5	20.5
5	E.Khasimanna	Kotekal				21.2	19.2
6	E.Krishna Goud	Kotekal				20.5	17.5
7	A.Narashimudu	Bodubanda				21.0	19.0
8	Satyanarayana Reddy	Masedpuram				19.5	18.5
9	T.Anjinayya	Kadimetla				21.0	19.0
10	V.Thimmappa	Chennapuram				19.9	18.0
Average Yield (t/ha)						21.1	18.8
Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha)						342587	353587
Gross income (Rs. /ha)						422000	376000
Net Income (Rs./ha)						79413	22413
B:C Ratio						1.23	1.06

14. Farmers reaction :: Farmers were satisfied with the IDM package

15. Constraints :: --

16. Feed back

1. To the Scientist :: --

2. To the extension personnel :: Technology need to be popularized

17. Whether continued during :: Continued.

2022-23 or not reasons

18. Critical Observations :: --

Crop Production

1. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Effect of Organic farming on Yield and soil health in Rice

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Rice, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of rice under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Variety	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Variety	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1: Organic farming practice (ANGRAU Recommendations)	T2:ICM(ANGRAU Recommendations)	T3: Farmers practice
1	A. Krishna	NDLR 7	KosigI	Effect of Organic farming on Yield of Rice	5840	6900	6600
2	S. Diwakar	NDLR 7	Venkatapuram		5230	6300	7200
3	Balaraju	NDLR 7	Korempeta		5370	7350	6390
	Average yield (kg/ha)				5480	6850	6730
	Gross returns(Rs.)				134,150/-	139,740	137292
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)				72600	63025	68500
	Net returns (Rs.)				61550/-	76715	68792
	B:C Ratio				1.29	1.98	1.77
	% increase in Yield				18% lower yield over RDF	1.78% over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs and initially low yields were observed by the farmers

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic products for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of Groundnut under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

6. No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1:Organic farming practice	T2:RDF	T3:Farmer’s practice
1	Govindarajulu	Hanumapuram	Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming	2280	2400	2600
2	Balaraju	Venkatapuram		2621	2518	3182
3	veeresh	masmandoddi		2149	3062	2858
	Average yield (kg/ha)			2350	2660	2880
	Gross returns(Rs.)			137475	155610	168597
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			84500	67680	71580
	Net returns (Rs.)			52975	87930	97017
	B:C Ratio			1.62	2.29	2.35
	% increase in Yield			11% and 18% lower over RDF and Farmer’s practice	7.6% lower yield over farmers practice

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs by the farmers.

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic inputs for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued,

11. Remarks:

2. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceeding rabi chickpea cropping sequence

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop & Farming Situation : Khari f(foxtail millet/Blackgram)- Bengalgram

4. Purpose : To assess the performance of short duration varieties of foxtail millet and Blackgramto fit in foxtail millet/blackgram- Bengal gram cropping sequence

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1: (Foxtail millet-Bengalgram )	T2: (Blackgram-Bengalgram)	T3: Farmers practice Kharif fallow-Bengalgram
1	K. Sriramulu	Kalugotla	Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceedingrabi chickpea cropping sequence	2788	2553	1540
2	M. Basvaraju	Kotekal		2308	2726	1400
3	Ch. Madhusudhan	Palakalu		1468	1780	1350
	Average yield (kg/ha)			2188	2371	1430
	Gross returns(Rs.)			114432/-(34.6%)	124003/-	74789/-
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			64200(73%)	72360 (92%)	39500
	Net returns (Rs.)			50232(29.7%)	51643(31%)	35289
	B:C Ratio			1.78	1.71	1.89
	% increase in Yield			34% increasedyld over FP	39% increased yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Growing of short duration foxtail millet and blackgram prior to bengalgram helped farmers in realisation of additional yield, they

expressed satisfaction in performance of short duration variety of foxtail millet and Blackgram.

8. Constraints: Non availability of seed and market for foxtail millet

9. Feed back:

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of drought resistant and high yielding varieties foxtail millet and blackgram

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on double cropping and short duration varieties

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

3. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Rabi- 2022

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To assess the effect of pre- mix application of imazethapyr + quizalopfopethyl on weeds and yield of groundnut

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	Yield (kg/ha)
Sl. No	Farmer’s name	Village/ Mandal	Name of the Technology	T1: Pendimethalin @ 750 g a.i/ha fb pre- mix application of 50 % of each of imazethapyr @ 37.5 g a.i/ha + quizalopfop ethyl @ 25 g a.i/ha at 25 DAS	T2: pendimethalin 30%+Imazethapyr 2% EC a.i/ha at 20DAS fb HW at 35 DAS	T3: Farmer’s practice(Twice HW at 20DAS & 40DAS)
1	KandoliPullaiah	Gonegandla	Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut	2600	3080	3180
2	E. Venkatesh	Chilakaladona		3080	3328	3886
3	K. Nagesh	Masmandoddi		2420	3042	3044
	Average yield (kg/ha)			2700(-14.6%)	3150(-25%) (-12%)	3370
	Gross returns(Rs.)			157950	184275	197145
	Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			68650	79680	82580
	Net returns (Rs.)			89300	104595	114565
	B:C Ratio			2.3	2.31	2.38
	% increase in Yield			14% Lower yield over FP	12% Lower yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in use of herbicides in effective control of weeds

8. Constraints: Non availability of selective herbicide that controls problematic weeds

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of integrated weed management practices for effective control of weeds

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of herbicide mixtures

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Jowar
4	Purpose	:	To popularize the variety NTJ-5
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		5	5

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village			Variety	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
								T1:Demo NTJ-5	T2: Farmers practice
1	Sunkanna		Gonikondla			NTJ 5	Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5	2940	2370
2	K.ChinnaRamaiah		Ladhagiri					3890	2740
3	Revathi		Ladhagiri					4180	2450
4	Srinivasulu		Ramapuram					3465	2585
5	Venkkanna		Gajuldinnae					3650	2980
		Average yield (kg/ha)						3625	2625
		Gross returns (Rs.)						90625	65625
		Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)						18075	18075
		Net returns (Rs.)						72550	47550
		B:C Ratio						5.01	3.6
		% increase in Yield						38% higher yield over FP
6.	Farmers reaction			:	Farmers expressed that the performance of NTJ-5 found better compared to local variety because of tolerance to drought and high yielding potential of the NTJ-5
7.	Constraints			:
8.	Feedback			:	: Farmers were satisfied with the technology
	To the Scientist			:	--
	To the extension personnel			:	Popularize the tested variety through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.
9.	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons			:	Concluded
10.	Remarks			:

2. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Bengalgram
4	Purpose	:	To improve profitability of rain fed farmers by increasing the production and income levels by introduction of new high yielding Chick pea varieties
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		10	10

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village	Variety	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
						T1:Demo NBeG-452	T2: Farmers practice(JG-11)
1	Venkateshwarlu		kalugotla	NBeG-452	Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety	2300	1890
2	krishniah		kalugotla			1900	2136
3	veeresh		masmandoddi			2100	1784
4	Narsimha		venkatagiri			2300	1982
5	Ramakrishna		Banavasi			2275	2093
6	B. Parandhama		venkatagiri			2286	1920
7	Punikonda		Hanumapuram			1940	2066
8	prakash		venkatagiri			2092	1980
9	G. Virupakshi		Masmandoddi			2421	2038
10	B M Baswaraj		Kotekal			2136	1871
		Average yield (kg/ha)				2175	1975
		Gross returns (Rs.)				113752	103292
		Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)				59650	59650
		Net returns (Rs.)				54102	43642
		B:C Ratio				1.9	1.73
		% increase in Yield				9.19% over FP

6	Farmers reaction	:	: Farmers were satisfied with the technology
7	Constraints	:
8	Feedback	:
	To the Scientist	:	--
	To the extension personnel	:	Popularization of the tested variety through field days, print and electronic media.
9	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons	:	Concluded
10	Remarks	:

3. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Pigeonpea
4	Purpose	:	To evaluate the effect of weather advisory services in cultivation of rainfed pigeonpea
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		5	5

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
					T1:Demo : selection of variety, ii. timing of input Application (Nutrients and water) and protection measures taken on the basis of weather advisories	T2: Farmers practice(Cultivation of crop without following weather advisories)
1	G. Naganna		chennapuram	Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation	1428	1385
2	G. Kondaiah		chennapuram		1621	1400
3	Mekalapeddiah		venkatagiri		1480	1532
4	S. Raghavendra		Yemmiganur		1721	1528
5	BoyaBalaraju		Yemmiganur		1590	1330
		Average yield (kg/ha)			1568	1435
		Gross returns (Rs. ha-¹.))			157500/-	146250/-
		Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha^-1 )			36500/-	39600/-
		Net returns (Rs. ha-^1.)			1,20,000	104950
		B:C Ratio			4.20:1	3.50:1
		% increase in Yield			8% over FP

6	Farmers reaction	:	Cultivation of pigeonpea using weather advisories resulted in reduction in cost of cultivation of 3100/ha and 9.2% higher yield over farmer’s practice
7	Constraints	:	Need to reach all the farmers hrough suitable platform for weather information, inputs and market information
8	Feedback	:
	To the Scientist	:	--
	To the extension personnel	:
9	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons	:	continued
10	Remarks	:

4. Front Line Demonstration:

1	Name of the Technology	:	Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP
2	Nature of intervention	:	FLD
3	Crop	:	Cotton
4	Purpose	:	To evaluate the performance of LHDP-5 cotton variety
5	Numbered		Approved	Achieved
	1. Area		0.8 ha	0.8 ha
	2. No. of Farmers		5	5

S. No	Farmer’s name		Village	Name of the Technology	Yield(Kg/ha)
					T1:Demo : LHDP cotton-5	T2: Farmers practice(BT Cotton ( US 7067)
1	Diwakar		Venkatapuram	Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP	1280	1600
2	G. Virupakshi		Masmandoddi		1321	1680
3	B M Baswaraj		Kotekal		1290	1620
4	K. Sudhakar		Gonegondla		1400	1790
5	G. Kondaiah		chennapuram		1459	1935
		Average yield (kg/ha)			1350	1725
		Gross returns (Rs. ha-¹.))			82080/-	104880/-
		Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha^-1 )			48600/-	59800/-
		Net returns (Rs. ha-^1.)			33480/-	45080/-
		B:C Ratio			1.68	1.75
		% increase in Yield			21% lower yield over FP

6.	Farmers reaction	:	More number of plants per square meter(7) were recorded higher under LHDP Cotton sown with 75 cm x 20 cm spacing, where as more number of bolls per plant (46) and higher fibre yield(1850 kg ha-1)was recorded under farmer’s practice with use of BT-HYBRID sown with 90 cm x 30 cm spacing
7.	Constraints	:	Low yield under LHDP COTTON-5 variety compared to BT-Cotton variety
8.	Feedback	:	Need cotton variety tolerant to pests and diseases and suitable for mechanical harvesting
	To the Scientist	:	--
	To the extension personnel	:
10	Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons	:	Continued
11	Remarks	:

CROP PRODUCTION

1. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Effect of Organic farming on Yield and soil health in Rice

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Rice, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of rice under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Variety Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1: Organic farming practice (ANGRAU Recommendations) T2:ICM(ANGRAU Recommendations) T3: Farmers practice

1 A. Krishna NDLR 7 KosigI Effect of Organic farming on Yield of Rice 5840 6900 6600

2 S. Diwakar NDLR 7 Venkatapuram 5230 6300 7200

3 Balaraju NDLR 7 Korempeta 5370 7350 6390

Average yield (kg/ha) 5480 6850 6730

Gross returns(Rs.) 134,150/- 139,740 137292

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 72600 63025 68500

Net returns (Rs.) 61550/- 76715 68792

B:C Ratio 1.29 1.98 1.77

% increase in Yield 18% lower yield over RDF 1.78% over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs and initially low yields were observed by the farmers

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic products for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2022

3. Crop &Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To evaluate performance of Groundnut under organic farming

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

6. No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1:Organic farming practice T2:RDF T3:Farmer’s practice

1 Govindarajulu Hanumapuram Assessment of Groundnut production and soil health under organic farming 2280 2400 2600

2 Balaraju Venkatapuram 2621 2518 3182

3 veeresh masmandoddi 2149 3062 2858

Average yield (kg/ha) 2350 2660 2880

Gross returns(Rs.) 137475 155610 168597

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 84500 67680 71580

Net returns (Rs.) 52975 87930 97017

B:C Ratio 1.62 2.29 2.35

% increase in Yield 11% and 18% lower over RDF and Farmer’s practice 7.6% lower yield over farmers practice

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in organic farming as they have found better results and good price for their produce

8. Constraints: Non availability of organic inputs by the farmers.

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of suitable organic inputs for effective control of pests and diseases

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of organic inputs

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: Continued,

11. Remarks:

2. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceeding rabi chickpea cropping sequence

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Kharif - 2021

3. Crop & Farming Situation : Khari f(foxtail millet/Blackgram)- Bengalgram

4. Purpose : To assess the performance of short duration varieties of foxtail millet and Blackgramto fit in foxtail millet/blackgram- Bengal gram cropping sequence

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1: (Foxtail millet-Bengalgram ) T2: (Blackgram-Bengalgram) T3: Farmers practice

Kharif fallow-Bengalgram

1 K. Sriramulu Kalugotla Evaluation of suitable kharif crops for preceedingrabi chickpea cropping sequence 2788 2553 1540

2 M. Basvaraju Kotekal 2308 2726 1400

3 Ch. Madhusudhan Palakalu 1468 1780 1350

Average yield (kg/ha) 2188 2371 1430

Gross returns(Rs.) 114432/-(34.6%)

124003/-

74789/-

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 64200(73%) 72360 (92%) 39500

Net returns (Rs.) 50232(29.7%) 51643(31%) 35289

B:C Ratio 1.78 1.71 1.89

% increase in Yield 34% increasedyld over FP 39% increased yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Growing of short duration foxtail millet and blackgram prior to bengalgram helped farmers in realisation of additional yield, they

expressed satisfaction in performance of short duration variety of foxtail millet and Blackgram.

8. Constraints: Non availability of seed and market for foxtail millet

9. Feed back:

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of drought resistant and high yielding varieties foxtail millet and blackgram

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on double cropping and short duration varieties

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

3. ON FARM TRIAL (OFT)

1. Name of the technology : Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut

2. Nature of intervention : OFT - Rabi- 2022

3. Crop&Farming Situation : Groundnut, Irrigated

4. Purpose : To assess the effect of pre- mix application of imazethapyr + quizalopfopethyl on weeds and yield of groundnut

5. Numbered : Approved Achieved

No. of farmers : 3 3

Sl. No

Farmer’s name Village/

Mandal Name of the Technology Yield (kg/ha)

T1: Pendimethalin @ 750 g a.i/ha fb pre- mix application of 50 % of each of imazethapyr @ 37.5 g a.i/ha + quizalopfop ethyl @ 25 g a.i/ha at 25 DAS T2: pendimethalin 30%+Imazethapyr 2% EC a.i/ha at 20DAS fb HW at 35 DAS T3: Farmer’s practice(Twice HW at 20DAS & 40DAS)

1 KandoliPullaiah Gonegandla Assessment of chemical weed management in groundnut 2600 3080 3180

2 E. Venkatesh Chilakaladona 3080 3328 3886

3 K. Nagesh Masmandoddi 2420 3042 3044

Average yield (kg/ha) 2700(-14.6%) 3150(-25%) (-12%) 3370

Gross returns(Rs.) 157950 184275 197145

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 68650 79680 82580

Net returns (Rs.) 89300 104595 114565

B:C Ratio 2.3 2.31 2.38

% increase in Yield 14% Lower yield over FP 12% Lower yld over FP

7. Farmers reaction: Farmers expressed their interest in use of herbicides in effective control of weeds

8. Constraints: Non availability of selective herbicide that controls problematic weeds

9. Feed back

1. To the Scientist : Need for development of integrated weed management practices for effective control of weeds

2. To the extension personnel : Need for creating awareness on importance of herbicide mixtures

10. Whether continued during 2023-24 or not reasons: concluded,

11. Remarks:

1. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Jowar

4 Purpose : To popularize the variety NTJ-5

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 5 5

S. No

Farmer’s name Village Variety Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo NTJ-5 T2: Farmers practice

1 Sunkanna Gonikondla NTJ 5 Demonstration on Sorghum variety NandyalTellaJonna- 5 2940 2370

2 K.ChinnaRamaiah Ladhagiri 3890 2740

3 Revathi Ladhagiri 4180 2450

4 Srinivasulu Ramapuram 3465 2585

5 Venkkanna Gajuldinnae 3650 2980

Average yield (kg/ha) 3625 2625

Gross returns (Rs.) 90625 65625

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 18075 18075

Net returns (Rs.) 72550 47550

B:C Ratio 5.01 3.6

% increase in Yield 38% higher yield over FP

6. Farmers reaction : Farmers expressed that the performance of NTJ-5 found better compared to local variety because of tolerance to drought and high yielding potential of the NTJ-5

7. Constraints :

8. Feedback : : Farmers were satisfied with the technology

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel : Popularize the tested variety through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.

9. Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : Concluded

10. Remarks :

2. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Bengalgram

4 Purpose : To improve profitability of rain fed farmers by increasing the production and income levels by introduction of new high yielding Chick pea varieties

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 10 10

S. No

Farmer’s name

Village Variety Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo NBeG-452 T2: Farmers practice(JG-11)

1 Venkateshwarlu kalugotla NBeG-452 Demonstration of Bengalgram variety NBeG-452 against the local popular variety 2300 1890

2 krishniah kalugotla 1900 2136

3 veeresh masmandoddi 2100 1784

4 Narsimha venkatagiri 2300 1982

5 Ramakrishna Banavasi 2275 2093

6 B. Parandhama venkatagiri 2286 1920

7 Punikonda Hanumapuram 1940 2066

8 prakash venkatagiri 2092 1980

9 G. Virupakshi Masmandoddi 2421 2038

10 B M Baswaraj Kotekal 2136 1871

Average yield (kg/ha) 2175 1975

Gross returns (Rs.) 113752 103292

Cost of Cultivation (Rs.) 59650 59650

Net returns (Rs.) 54102 43642

B:C Ratio 1.9 1.73

% increase in Yield 9.19% over FP

6 Farmers reaction : : Farmers were satisfied with the technology

7 Constraints :

8 Feedback :

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel : Popularization of the tested variety through field days, print and electronic media.

9 Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : Concluded

10 Remarks

3. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Pigeonpea

4 Purpose : To evaluate the effect of weather advisory services in cultivation of rainfed pigeonpea

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 5 5

S. No

Farmer’s name Village Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo : selection of variety, ii. timing of input Application (Nutrients and water) and protection measures taken on the basis of weather advisories T2: Farmers practice(Cultivation of crop without following weather advisories)

1 G. Naganna chennapuram Weather advisory based Pigeonpea cultivation 1428 1385

2 G. Kondaiah chennapuram 1621 1400

3 Mekalapeddiah venkatagiri 1480 1532

4 S. Raghavendra Yemmiganur 1721 1528

5 BoyaBalaraju Yemmiganur 1590 1330

Average yield (kg/ha) 1568 1435

Gross returns (Rs. ha-1.)) 157500/- 146250/-

Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha-1 ) 36500/- 39600/-

Net returns (Rs. ha-1.) 1,20,000 104950

B:C Ratio 4.20:1 3.50:1

% increase in Yield 8% over FP

6 Farmers reaction : Cultivation of pigeonpea using weather advisories resulted in reduction in cost of cultivation of 3100/ha and 9.2% higher yield over farmer’s practice

7 Constraints : Need to reach all the farmers hrough suitable platform for weather information, inputs and market information

8 Feedback :

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel :

9 Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : continued

10 Remarks :

4. Front Line Demonstration:

1 Name of the Technology : Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP

2 Nature of intervention : FLD

3 Crop : Cotton

4 Purpose : To evaluate the performance of LHDP-5 cotton variety

5 Numbered Approved Achieved

1. Area 0.8 ha 0.8 ha

2. No. of Farmers 5 5

S. No

Farmer’s name Village Name of the Technology Yield(Kg/ha)

T1:Demo : LHDP cotton-5 T2: Farmers practice(BT Cotton ( US 7067)

1 Diwakar Venkatapuram Demonstration of use of LHDP cotton-5 variety under HDP 1280 1600

2 G. Virupakshi Masmandoddi 1321 1680

3 B M Baswaraj Kotekal 1290 1620

4 K. Sudhakar Gonegondla 1400 1790

5 G. Kondaiah chennapuram 1459 1935

Average yield (kg/ha) 1350 1725

Gross returns (Rs. ha-1.)) 82080/- 104880/-

Cost of Cultivation ((Rs. ha-1 ) 48600/- 59800/-

Net returns (Rs. ha-1.) 33480/- 45080/-

B:C Ratio 1.68 1.75

% increase in Yield 21% lower yield over FP

6. Farmers reaction : More number of plants per square meter(7) were recorded higher under LHDP Cotton sown with 75 cm x 20 cm spacing, where as more number of bolls per plant (46) and higher fibre yield(1850 kg ha-1)was recorded under farmer’s practice with use of BT-HYBRID sown with 90 cm x 30 cm spacing

7. Constraints : Low yield under LHDP COTTON-5 variety compared to BT-Cotton variety

8. Feedback : Need cotton variety tolerant to pests and diseases and suitable for mechanical harvesting

To the Scientist : --

To the extension personnel :

10 Whether continued during 2022-23 or not. Reasons : Continued

11 Remarks :

Indian Council Of Agricultural Research

ACHARYA N.G.RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA

BANAVASI-518 360

Quick Links

Notifications/Downloads

T2

T2

T2

T2

T2

T2

T2

T2

Check

Check

Check

More Articles...