Evaluation of Front Line Demonstrations on Gram in Arid Zone
Abstract views: 102 / PDF downloads: 35
Abstract
The study was carried out during rabi seasons of 2014-15 and 2015-16 in seven villages of Barmer, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur districts of Rajasthan to evaluate the front line demonstrations on gram conducted by ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur. The data were collected from 45 farmers. The findings of the study results revealed that improved technology recorded a mean yield of 1517 kg ha-1 which was 22.4% higher than the yield obtained by farmers’ practices (1230 kg ha-1). The higher net returns (Rs. 47223 ha-1) and benefit: cost ratio of 1.52 was obtained with improved technologies in comparison to farmer’s practices (Rs. 38354 and 1.33 correspondingly).
Key words: Gram, front line demonstration, extension gap, technology gap, technology index.
Downloads
References
Bhargav, K.S., Pandey, Ankita, Sharma, R.P., Singh, Awdesh and Kumar, Manish 2015. Evaluation of Front line demonstration on chickpea in Dewas District. Indian Journal of Extension Education 51(3&4): 159-161.
Choudhary, M.K., Singh, D., Meena, M.L. and Tomar, P.K. 2013. Economic analysis of front line demonstrations on cumin: A case in arid zone of Rajasthan. Annals of Arid Zone 52: 137-139.
Dhaka, B.L., Meena, B.S. and Suwalika, R.L. 2010. Popularization of improved maize technology through front line demonstration in south-eastern Rajasthan. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1(1): 39-42.
Gautam, U.S., Paliwal, D.K. and Singh, S.R.K. 2011. Impact of front line demonstration (FLD) on productivity enhancement in Chickpea. Indian Journal of Extension Education 47(3&4): 10-13.
Table 3. Gross Expenditure, Gross Return, Net Return and B:C ratio of gram production under FLDs
Year
Name of variety
Gross return
(Rs. ha-1)
Cost of cultivation
(Rs. ha-1)
Net return
(Rs. ha-1)
B:C
ratio
FP*
IP*
FP
IP
FP
IP
FP
IP
-15
CSJK-6
33
52
CSJK-21
33
35
RSG-963
33
65
-16
GNG-1581
35
56
Mean
33
52
FP*-Farmers practices; IP*-Improved practices.
SINGH & SAXENA
Hiremath, S.M., Nagraju, M.V. and Shashidhar, K.K. 2007. Impact of Front Line Demonstration on onion productivity in farmer’s field. Paper presented In National Seminar on Appropriate Extension Strategy Manage Rural Resource, pp. 100. University of Agriculture Science, Dharwad.
Hiremath, S.M. and Nagraju, M.V. 2009. Evaluation of front line demonstration on onion in Haveri district of Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 22(5): 1092-1093.
Jeengar, K.L., Panar, P. and Pareek, O.P. 2006. Front line demonstration on maize in Bheelwara district of Rajasthan. Current Agriculture 30(1/2)115-116.
Kumar, D. 1985. Emergence, establishment and seed yield of chickpea as affected by sodicity. Annals of Arid Zone 24(4): 334-340.
Meena, M.L. and Dudi, Ashwarya 2012. On farming testing on Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) cultivars for specific assessment under rain-fed condition of western Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Extension Education 48(3&4): 93-97.
Nagarajan, S., Singh, R.P., Singh, R., Singh, S., Singh, A., Kumar, A. and Chand, R. 2001. Transfer of technology in wheat through front line demonstration in India, A comprehensive report, 1995-2000, Directorate of Wheat Research Karnal, Research Bulletin No. 6: p. 21.
Patel, M.M., Jhajharia, Arvind Kumar, Khadda, B.S. and Patil, L.M. 2013. Front line demonstration: An effective communication approach for dissemination of sustainable cotton production technology. Indian Journal of Extension Education and Rural Development 21: 60-62.
Singh, D.K. Gautam, U.S. and Singh, R.K. 2007. Study of yield gap and level of demonstrated crop production technology in Sagar district. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 7(2&3): 94-95.
Samui, S.K., Maitra, S., Roy, D.K., Mandal, A.K. and Saha, D. 2000. Evaluation of front line demonstration on groundnut. Journal of Indian Society Coastal Agricultural Research 18(2): 180-183.
Tomar, R.K.S. 2010. Maximization of productivity for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) through improved technologies in farmers’ field. Indian Journal of Natural Products and Resources 1(4): 51-57.
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License