Site specific evaluation of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) variety IPA 203 through participatory approach


Abstract views: 248 / PDF downloads: 77

Authors

  • A K SINGH Mahayogi Gorakhnath Kishi Vigyan Kendra, Chaukmafi, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 273 165, India
  • R P SINGH KVK, Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar
  • V P SINGH Mahayogi Gorakhnath Kishi Vigyan Kendra, Chaukmafi, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 273 165, India
  • R K SINGH Mahayogi Gorakhnath Kishi Vigyan Kendra, Chaukmafi, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 273 165, India
  • DEEPSHIKHA DIXIT ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i9.116087

Keywords:

BCR, Net income, Pigeon pea, Technology gap, Yield attributing character

Abstract

A site-specific evaluation of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) variety IPA 203 was carried out through farmers participatory approach during two consecutive years, i.e. 2018-19 to 2019-20. The results revealed that the average yield 15.40 q/ha was recorded from pigeon pea variety IPA 203 as compared to farmers practice 9.79 q/ha and an average yield advantage registered up to 57.30% higher over the farmers’ practice. It was also observed that the higher number of primary branches/plant (6), number of pods/plant (385), seed index (14.80 g/100 seed), net returns (₹ 55147.5/ha) and BCR (3.52) from high yielding pigeon pea variety IPA 203 as compared to the farmers’ practice, i.e., 3, 313, 11.50, 9.79, ₹ 29490/- and 2.51, respectively. The growth and yield attributes were considerably lower under farmer’s practices because of considerable variation in the extent of adoption of recommended variety and technology depending upon the amount of risk involved in terms of cost, convenience, skill and knowledge about the concerned practice. Average extension gap, technology gap and technology index of pigeon pea were found 5.61, 4.60 q/ha and 23.00% respectively. Variations in the technology gap and index percentage were observed due to variation in agro-climatic parameters, soil fertility, biotic stresses, and socio-economic status and management practices. This variation can be narrowed down by encourage the farmers to adopt economical viable technologies of pulse crops. From evaluation of the technology, it can be concluded that replacement of local/old varieties with new varieties would increase the production and net income of the farmers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. 2019. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. 2020. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.

Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database. 2020. www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.

Hardev C, Satya S, Noushad P, Rajkumar R and Singh R P. 2016. Performance of farmers’ pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.] varieties: Opportunities for sustained productivity and dissemination of varieties. International Journal Agriculture Sciences 8(61): 3471–74.

Joshi N S, Bariya M K and Kunjadia B B. 2014. Yield gap analysis through front line demonstration in wheat crop. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publication 4(9): 1–3.

Kumar J, Singh Y P and Rana D K. 2014. Yield and gap analysis of wheat (Triticum aestivum) productivity in NCR Delhi. Indian Journal of Extension Education 50(1-2): 56–58.

Samui S K, Maitra S, Roy D K, Mandal A K and Saha D. 2000. Evaluation on front line demonstration on groundnut. Journal of the Indian Society of Coastal Agricultural Research 18: 180–83.

Singh A K, Singh R P, Singh R K and Upadhyay S P. 2019. Frontline demonstration: An effective tool for increasing productivity of pulses in Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 8(2): 1882–84.

Singh A K, Singh R P, Singh R K, Singh V P and Singh A K. 2020a. Technological options on yield gap analysis, economics, adoption and horizontal spread of pulse crops. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 9(06): 3165–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.906.379

Singh R P, Gautam U S and Singh D. 2015. Pulse’s production and productivity enhancement through innovative technologies. Progressive Research-An International Journal 10 (Special- III): 1289-1293.

Singh R P, Singh A K, Singh R P, Singh R K and Singh M. 2020b. Impact of cluster frontline demonstrations on pulses productivity and profitability in farmer's field. Indian Journal of Extension Education 56 (1): 134–41.

Varshney R K, Chen W, Li Y, Bharti A K, Saxena R K and Schlueter J A. 2012. Draft genome sequence of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), an orphan legume crop of resource-poor farmers. Nature Biotechnology 30 (1): 83–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2022

Vijaya Lakshmi D, Vijay Kumar P and Padma Veni C. 2017. Impact of cluster frontline demonstrations to transfer of technologies in pulse production under NFSM. Bulletin of Environment Pharmacology and Life Sciences 6(1): 418–21.

Downloads

Submitted

2021-09-27

Published

2021-09-27

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

SINGH, A. K., SINGH, R. P., SINGH, V. P., SINGH, R. K., & DIXIT, D. (2021). Site specific evaluation of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) variety IPA 203 through participatory approach. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 91(9), 1358–1361. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i9.116087
Citation