Performance of lucerne (Medicago sativa) under semi-arid ecosystem of Central Gujarat

B S KHADDA; KANAK LATA; RAJ KUMAR; J K JADAV; A K RAI

doi:10.56093/ijas.v85i2.46494

Authors

B S KHADDA Subject Matter Specialist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra- Panchmahal (CIAH), Vejalpur, Godhra, Gujarat 389 340
KANAK LATA Programme coordinator, Krishi Vigyan Kendra- Panchmahal (CIAH), Vejalpur, Godhra, Gujarat 389 340
RAJ KUMAR Subject Matter Specialist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra- Panchmahal (CIAH), Vejalpur, Godhra, Gujarat 389 340
J K JADAV Subject Matter Specialist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra- Panchmahal (CIAH), Vejalpur, Godhra, Gujarat 389 340
A K RAI Subject Matter Specialist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra- Panchmahal (CIAH), Vejalpur, Godhra, Gujarat 389 340

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v85i2.46494

Keywords:

Frontline demonstration, Lucerne, Production, Technology, Variety

Abstract

The present study was conducted to popularize the improved green fodder production technology in Panchmahals district of Central Gujarat. Constraints in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) production were identified through participatory approach. Preferential ranking technique was utilized to identify the constraints faced by the farmers in lucerne production. The results revealed that lack of suitable HYVs, scarcity of irrigation water, weed (Cuscuta spp.) infestation and lack of technical knowledge were found to be the four most important factors responsible for the non-adoption of HYVs of lucerne in Panchmahals district of Gujarat. The yield of green fodder from lucerne in demonstrated variety Anand 2 was 610 q/ha as compared to local check (395 q/ha). The percentage increase in the yield over local check was computed to be 54.43.Results of study on economic analysis of the yield performance revealed that the front line demonstrations (Anand 2) recorded higher gross returns (Rupees 91 500/ha) and net return (Rupees 64 500/ha) with higher benefit cost ratio (3.39) as compared to local check (2.61). Mean difference with respect to farmersâ€™ knowledge level after implementation of frontline demonstrations increased with the tune of 37.20. The impact of frontline demonstrations was also analyzed which had reflected significant improvement in knowledge and satisfaction level on the part of farmers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dhaka B L, Meena B S and Suwalka R L. 2010. Popularization of improved maize production technology through Frontline Demonstrations in South-eastern Rajasthan. Journal of Agricultural Science 1(1): 39–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09766898.2010.11884652

Hiremath S M and Nagaraju M V. 2009. Evaluation of front line demonstration trials on onion in Haveri district of Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Science 22(5): 1 092–3.

Hiremath S M, Nagaraju M V and Shashidhar K K. 2007. Impact of front line demonstrations on onion productivity in farmers field. Paper presented Nation Sem Appropriate Extn Strat Manag Rural Resources, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, 18-20 December, p 100.

Joshi P K, Singh N P, Singh N N, Gerpacio R V and Pingali P L. 2005. Maize in India: Production Systems, Constraints, and Research Priorities. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF.

Kumar A, Kumar R, Yadav V P S and Kumar R. 2010. Impact assessment of frontline demonstrations of bajra in Haryana state. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, 10(1): 105–8.

Kumaran M and Vijayaragavan K. 2005. Farmers’ satisfaction of agricultural extension services in an irrigation command area. Indian Journal of Extension Education 41(3&4): 8–12.

Mishra D K, Paliwal D K, Tailor R S and Deshwal A K. 2009. Impact of frontline demonstrations on yield enhancement of potato. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 9(3): 26–8.

Narayanaswamy C and Eshwarappa G. 1998. Impact of front line demonstrations. Indian Journal of Extension Education 34(1&2): 14–5.

Ouma, J H, De Groote and Gethi M. 2002. Focused participatory rural appraisal of farmer’s perceptions of maize varieties and production constraints in the Moist Transitional Zone in Eastern Kenya. IRMA Socio-Economic Working Paper No. 02-01. CIMMYT and KARI. Nairobi, Kenya.

Patel M R, Sadhu A C, Patel C C and Parmar H P. 2007. Effect of fertilizer management on seed production of lucerne. Forage Research 32 (4): 267–8.

Sabarathanam V E. 1988. Manuals of Field Experience Training for ARS Scientists. NAARM, Hyderabad.

Samui S K, Maitra S, Roy D K, Mondal A K and Saha D. 2000. Evaluation of front line demonstration on groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Sundarbans. Journal of Indian Society of Coastal Agricultural Research 18(2): 180–3.

Sawardekar S V, Dhane S S and Jadhav B B. 2003. Front-line demonstration performance of salt-tolerant rice varieties in coastal saline soils. IRRN 28 (1): 73–4.

Singh D K, Gautam U S and Singh R K. 2007. Study on yield gap and level of demonstrated crop production technology in Sagar district. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 7 (2&3): 94–5.