Chickpea (Cicerarietinum Linn.), a self-pollinating diploid (2n=2x=16) with a genome size of 740 Mbp, is the world’s third most important food legume. It is currently grown on about 11.5 million ha, with 96% of the area in developing countries [1-4]. Chickpea production has increased during the past 30 years from 6.5 million tons (1978-1980 average) to 9.6 million tons (2007-09) because of increase in grain yields from 630 to 850 kg/ha during this period. Chickpea is a major winter pulse crop grown in India. Among the pulses, chickpea occupies 30 per cent of area with 38 per cent of annual production in India [5]. Most significant has been the major shift in chickpea area from northern India (cooler, long-season environments) to southern India (warmer, short-season environments) during the past four decades. Chickpea is the pre dominant crop among pulses in Uttar Pradesh, occupying 5.05 lakh ha area with 378.0 thousand tonnes production chickpea area and production, respectively. Chickpea in Varanasi district is cultivated in an area of 2516.00 ha with a productivity of 16.84 q/ha. The average productivity of 1684 kg/ha is far below the potential expected from improved technologies due to adoption of local cultivar, low and imbalance use of fertilizer (9:23:0 NPK kg/ha) and indiscriminate use of insecticides. The seed yield of chickpea on farmer fields can be enhanced at least 78% with adoption of improved technologies such as improved cultivar, recommended dose of fertilizer and control of pests. Singh and Bajpai and Jadhav et al., reported that fertilizer and plant protection are most critical inputs for increasing seed yield of chickpea [6]. Keeping this in view, front line demonstrations of chickpea were conducted, to demonstrate the productivity potential and economic benefit of improved technologies under real farmer’s conditions.

Materials and Methods

The present study is a part of the mandatory programme of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA), group discussion and transect walk were followed to explore the detail information of study area. In between the technology intervention HRD components (Trainings/ Kisansangosthi/Kisanmela/field day etc.) were also included to excel the farmers understanding and skill about the demonstrated technology on chickpea. Field demonstrations were conducted under close supervision of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Varanasi. Total 75 cluster front line demonstrations under real farming situations were conducted during rabi season of 2017-18 to 2019-20 at five different villages namely; Pratappur, Mehdiganj, Balua, Gajapur and Undi, respectively under Krishi vigyan kendra operational area. The area under each demonstration was 0.4 ha. The soil was sandy clay-loam in texture with moderate water holding capacity, low in organic carbon (0.2-0.5%), low in available nitrogen (98.3-172.3 kg/ ha), low to medium in available phosphorus (11.2-14.9 kg/ha), low in available potassium (170.7-220.6 kg/ha) and soil pH was slightly alkaline to neutral in reaction (8.0- 7.2). The treatment comprised of recommended practice (Improved variety JG-63) integrated nutrient management-@ 20:60:20:30 kg NPKS/ha + Rhizobium + PSB @ 20 g/kg seed, integrated pest management- deep ploughing + seed treatment with Trichodermaviridae @ 6 g/kg seed + indoxacarb @ 500 ml/ha etc. vs. farmers practice. Deep ploughing was done during the April month. Crop was sown between 20October to 10 November with a spacing of 30×10 cm and seed rate was 80 kg/ha. An entire dose of N and P through diammonium phosphate, K through murate of potash and sulphur element was applied as basal before sowing. The seeds were treated with Trichodermaviridae @6g/kg seeds then inoculated by Rhizobium and phospho-solubilizing bacteria biofertilizers each 20g/kg of seeds. Application of Imazethapyr @100g a.i./ha at 25-30 DAS followed by slight hand weeding at 25-30 DAS for effective weed management was done. The Pheramone trap @ 10/ha were fixed after 30-35 DAS and with flat fan nozzle sprayer, one spray of Indoxacarb @500 ml/ha with 500 litres of water was given at the time of incidence of pod borer. Fields were irrigated at pre-flowering stage and the crops were harvested between 25^th February to 10^th March in all three years of demonstration.

Farmer’s practice constituted there were no deep ploughing was done during summer, old seed of Avrodhi was used, crop was sown on the same time of demonstration, broadcasting method of sowing, higher seed rate (100 kg/ha) sown, imbalance dose of fertilizers applied (15:40:0 kg NPK/ha), no seed treatment, no biofertilizers, no plant protection measures and one hand weeding at 25-30 DAS were adopted. Crop was harvested on the same time of harvesting of demonstration plots. Harvesting and threshing operations done manually; 5mx2m plot harvested in 3-5 locations in each demonstration and average grain weight taken at 14% moisture. Similar procedure adopted on FP plots under each demonstration then grain weight converted into quintal per hectare (q/ha).

Before conduct the demonstration training to farmers of respective villages was imparted with respect to envisaged technological interventions. All other steps like site selection, farmer’s selection, layout of demonstration, farmers participation etc. were followed as suggested by [7-9]. Visits of farmers and extension functionaries were organized at demonstration plots to disseminate the technology at large scale. Yield data was collected from farmers practice and demonstration plots. The grass returns, cost of cultivation, net returns and incremental benefit cost ratio (ICBR ratio) were calculated by using prevailing prices of inputs and outputs and finally the extension gap, technology gap and technology index were worked out. To estimate the technology gap, extension gap and technology index, following formulae given by [10] have been used.

(Pi – Di)

Technology Index = ______________ × 100

Pi

Where,

Pi- Potential yield of the crop

Di- Demonstration yield of the crop

Results and Discussion

Harvest Index

The harvest indexes (%) of chickpea obtained over the years under recommended practice as well as farmers practice are presented in table 1. The harvest index was recorded under recommended practice (33.3 –35.3% mean value of 34.6%) as compared to farmers practice (ranged between 33.1-34.9%, mean of 33,9%).The higher values of number of harvest index following recommended practice as well as farmers practice was due to the use of latest high yielding variety, integrated nutrient management and integrated pest management on chickpea during all three years of demonstration. Similar results have been reported earlier by [11-13].

Seed yield

The yields of chickpea obtained over the years under recommended practice as well as farmers practice are presented in table 1. The productivity of chickpea ranged from 18.5 to 19.7 q/ha with mean yield of 19.2 q/ha under recommended practice on farmers field as against a yield ranged from 14.8 to 16.6 q/ha with a mean of 15.7 q/ha recorded under farmers practice. The higher productivity following recommended practice as well as farmers practice was during the year 2017-18 which might be due to congenial climate for better growth of crop. In comparison to farmers practice there was an increase of 25.0, 16.3 and 24.7% higher productivity, respectively during 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 following recommended practices. The higher yield of chickpea under recommended practices was due to the use of latest high yielding variety, integrated weed management, integrated nutrient management and integrated pest management. Similar results have been reported earlier by [14-17].

Economics

The inputs and outputs prices of commodities prevailed during all three year of demonstrations were taken for calculating cost of cultivation, net returns and  incremental benefit cost ratio (Table 2). The investment on production by adopting recommended practices ranged from Rs. 24120 to Rs. 25970/ha with a mean value of Rs. 25190/ha against farmers practice where the variation in cost of production was Rs. 21470 to Rs. 22200/ha, mean of Rs. 21926/ha. Cultivation of chickpea under recommended practices gave higher net return of Rs. 57280, Rs. 63686 and Rs. 70068/ha compared to Rs.43650, Rs. 54582 and Rs.54825/ha under farmers practice during 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively. The additional net income ranged from Rs. 13630 to Rs. 18550/ha with a mean value of Rs. 16530/ha over farmers practice. The average incremental benefit cost ratio of recommended practices was 19.7, varying from 18.6 to 21.6 over the farmers practice. This may be due to higher yields obtained under recommended practices compared to farmers practice. Similar results have been reported earlier on chickpea by [18-19].

Extension and Technology Gap

The extension gap ranging between 2.7 to 3.9 q/ha during the period of study emphasized the need to educate the farmers through various means for the adoption of improved agricultural production to reverse the trend of wide extension gap (Table 1). The trend of technology gap ranging between 5.3 to 6.5q/ha reflected the farmer’s cooperation in carrying out such demonstration with encouraging results in demonstration’s years. The technology gap observed may be attributed to the dissimilarity in weather conditions. The technology index showed the feasibility of the evolved technology at the farmer’s field. The lower the value of technology index, the more is the feasibility of the technology. As such, the reduction in technology index from 21.2% during 2019-20 to 26.0% during 2017-18exhibited the feasibility of the demonstrated technology in this region.

HRD components

During the study period, Human Resources Development Components i.e. training, radio talk, field day, CD shows, popular articles, Kisan Mela and Kisan Sangosthi were also taken to increase the farmers understanding and skill about the recommended practice on chickpea production (table 3).

Conclusion

The result of Front Line Demonstration convincingly brought out  the yield of chickpea could be increased higher with the intervention on varietal replacement i.e. Pusa-362, integrated weed management, integrated nutrient management and integrated pest management in  chickpea production in the Varanasi district. To safeguard and sustain the food security in India, it is quite important to increase the productivity of chickpea under limited resources. Favourable incremental benefit cost ratio is self-explanatory of economic viability of the demonstration and convinced the farmers for adoption of improved technology of chickpea production. The technology suitable for enhancing the productivity of chickpea and calls for conduct of such demonstration under the transfer of technology programme by KVKs.

Note: Get all tables and images here…

References

1. AICRPS (2010). Annual Report 2009-10. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean. Directorate of Soybean Research, Indore, India pp1.
2. Choudhary, B. N. (1999). KrishiVigyan Kendra-A guide for KVK mangers. Publication, Division of Agricultural Extension, ICAR; 73-78.
3. Jain, M. P. and A. K. Dubey (1998). Productivity and economic viability of soybean with respect to planting systems and cultivars in vertisol. Crop Research, 16 : 102-22.
4. Kadian, K. S., R. Sharma andA. K. Sharma (1997). Evaluation of front line demonstration trials on oilseeds in KangraVally of Himanchal Pradesh. Ann. Agric. Res., 18 : 40.
5. Prasad, R. (2005). Rice-wheat cropping systems. Advances in Agronomy, 86 : 255-339.
6. Patel B. K. and Pteal R. A. (2020). Impact of Cluster Front Line Demonstration programme on the Yield of Chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.) In Mehsana district of Gujrat India.International Journal of Environmental Agriculture and Biotechnology, 5 (4): 901-903.
7. Tomar, R. K. S. (2010). Maximization of productivity for chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.) through improved technologies in farmer’s field. Indian Journal of Natural Products and Resources, 1(4) : 515-517.
8. Tomar, R. K. S., P. Sharma and L. N. Yadav (1999). Comparison of yield and economics of irrigated chickpea under improved and local management practices. Int. Chickpea Pigeonpea News Lett., 6 : 22-23.
9. Jadhav AS, Patel EN, More SM and Nikam BK, (1992). Studies on the contribution of production factors in chickpea under dry land condition, Maharashtra AgricUniv,,17 (1), 9, 49-92.
10. Mulik SP, Ghadge HL and Jadhav AS (1995), Contribution of production parameters to yield of chickpea (Cicerarietinum) under dryland condition, Indian Agron,40 (1), 111-113.
11. Mauriya, A. K., Kumar, V., Kumari, A., Kumar, P., Kumari, M., & Hoda, M. Z. (2017). Impact of cluster front line demonstrations on productivity and profitability of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Food Legumes, 30(1), 57-60.
12. Jat, R. S., & Ahlawat, I. P. S. (2006). Direct and residual effect of vermicompost, biofertilizers and phosphorus on soil nutrient dynamics and productivity of chickpea-fodder maize sequence. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 28(1), 41-54.
13. Tabassum, Y., Tanvir, B., & Farrukh, H. (2012). Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation on nutrient uptake, growth and productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) varieties. International journal of agronomy and plant production, 3(9), 334-345.
14. Amin, A. A., Gharib, F. A., Abouziena, H. F., & Dawood, M. G. (2013). Role of indole-3-butyric acid or/and putrescine in improving productivity of chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) plants. Pakistan journal of biological sciences: PJBS, 16(24), 1894-1903.
15. Saxena, M. C. (1990). Problems and potential of chickpea production in the nineties. Chickpea in the Nineties, 13-25.
16. Bazghaleh, N., Hamel, C., Gan, Y., Tar’an, B., & Knight, J. D. (2015). Genotype-specific variation in the structure of root fungal communities is related to chickpea plant productivity. Applied and environmental microbiology, 81(7), 2368-2377.
17. Baloch, M. S., & Zubair, M. (2010). Effect of nipping on growth and yield of chickpea. J Anim Pl Sci, 20(3), 208-210.
18. Khaitov, B., Kurbonov, A., Abdiev, A., & Adilov, M. (2016). Effect of chickpea in association with Rhizobium to crop productivity and soil fertility. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 5(2), 105-112.