Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 36 issue 2 (june 2016) : 130-133

Intoduction of palak (Spinacia oleracea L.) in Ernakulam district of Kerala through front line demonstration and on farm testing

Vijendra Kumar Meena*, Shinoj Subramanian, N.V. Dipti, K. Simta
1<p>ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,&nbsp;Narakkal-682 505, Kochi, India.</p>
Cite article:- Meena* Kumar Vijendra, Subramanian Shinoj, Dipti N.V., Simta K. (2016). Intoduction of palak (Spinacia oleracea L.) in Ernakulam district ofKerala through front line demonstration and on farm testing . Agricultural Science Digest. 36(2): 130-133. doi: 10.18805/asd.v36i2.10634.

ABSTRACT

On Farm Testing (OFT) of palak were conducted in Ernakulam Krishi Vigyan Kendra during 2012-13. Highest green leaf vegetable yield (18.00.q/ha) was recorded in variety Harit Shobha and All Green in first year with farmers practice. Programme was continued in 2nd year under Front Line Demonstration (FLD). It was observed that Harit Shobha cultivar gave 20.0 q/ha-1 green leaf yields which was higher over All Green and farmers practice.  An average yield of two cultivar Harit Shobha and All green was 15.5 q/ ha-1 and 17.7 q ha-1 in OFT and FLD, respectively.  The average technology gap, extension gap and technology index of 2.9 q ha-1, 9.5 q ha-1 and 38 per cent and 1.8q ha-1, 7.5qha-1 and 30 per cent during first and second year, respectively. Technology index reduced from 38 to 30 per cent during the study period means technology was accepted by the farmers. As a result, 500 farmers initiated the small scale farming of palak in the district with the technical guidance provided from KVK.

REFERENCES


  1. Aletor, O, Oshodi, A A, and Ipinmoroti, K (2002). Chemical composition ofcommon leafy vegetablesand functional properties of their leaf proteinconcentrates. Journal of Food Chemistry, 78: 63-68.

  2. Dhaka. B.L., Meena, B.S. and Suwalka, R.L. (2010). Popularization of improved maize production technology through frontline demonstration in south eastern Rajasthan. Journal of Agricultural Science 1:39-42

  3. Dhruw, K.S., Sengar. R.S. and Yadav. K.N. (2012). Level of knowledge and adoption about recommended maize production technology. Agriculture Udaipur.7 : 311-315.

  4. Hassan, R.M., Onyango, R. and Rutto, J.K. (1998). Relevance of Maize research in Kenya to Maize production problem Perceived by Farmers. In: [RM Hassan(Ed)]: A GIS Application for Reseach Planning in Kenya, CAB International: Oxon.

  5. Katare, Subhas, Pandey, S. K. and Mohd. Mustafa (2011). Yield gap analysis of rapessed- mustard through front line demonstration. Agric. Update. 6:5-7.

  6. Kumar, R. (2014 a). Crop technology demonstration: an effective communication approach for dissemination of wheat production technology. Agricultural Science Digest 34:131-134.

  7. Kumar, R. (2014 b). Assessment of technology gap and productivity gain through Crop technology demonstration in chickpea. Indian J. Agric. Res.., 48: 162-164.

  8. Kumar, R. (2013). Evaluation of Crop technology demonstration of mustard crop in Transitional plain of Inland Drainage Zone of Rajasthan. International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical Sciences 9:657-660.

  9. Kumar, R. (2012). Crop technology demonstration: An effective communication approach for dissemination of sustainable Green Gram production technology. Crop Improvement 39(Spl.Issue):1583-1584.

  10. Mita, Biplab and T. Samajdar( 2010). Yield gap analysis of rapeseed- mustard through front line demonstration. Agric. Exten. Review, (Aprial-June): 16-17.

  11. Mukharjee, N. (2003). Participatory Learning and Action. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, India. Pp. 63- 65.

  12. Ouma, J.H., De Groote and Gethi, M.(2002). Focused Participatory Rural Appraisal of Farmers perception of maize variety and production constraints in the moist transitional Zone in Eastern Kenya. IRMA Socio- Economic Working paper no. 02-01. Nairobi. Kenya: CIMMYT and KARI.

  13. Ranawat, Y., Ram H., Sisodiya, S.S. and Punjabi. N.K.(2011). Adoption of improved maize cultivation practices by trained and untrained farmers of KVK. Udaipur, Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education. 19: 144-147.

  14. Sawardekar, S.V., Dhane, S.S. and Jadhav, B.B. (2003) Front-line demonstration performance of salt tolerant rice variety in coastal saline soils. IRRN. 28:73-74.

  15. Shukla, S, Bhargava, A, Chatterjee, A, & Singh, S P (2006). Genotypicvariability in vegetable amaranth (Amaranthus tricolor L.) for foliage yieldand its contributing traits over successive cuttings and years. Euphytica, 151:103-110.

  16. Sreelakshmi, C.H., Sameer Kumar, C.V. and Shivani, D. (2012). Productivity enhancement of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) through improved production technology. Madras Agricultural Journal, 99:248-250.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)