Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, 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

Legume Research, volume 44 issue 12 (december 2021) : 1470-1474

Impact Assessment of Front Line Demonstrations on Summer Mung Productivity under Irrigated Agro-ecosystem of Haryana

Jogender Singh1,*, Kuldeep Singh1, Hemender1, Premdeep1
1Krishi Vigyan Kendra, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Sonepat-131 029, Haryana, India.

  • Submitted26-09-2020|

  • Accepted31-12-2020|

  • First Online 01-03-2021|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4517

Cite article:- Singh Jogender, Singh Kuldeep, Hemender, Premdeep (2021). Impact Assessment of Front Line Demonstrations on Summer Mung Productivity under Irrigated Agro-ecosystem of Haryana . Legume Research. 44(12): 1470-1474. doi: 10.18805/LR-4517.

ABSTRACT

Background: Summer mung proved to be an effective crop in improving soil health, providing additional income to the farmers, works as catch crop and fits in paddy-wheat crop rotation in Northern India. Its cultivation leads to increase in house hold income of the farmers and contributed to nutritional security in rural India. The present study was carried out by Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Sonepat in its adopted villages. 

Methods: A total number of 159 front line demonstrations (FLDs) were conducted on summer mung in 75.2 hectare area using improved variety MH-421 during summer 2017 and 2018 after harvesting of wheat and prior to paddy transplanting to show case improved production technologies on farmers’ field specifically under paddy-wheat rotation. The production, productivity and economic returns of summer mung in demonstrations and farmers’ practice were compared and different yield gaps were analyzed. 

Result: Average yield of demonstration plots was recorded significantly higher by 20.0 per cent and 21.3 per cent in summer 2017 and 2018, respectively. The extension gap was 1.75 q/ha and 1.90 q/ha while technology gap was 1.5 q/ha and 1.2 q/ha in 2017 and 2018, respectively. The additional economic returns for farmers ranged from Rs. 2907/ha to Rs. 3200/ha as a results of these FLDs. Hence, adoption of improved summer mung cultivation practices contributed to better yield and higher economic returns under paddy-wheat rotation after harvesting of wheat crop.

INTRODUCTION

India contributes around 25% in global pulses production, it however, consumes 30% and imports around 14% of its pulses requirements (Singh et al., 2017a). The yield of pulses in India is quite low at 806 kg/ha which might be due to policy neglect and some other reasons (Anonymous, 2019). Non-availability of quality seeds of pulses, lack of technical knowhow, non-adoption of plant protection and integrated nutrient measures further adds to the problem of low productivity of pulses (Kumar et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2016). Due to green revolution, the food grain production in India has seen a continuous and tremendous increase as it was 264 million tones in 2013-14 and expected to reach 280 million tones in 2020-21. But the yield of pulses has declined over last few decades as the pulses are grown in marginal dry lands and the fertile belts are focused to grow rice and wheat crops. Core pulse areas have shifted from northern states to central and southern India in the last 30-35 years. The climatic conditions of North India are favourable for the production of pulses but as irrigation facilities improved, pulses were replaced with wheat, paddy and sugarcane and subsequently central and southern India gained the area under pulses which are usually cultivated on dry and rainfed area in these regions (Singh et al., 2017a).
       
Prevalence of rice-wheat cropping system over four decades in irrigated agro-ecosystem in Haryana resulted in many agro-ecological problems namely excessive use of water resources contributed to over exploitation of underground water, depleting status of soil health and herbicide resistance in wheat and rice. On the other hand, neither the scope of diversion from rice-wheat cropping system nor elastic spread of soil to accommodate pulses in order to feed burgeoning population of the country seems dim prospects. The poor comparative economics of pulses further worsened the situation (Kokate et al., 2010). Mung is one of the major pulse crop of Haryana, sown both in summer and kharif. It takes about 60 days to mature in summer but its cultivation was not promoted before the year 2005. The summer mung provides additional income to the farmers with improved soil fertility (Singh et al., 2019).
       
Sonipat is a prominent rice-producing district of Haryana accounting nearly 90000 ha area under rice cultivation every year. Therefore, there is immense scope to utilize fields vacated after harvesting of wheat and before transplanting of rice during summer. The summer mung can easily be infused in rice-wheat cropping sequence because it is short duration and easy to accommode. Adoption of summer mung in irrigated agro-ecosystem has contributed in enhancement of soil health, provide additional income and gives value addition to rice-wheat cropping system. By increasing the area under pulses, nutritional status of resource poor farmers may be improved by accelerating pulse production in the country.
       
The Farm Science Centres popularly known as Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs) were established for technology assessment, demonstration for its application and capacity building of farmers through on farm testing (OFT), front line demonstrations (FLDs), trainings and also to provide farm advisory services through various means of communications. The FLDs are being carried out to establish production potential of technologies on the farmers’ fields. Hence, KVK Sonepat is also conducting FLDs on different crops and enterprises focusing pulse crops as it is an essential mandate of the organization. Therefore, a study was planned and carried out with an objective to find out the impact of Summer mung FLDs conducted at farmers’ fields on its production, productivity and profitability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was carried out by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Sonepat in adopted villages where FLDs were conducted during summer 2017 and 2018. A total number of 159 front line demonstrations were organized on summer mung in 75.2 hectares area using improved variety MH-421 to show case improved production technologies. The FLDs were carried out in irrigated farming conditions. The soils varied from sandy to clay loam having pH 5.9 to 7.1, low in available nitrogen, phosphorus (40 per cent low and 30 per cent high) and 60 per cent high in potassium, which were deficit in micronutrients namely zinc and copper. It was found in focused group discussion with farmers that non-availability of suitable variety of summer mung and its time of sowing are the major cause of low productivity and low acreage under summer mung in the district. The farmers’ fields for conduction of FLDs were selected from all the eight developmental blocks of the district with the prior consent of willing farmers. Selected farmers were provided ‘on campus training’ on improved cultivation practices of summer mung before organization of FLDs. All the agronomic practices viz., seed rate and treatment, nutrient management, weed management and plant protection measures were taken into account during the training. Optimum time of sowing of summer mung is third week of March (20th March) to mid-April, however, farmers usually sows it after 20th of April, which resulted in less productivity due to humid conditions during maturity time (Dharmalingam and Basu, 1993). Therefore, sowing of FLDs in all plots was completed before 20th April in both the years. Most of the farmers relied on chemical fertilizers to meet out the plant nutrient requirement. But application of bio fertilizers on seed before sowing of the crop help to increase availability of nutrients in soil and improve the soil health. Thus, dual inoculation of Rhizobium and PSB is demonstrated to obtain higher yield. Farmers in the district commonly sow summer mung crop by broadcast method, while, higher yield can be obtained by sowing the crop in lines. The line sowing method was demonstrated for cultivation. The aspect of weed management was totally ignored by the farmers (local check) in the district. However, application of Pendimethalin 30EC@3.3 l/ha (pre emergence) and one hand weeding was demonstrated to raise the crop.
       
The area under each FLDs was kept 0.4 ha with farmers practice as control plot. Twenty-five kilogram seed per hectare of mung with other inputs were provided to the farmers for conducting the FLDs. Participating farmers solely managed the different crop operations. They were frequently guided for implementation of all the package and practices and their fields were monitored during the cultivation of crop. Besides providing training to the participating farmers, special educational events of mung gyan divas, farmer field days, crop harvest days and group meetings on FLD plots were organized in both the years. It includes demonstrations of specific management practices and series of lectures on different production practices. Mung gyan diwas, Farmers’ field days, crop harvest days and group meetings were called attention of farmers to new and promising developments in summer mung cultivation.
       
The data were collected from the participating farmers with the help of well-structured questionnaire after harvesting/marketing of mung crop. Yield data were obtained from individual participating farmers and weighted mean of the yield was calculated. The per cent yield increase over farmers’ practice is the difference of average yield of FLD plots and farmers’ practice.
       
Cost of cultivation was calculated for both practices viz., FLD and farmers’ practice which include cost of inputs namely seed, fertilizers (chemical and bio-fertilizer), pesticides and herbicides as well as hired labour except family members, field preparation and sowing cost, harvesting and transportation cost. Average gross and net returns were calculated on the basis of sale price of grain in local market. Benefit:cost ratio was also calculated as a ratio of net-return with corresponding cost of cultivation (Kumari et al., 2007). The comparison on productivity and economic returns were made on summer mung in demonstrated plots with the corresponding farmers’ practices (local check).
       
Extension gap, technology gap and technology index were calculated (Samui et al., 2000) as given below:
 
a. Extension gap=
Demonstration yield - Farmers’ practice yield
 
b. Technology gap= Potential yield - Demonstration yield

c. Additional return=
Demonstration return - Farmers’ practice return
 
d. Technology index=

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Implementation of front line demonstrations programme
 
Table 1 reveals that 125 and 63 demonstrations were carried out on 50.0 ha and 25.2 ha area in summer 2017 and 2018, respectively. The reason behind the variation in number of FLDs organized was availability of fund with KVK to conduct pulse FLDs.
 

Table 1: Front line demonstrations implemented.


 
Technological package demonstrated
 
The improved and recommended technologies approved by CCSHAU, Hisar and gap between them have been shown in Table 2.  A sizeable gap was found in usages of improved seed, seed treatment (chemical and bio-fertilizer), time of sowing, use of chemical fertilizers and use of herbicides for weed management, which led to low production and productivity of summer mung. Generally, farmers purchased local seed available in local market with shopkeepers. The mung variety MH-421, developed by CCSHAU, Hisar selected for varietal replacement. MH-421 grown under FLDs is non-shattering, YMV resistant, short duration and fits in crop rotation between wheat and rice. The data presented in Table 2 indicated that 25 kg/ha of seed used for sowing in demonstration plots as compared to farmers practice of 20 kg/ha, crop sown before 20th April to avoid pre-monsoon rainfall and increased humidity at harvest stage, seed was treated with fungicides and/or bio fertilizers that was totally ignored in farmers’ practice. The crop was sown in lines in demonstration plots, while broadcasting method of sowing followed in farmer’s practice which makes the intercultural operations difficult and obstacle in optimum plant population achievement. Further, farmers were applying irrational fertilizer doses and not adopting weed management practices. However, recommended dose of fertilizer was applied in demonstrated plots and pre-emergence herbicide sprayed followed by one hand hoeing.  It seems that farmers were not aware of the potential of summer mung. Similar results were reported by Yadav et al., (2007) and Dhillon (2016). Kumar and Boparai (2020) also observed considerable gaps in crop cultivation viz., source of purchase of quality seed, seed rate, seed treatment, method of sowing and plant protection measures. 
 

Table 2: Comparison of technology packages under front line demonstration and farmers’ practice.


 
Analysis of yield gap
 
The yield obtained during summer 2017 and 2018 under FLDs and farmers’ practices are presented in Table 3. The average yield of demonstration plots was recorded 10.5 q/ha and 10.8 q/ha during summer 2017 and 2018, respectively against the potential yield of variety 12.0 q/ha. On the other hand, yield under farmers’ practice was 8.87 q/ha and 8.90 q/ha in summer 2017 and 2018, respectively. Average yield under demonstration plots was recorded significantly higher by 20.0 and 21.3 per cent in summer 2017 and 2018, respectively. The results depicted that short duration yellow vein mosaic resistant variety (MH-421) was found better than the local check in particular micro farming situation. The results of FLDs motivated farmers and they were agreed to adopt the technology in future. The higher yield of summer mung may be due to use of improved variety, suitable time and method of sowing, adoption of recommended seed rate with seed treatment, application of recommended fertilizer dose and use of pre emergence herbicide. Kumar et al., (2017) also found similar results.  Kumar et al., (2019) also reported yield enhancement of 30.90 per cent over farmers’ practice in Poonch district of Jammu and Kashmir while conducting FLDs with the variety SML-818. Kumar and Boparai (2020) conducted demonstrations with improved varieties SML 668 and SML 832 in Jalandhar district and found that demonstrations conducted after harvest of potato and sown in the month of March produced mean yield of 10.48 q/ha.
 

Table 3: Yield, extension and technology gap analysis of FLDs and farmers’ practice of summer mung.


 
Analysis of extension gap
 
The extension gap is the difference between demonstration yield and farmers’ practice yield and it was 1.75 q/ha and 1.90 q/ha during summer 2017 and 2018, respectively (Table 3). Calculation of extension gap was the prime objective for conducting the summer mung FLDs. Higher extension gap indicated the lack of awareness for adoption of improved summer mung cultivation practices by farmers. Therefore, it is recommended that efforts are needed to make aware and motivate farmers to adopt improved cultivation practices over existing conventional practices (Choudhary et al., 2009). Kumar et al., (2019) concluded that field extension functionaries of Poonch district, Jammu and Kashmir focused on dissemination of improved mung production technologies to enhance its productivity over existing level. Kumar and Boparai (2020) observed average extension gap of 1.80 q/ha and emphasized need to educate farmers for adoption of improved mung cultivation practices.
 
Analysis of technology gap
 
Difference between demonstration yield and potential yield is called technology gap and it was found 1.5 q/ha and 1.2 q/ha in summer 2017 and 2018, respectively (Table 3). This gap may be existed due to prevailing micro farming situation i.e. variation in soil fertility, weather conditions at maturity of mung crop, crop management practices etc. Therefore, there is an urgent need to recommend location specific crop management practices to pass over the potential demonstration yield. The similar findings were observed by Biyan et al., (2012) and Dhillon (2016).
 
Technology index
 
Technology index showed the practicability of farm technology in the particular micro farming situations at farmer fields (Kumari et al., 2007). Hence, lower the index, higher is the practicability and vice-versa. The data presented in Table 3 indicated that technology index varied from 10 to 12.5 per cent during summer 2017 and 2018. It indicates that there exists a gap between the generated technology in mung cultivation at the research institution and its dissemination to the farmers. Kumar et al., (2019) reported as high as 55.00-70.85 per cent technology index in their study.
 
Economic analysis
 
The economics of demonstration was compared with farmers’ practice and presented in Table 4. The expenditure incurred on cultivation practices viz. land preparation, seed cost, herbicide, fertilizers and miscellaneous costs was slightly higher in demonstration. The average gross return of Rs. 44231/ha was obtained during summer 2017 and Rs. 45600/ha in summer 2018.  The average net return ranges from Rs. 20770/ha to Rs. 21100/ha during the study period. Further, it was also found that additional return of demonstration farmers ranged from Rs. 2907/ha to Rs. 3200/ha. The improved technologies of summer mung gave higher net return in both the years. Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) was at par in both the years. While,  FLD participating farmers got approximately Rs. 3000/ha additional income as compared to farmers practice. Singh et al., (2017b) observed similar results in their studies in mungbean, however, Kumar and Boparai (2020) observed B: C ratio in the range of 1.92 to 2.44 during their study period. Kumar et al., (2019) reported B: C ratio as high as 3.20 to 6.56 in their study with the varieties SML818 and SML 668.
 

Table 4: Economic analysis of FLDs and farmers’ practice of summer mung.

CONCLUSION

The present study comprehensively showed that there is a gap in potential yield, demonstration yield and farmers’ practice due to existing technological extension gap and FLDs had positive effect towards increase in yield of summer mung. The technology proved eco-friendly alternative to summer rice as well as for conservation of underground water resources. The dual advantage of this technology i.e. enhancing farmers’ income and improved soil health helped in its rapid spread.  It is evident from the study that a gap also exists between improved recommended cultivation practice of summer mung and their adoption by the farmers in the district. Therefore, front line demonstration (FLD) being an educational activity was effective in changing knowledge, skills and attitude of farmers and enhances production and productivity of summer mung in the district. It also helped in minimizing the yield gap and contributes towards increase in area under summer mung in the district. FLD is also a proven tool of mass awareness and can motivate farmers to adopt improved summer mung cultivation practices. Adoption of improved summer mung cultivation practices leads to better yield, higher economic returns and better resource utilization and conservation at farm level.

REFERENCES


  1. Anonymous (2019). Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India (Retrieved from https://eands.dacnet.nic.in).

  2. Biyan, S.C., Chintapalli, B., Dhuppar, P. and Rao, D.S. (2012). Summer mung crop production in the context of climate change: An Appraisal. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, Special Issue. 2: 46-48.

  3. Choudhary, A.K., Yadav, D.S. and Singh, A. (2009). Technological extension yield gaps in oilseeds in Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation. 37(3): 224-229.

  4. Dharmalingam, C. and Basu, R.N. (1993). Determining optimum season for production of seeds in mungbean. Madras Agricultural Journal. 80: 684-688.

  5. Dhillon, G.S. (2016). Boosting summer mung productivity through front line demonstrations. Agriculture Update. 11(1): 59-64.

  6. Kokate, K.D., Lathwal, O.P., Narula, A.M. and Goyal, S.P. (2010). Summer mung intensification. Zonal Project Directorate, Zone-1, PAU Campus, Ludhiana.

  7. Kumar, P. and Boparai, A.K. (2020). Impact of summer mung trough improved technology in Jalandhar district of Punjab, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 9(5): 3495-3501.

  8. Kumar, S., Khar, S., Sharma, M. and Singh, P. (2014). Stability analysis for seed yield attributing traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinium L.) under mid hills of J and K. Legume Research- An International Journal. 37(5): 552-555.

  9. Kumar, S., Mahajan, V., Sharma, P.K. and Parkash, S. (2019). Impact of front line demonstrations on the production and productivity of moong (Vigna radiata L.), mash (Vigna mungo L.), rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), lentil (Lens culinaris L.) and chickpea (Cicer aeritinum L.) under rainfed ecology in mid hills of J and K, India. Legume Research-An International Journal. 42(1): 127-133.

  10. Kumar, S., Singh, P., Khar, S. and Sharma, M. and (2016). Variability association studies screening of genotypes against pea seed borne mosaic virus (psmv) in lentil (Lens culinaris medik) under NW Himalayas of Jammu Kashmir. Legume Research-An International Journal. 39(1): 26-30.

  11. Kumar, S.S., Singh, P.S., Magdeshwar (2017). Genetic divergence and stability (AMMI) study in desi chickpea (Cicer arietinium L.) under North Western Himalayas of Jammu Kashmir, India. Legume Research- An International Journal. 40(5): 842-845.

  12. Kumari, V., Kumar, A., Kumar, A. and Bhateria, S. (2007). Demonstration- an effective tool for increasing productivity of rapseed-mustard in Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh. Himachal Journal of Agricultural Research. 33(2): 257-261.

  13. Samui, S.K., Mitra, S., Roy, D.K., Mandal, A.K. and Saha, D. (2000). Evolution of frontline demonstration on groundnut. Journal of Indian Society Coastal Agricultural Research. 18(2): 180-183.

  14. Singh, D., Singh, K.B., Gill, N.S. and Grewal, I.S. (2017b). Impact analysis of frontline demonstrations on pulses in Punjab. International Journal of Farm Sciences. 7(1): 190-194.

  15. Singh, J., Singh, K. and Rathee, A.K. (2019). Analysis of adoption gaps in summer moong cultivation technology in Sonipat district of Haryana. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 19(4): 35-37.

  16. Singh, P., Shahi, B. and Singh, K.M. (2017a). Trends of Pulses Production, Consumption and Import in India: Current Scenario and Strategies. MPRA Paper No. 81589, posted 27 Sep 2017 (Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/81589/).

  17. Yadav, V.P.S., Kumar, R., Deshwal, A.K., Raman, R.S., Sharma, B.K. and Bhela, S.L. (2007). Boosting pulse production through frontline demonstrations. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 7(2 and 3): 12–14.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)