Frontline demonstrations studies were carried out in Beed district of Maharashtra state in
Kharif season from 2019-20 to 2022-23. Major gap was observed between improved technology and farmers practice of pigeonpea cultivation in Beed district of Maharashtra (Table 1). Among varying technological component, full gap was observed in the component
viz., variety, seed treatment, seed inoculation and irrigation and partial gap was observed in seed rate, spacing, fertilizer dose and plant protection measures. These gaps observed at the farmers field were ascribed to slow pace of extension activities; coupled with unreached extension system, poor accessibility of improved agro-technologies especially among small holder farmers
(Shivran et al., 2020). Under farmers practice, seed of local/old variety with low yield potential was sown instead of newly recommended varieties for the zone with improper application of improved recommended package technologies. On the basis of observed gap, under the demonstration, improved variety BDN 711, fungicide, insecticide, biofertilizer (
Rhizobium and PSB culture) soil sample testing, VNMKV diary were provided to partner farmers by KVK and other crop management practices were timely performed by the partner farmer himself under the supervision of KVK Scientist. Similar findings have also been observed by
Meena et al., (2022).
Pigeonpea yield
During four years of study results obtained are presented in Table 2. The results revealed that the demonstration on pigeonpea recorded an average seed yield of 1664 kg/ha under demonstrated plots as compared to farmers practice (1274 kg/ha) The highest seed yield in the demonstration plot was 1800 kg/ha during 2021-22. The average yield of pigeonpea increased under demonstration 30.61 per cent over farmers practice (Table 2). These results clearly indicated that the higher average seed yield in demonstration plots over farmers practice might be due to integrated crop management practices and adoption of drought resistant of BDN 711 variety. Adoption of scientific package of practices like seed treatment with bio-fertilizers and need based right plant protection practices resulted in higher yields. The above findings are similar in lines with
Raju et al., (2015) and
Kishor et al., (2020).
Technology gap
The data given in Table 2 depicted the technology gap as a difference between potential yield and demonstrated plot yield. The technology gap observed during different years was 770, 450, 400 and 522 kg/ha during 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively. On an average technology gap observed in four years under cluster front line demonstration implemented villages was 535 kg/ha. The highest technology gap 770 kg/ha was recorded in 2019-20 followed by 522 kg/ha (2022-23), 450 Kg/ha (2020-21) and 400 kg/ha (2021-22) (Table 2). This also reflects the poor extension activities, which resulted in lesser adoption of package of practice by farmer. Hence, extension activities and location specific technological recommendation apper to be necessary to decline the technology gap. The above findings are similar in lines with
Meena et al., (2021) and
Keshavreddy et al., (2018).
Extension gap
Extension gap is considered as a parameter to know the yield difference between the demonstrated improved technology and farmers practices. Results of the demonstrations (Table 2) stated that the extension gap ranging between 280 to 550 kg/ha was found between demonstrated technology and farmers practices. The extension gap observed during different years was 280, 350, 550 and 383 kg/ha during 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, respectively. On an average extension gap observed in four years under CFLD implemented villages was 391 kg/ha. The highest extension gap 550 kg/ha was recorded in 2021-22 followed by 383 Kg/ha (2022-23), 350 kg/ha (2020-21) and 280 kg/ha (2019-20). So, to enhance the farmers income, there is need to reduce wider extension gap. Therefore, it is necessary to educate the farmer’s through various means of extension for more adoption of recommended improved high yielding varieties and implementation of latest agro-technique in pigeonpea. The above findings are similar to the findings of
Meena et al., (2022); Keshavreddy et al. (2018) and
Kishor et al. (2020).
Technology index
The technology index is a parameter to show the feasibility of the improved technology at the farmers fields. Data on technology index presented in Table 2, showed that technology index was varied from 20 to 35 percent. On an average technology index observed was 25.23% for four years where front line demonstrations were conducted. This shows the efficiency and effectiveness of the improved technologies as a result of successful technical interventions to increase the yield performance of pigeonpea. This will accelerate the adoption of demonstrated technological intervention to increase the yield performance of pigeonpea at farmers field. Similar findings were recorded by
Meena et al., (2021) and
Meena et al., (2022).
Economics
Economics of improved technology under frontline demonstration was estimated (Table 3) on the basis of prevailing market rates. Economic returns related to input and output prices of commodities prevailed during the study period were recorded. The cultivation of pigeonpea under improved technologies CFLD gave higher net returns of Rs. 57500, Rs. 78000, Rs. 76400 and Rs. 75748 per hectare as against to farmers practices
i.e., Rs. 35500, Rs. 60800, Rs 48750 and Rs. 52970 per hectare during the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, respectively (Table 3) Similar results were reorted by
Singh et al., (2014) and
Raj et al., (2013). The Benefit: cost ratio observed during different years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 under improved cultivation practices were 1.90, 2.33, 3.06 and 2.16, respectively, while it was 1.61, 1.95, 2.62 and 1.62 under farmers practice for the respective years. The highest Benefit: cost ratio recorded in demo plots might be due to higher yields obtained under improved technologies compared to farmer’s practices during all the four years (Table 3). Similar results were observed by
Meena et al., (2021); Meena et al., (2022) and
Raju et al., (2015).