Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.217, CiteScore: 0.595

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, 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

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 49 issue 6 (december 2015) : 558-561

Populerization of maize among the small farmers of Ernakulam district of Kerala through front line demonstration

Vijendra Kumar Meena*, Shinoj Subramannian, Pushraj Anjlo, Dipti N.V.
1<p>Krishi Vigyan Kendra,<br /> ICAR- Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Narakkal-682 505, India.</p>
Cite article:- Meena* Kumar Vijendra, Subramannian Shinoj, Anjlo Pushraj, N.V. Dipti (2015). Populerization of maize among the small farmers of Ernakulam districtof Kerala through front line demonstration . Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 49(6): 558-561. doi: 10.18805/ijare.v49i6.6686.

ABSTRACT

To popularise maize crop (Zea maize) among small farmers of Ernakulam district of Kerala, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, ICAR- Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute organised 25 demonstrations during 2012-13 to 2014-15 on traditional farmer’s field. Maize cultivars Pratap-4 and Pratap-5 were used for demonstration during January to May and September to December season. Farmers were motivated and trained for maize seed multiplication and cultivation aspects. Results of demonstration revealed that Pratap-4, Pratap-5 and local variety produced 33.70, 30.7 and 23.4 q/ha, respectively.  Average income generated by the crop range from Rs. 40440/- to Rs. 36840/- and local variety Rs. 30240/-.  Cost benefit ratio was 2.18, 1.99 and 1.77. for Pratap-4 , Pratp-5 and local variety, respectively. Technology index was reduced in the 2nd and 3rd year showed the feasibility of maize crop in the area. Thereafter, 500 farmers initiated the small scale farming of maize in the district with the technical guidance provided from KVK. 

REFERENCES


  1. Anonymous (2011). Vision 2030. Directorate of Maize Research, Pusa, New Delhi(India).

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

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

  5. 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.

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

  7. Narayanaswamy, C. and Eshwarappa. G. (1998). Impact of front line demonstration. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 34: 14-15.

  8. 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.

  9. Singh, N. and Sharma F.L. (2004). Impact of front line demonstration on gain in knowledge about mustard production technology among farmers. In compendium of 2nd National Extension Education Congress. May 22-24. 2004. Society of Extension Education. Agra & MPUAT. Udaipur: 56.

  10. 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.

  11. Samui, S.K., Mitra, S., Roy D.K., Mandal A.K.and Saha D. (2000). Evaluation of Front line Demonstration on groundnut. J.Indian Soc. Coastal Agric. Res., 18:180-183

  12. Singh. V., Singh R. P. and Pawar, K.S. (1995). Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to seed rate and date of Sowing. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 40:697-99.

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

  14. 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.

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

  16. Mitra, Biplab and T. Samajdar ( 2010). Yield gap analysis of rapeseed- mustard through front line demonstration. Agric. Exten. Review, (April-June): 16-17. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)