Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Cluster Frontline Demonstration (CFLD) on Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in Baksa District, Assam

J
Jyotismita Borah1
0009-0001-5479-3784
P
Pallabi Das2,*
0000-0001-62474058
P
Pallavi Deka3
0000-0001-9750-0287
K
Kanku Deka1
D
Debajit Deka1
R
Roji Chutia1
U
Utpal Jyoti Sarma1
1Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Baksa, Assam Agricultural University, Kharua-781 346, Assam, India.
2Department of Extension Education, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat-785 013, Assam, India.
3Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Udalguri, Assam Agricultural University, Darrang-784 514, Assam, India.

  • Submitted06-05-2025|

  • Accepted11-10-2025|

  • First Online 31-10-2025|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-5519

ABSTRACT

Background: India is a leading global producer, consumer and importer of pulses, contributing significantly to food security, especially in vegetarian diets. Despite an annual production of 25 million tonnes, domestic consumption surpasses supply, driving imports. Assam, particularly Baksa district, cultivates field pea, but productivity remains low due to outdated farming practices. The Cluster Frontline Demonstration program, introduced in 2015-16, aims to bridge the technology gap and enhance yields through improved agro-technologies and farmer awareness. Hence, the present study was undertaken to analyse the impact of CFLD on Field pea in Baksa district of Assam. 

Methods: The study was conducted in Baksa district during 2024 and assessed the impact of the CFLD-Pulses programme on field pea cultivation. Implemented across 150 hectares, it benefited 375 farmers between 2019-2023, with scientists providing technical support. Data from three selected villages were analyzed using statistical tools, focusing on yield variations, economic viability, extension and technology gaps and the benefit-cost ratio. Findings were derived from personal interviews, PRA techniques and pre-tested schedules to ensure reliability.

Result: The results revealed that there is a declining trend in technology gap and extension gap and an increase in average yield of field pea of beneficiaries over the years, approximately ten quintals per hectare as compared to early seven quintas per hectare of non-beneficiaries. The mean gross return, net return and B:C ratio from pea cultivation was found higher in beneficiaries as compared to non-beneficiaries.

INTRODUCTION

India is one of the leading producer and consumer of pulses, accounting for about 25 percent of production, 27 percent of total consumption and 14 per cent of imports globally (Agarwal et al., 2024). Pulses play a crucial role in India’s food security, providing essential proteins, especially in vegetarian diets. The total area under pulse cultivation in India is around 30 million hectares with an annual production of approximately 25 million tonnes (Kumar, 2021) and (Mohare, 2022).
       
The annual pulse consumption is estimated to be 28 million tonnes in India which is exceeding the domestic production levels. This gap has led to increased imports, particularly of field peas (Pisum sativum L.), which accounted for 31 per cent of total pulse imports in FY25. The rising demand is driven by population growth, dietary shifts and government initiatives promoting pulse-based nutrition. Field pea is extensively grown in Assam, especially in districts like Baksa, owing to its suitability for the Lower Brahmaputra Valley Zone. Assam, with a larger cultivation area of 12,500 hectares, produces approximately 10,650 tonnes of field pea. The productivity, measured at 852 kg/ha, indicates the average yield obtained per hectare across the state. Baksa district, a smaller region within Assam, has 850 hectares under cultivation, yielding 726 tonnes of field pea, with a slightly higher productivity of 855 kg/ha.
       
The productivity of field pea in Assam remains significantly lower compared to other states, primarily due to the prevalence of outdated seed varieties, excessive seed rates, traditional broadcasting sowing methods and various biotic and abiotic stresses (Deka et al., 2021). Addressing these challenges requires heightened awareness among farmers and the promotion of location-specific improved varieties to enhance both production and productivity across the state (Gogoi et al., 2022).
       
Therefore, the initiative taken by MoA, GOI implement CFLD programme aims to popularize improved agro-technologies by showcasing them on farmers’ fields, adapting them to diverse farming conditions and effectively bridging the gap between indigenous and modern technologies to boost pulse yield, particularly under rainfed conditions (Tiwari et al., 2017). To implement CFLDs across India, the Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi entrusted Krishi Vigyan Kendras with the responsibility of conducting demonstrations on critical pulse crops. These efforts are overseen by eleven ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institutes (ATARI) nationwide to systematically improve productivity.
       
In Assam, the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Baksa, initiated CFLDs on field pea in 2017-18, recognizing the effectiveness of this extension approach. To assess its impact, a study was undertaken, focusing on key evaluation parameters such as changes in yield, economic viability, extension gap, technology gap, technology index and the benefit-cost ratio.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted in Krishi Vigyan Kendra of Baksa district located in the Lower Brahmaputra Valley Zone of Assam, during the month of June, 2024. Before initiating the Cluster Frontline Demonstration programme, scientists from Krishi Vigyan Kendra gathered baseline data from selected villages. Through group meetings, farmers were identified and a structured training programme was conducted to familiarize them with the recommended package of practices for field pea cultivation as prescribed by Assam Agricultural University. The CFLD-Pulses programme was then implemented across 150 hectares, benefiting 375 farmers between 2019-20 and 2022-23. Essential inputs were provided based on specific requirements and KVK scientists supervised demonstration plots, ensuring farmers received the necessary technical support.
       
To evaluate the programme’s impact, the study focused on three purposively selected villages viz., Bunbari, Barimakha and Kharua involving 100 beneficiaries and 100 non-beneficiaries. The impact assessment utilized various parameters such as yield variations, economic analysis, extension gap, technology gap, technology index and the benefit-cost (B:C) ratio. Data collection followed both personal interview methods and Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques with pre-tested schedules. Various statistical tools were used to analyse the data. The Extension Gap (EG), Technology Gap (TG) and Technology Index (TI) were calculated as suggested by Singh et al., (2022) and Dayanand et al., (2012).
 
 
Technology gap (TG) = Potential yield (Py) - Demonstrated yield (Dy)
 
Extension gap (EG) = Demonstration yield (Dy) - Farmer’s practice yield (Fpy)



 
 
 
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Technological intervention in CFLD-field pea
 
To uplift the production and productivity of field pea, both Krishi Vigyan Kendra and the farmers made collaborative efforts. A recommended packages of practices on field pea were followed to conduct the CFLDs at the farmers’ fields. Table 1 shows that the CFLD programme introduced various technological interventions to enhance field pea cultivation at Baksa district. One of the key improvements was the use of high-yielding variety ‘Aman’, replacing traditional local varieties which had lower productivity and disease resistance. Farmers traditionally sowed field pea later in the season (November–December), whereas CFLD recommended variety sowed during middle of October to middle of November for optimal crop establishment, minimizing yield loss due to delayed germination. Additionally, CFLD promoted line sowing, ensuring uniform spacing and efficient nutrient uptake, whereas traditional farming relied on broadcasting, which resulted in irregular plant distribution. The seed rate was also optimized with CFLD, recommending only 60 kg/ha, significantly lower than the 80 kg/ha used by farmers with traditional practices, reducing overcrowding and enhancing growth conditions. One of the critical improvements was seed treatment, where CFLD introduced treatment with carboxin @ 2 g/kg of seed, protecting against fungal infections. Farmers, however, did not practice seed treatment, exposing crops to higher disease risks. Fertilizer management under CFLD followed a balanced application of 20:46:10 (N:P: K) kg/ha along with Borax @10 kg/ha, whereas traditional farming involved random fertilizer application without precise dosage, often leading to either nutrient deficiency or excess. Finally, plant protection practices were introduced in CFLD based on need-based pesticide application, while traditional methods lacked of pest management measures, increasing susceptibility to pest and disease outbreaks. Similar findings were revealed in the research findings of Shukla et al., 2022, Kumar et al., (2018), Mauriya et al., (2024), Hooda et al., (2006) and Raghav et al., (2020).

Table 1: Technological intervention in CFLD-field pea.


 
Extent of adoption of recommended package of practices of field pea
               
It can be concluded from Table 2 that, before implementation of CFLD programme, no farmers used improved variety of seeds. Then later after CFLD implementation, 159 farmers (80%) adopted it. CFLD provided demonstrations showcasing the advantages of improved cultivars in terms of yield stability, pest resistance and market value. Initially, 22 farmers (37%) followed the recommended sowing method, but after CFLD, 150 farmers (75%) adopted it. The CFLD programme educated the farmers on these benefits and give demonstrations how shifting of the sowing period could improve productivity. Before CFLD, no farmers followed the correct seed rate, whereas 148 farmers (74%) adopted it after CFLD. Farmers had lacked knowledge about the ideal plant population for optimal yield. CFLD guided them on the precise seed quantity per hectare, improving spacing and reducing competition among plants. These findings are in line with the findings of Jena et al., (2024) and Singh et al., (2023). Farmers often neglect seed treatment due to lack of awareness or unavailability of treatment materials. No farmers practiced Integrated Nutrient Management programmes before CFLD, but 145 farmers (73%) adopted it afterwards. CFLD introduced balanced nutrient applications by integrating organic and inorganic inputs, enhancing soil health and crop productivity. Further, for plant protection measures, the adoption rose from 19 farmers (32%) to 147 farmers (74%). CFLD provided practical demonstrations of effective pest management techniques, making farmers more willing to implement them.

Table 2: Extent of adoption of recommended package of practices of Field Pea.


 
Impact of technological intervention on crop yield
 
The data in Table 3 illustrates the significant impact of technological interventions on the yield of the Aman variety of field pea over three consecutive years. Before the intervention, farmers’ fields yielded between 7.0 to 8.2 q/ha, while in the demonstration fields, benefiting from improved agronomic practices under CFLD, the achieved yields range from 10 to 11.5 q/ha. This consistent increase in yield, averaging 37 per cent across the three years, highlights the effectiveness of improved seed selection, optimized nutrient management and better pest control. The highest increase was observed during 2021-22 season, where yield rose by 40 per cent, reflecting the gradual adoption and refinement of scientific techniques. Similar results had been disclosed in the research findings of Suresh et al., (2020), Kumar et al., (2023) and Das et al., (2021). However, despite notable improvements, the yields still fell short of the potential 18 q/ha, indicating that external factors such as soil conditions, climatic variability and farm level management practices may have constrained on maximum yield. This trend indicates the importance of sustained farmer education, enhanced resource accessibility and continuous refinement of interventions to bridge the gap between actual and potential yields.

Table 3: Impact of technological intervention on crop yield.


 
Impact of CFLD- pulse on yield, technology gap, extension gap and technology index 
  
Table 4 and Fig 1 illustrates the impact of the CFLD program, highlighting the variations in yield, extension gap and technology gap.

Table 4: Impact of CFLD-pulse on yield, technology gap, extension gap and technology index.



Fig 1: Yield gap of Field Pea under CFLD.



Yield performance
 
The analysis of the data presented in Table 4 revealed that the adoption of improved practices in demonstration plots increased the grain yield of field pea over farmer’s practice in all the years of study period. The mean grain yield recorded in demonstrations was 10.43 q/ha with a range of 9.8 q/ha in 2019-20 to 1115 q/ha in 2021-22. Whereases, in case of farmer’s practice, the mean grain yield recorded was 7.63 q/ha with the range from 7 q/ha to 8.2 q/ha only.
The enhanced crop yield observed in demonstration plots compared to traditional farmer practices can be attributed to the adoption of recommended agronomic techniques. These include improved planting methods, utilization of high yielding varieties, disease resistant varieties, optimized irrigation strategies and precisely calibrated fertilization schedules, all contributing to superior agricultural performance in the demonstration plots. Singh et al., (2021), Yadav et al. (2022), Balai et al., (2012) and Kumar et al., (2021) also obtained similar findings from their studies.
 
Technology gap
 
It was evident from Table 4 that the technology gap ranged from 8.2 q/ha in 2019-20 to 6.5 q/ha in 2021-22 with an average of 7.6 q/ha in three years. The disparity between potential yield and demonstration yield highlights the need for further refinement of technologies developed by researchers. To minimize this technology gap, it is essential to implement location specific technology packages tailored to regional agricultural conditions (Malik et al., 2021). Similar results were achieved by Vishwatej et al., (2023) and Meshram et al., (2022).
 
Extension gap
 
It was predicted from the Table 4 that the extension gap in the yield ranged from 2.8 q/ha in 2019-20 to 3.3 q/ha in 2021-22 with an average of 2.8 q/ha. The extension gap arises from inconsistencies in the adoption of recommended technologies and can be effectively reduced through coordinated efforts among researchers, extension personnel and farmers. Deka et al., (2024) and Singh et al., (2020) have reported comparable findings.
 
Technology index
 
The technology index serves as a metric for assessing the adoption and effectiveness of technologies across various conditions. It reflects the demonstrated utility of a technology, along with its observability and feasibility in real world farming scenarios. A lower Technology Index value signifies greater utility and practical applicability of the presented technology. For the crop Field pea, it was delineated from Table 4, that with a mean value of 42 per cent, the technology index ranged from 36 percent in 2021-22 to 44 per cent in 2020-21.
       
The three years study period shows a downward trend in the Technology Index, indicating the impact of CFLD activities. It underscores the effectiveness of technical interventions in facilitating the adoption of improved technologies, ultimately enhancing yield performance on farmers’ fields. These results are line with the findings of Meena et al., (2017), Reager et al., (2020) and Devi et al., (2023).
 
Economic analysis among the demonstration plot and farmer’s plot
 
Fig 2 exhibits the economic performance of demonstration plots compared to farmers’ fields through cost of cultivation, gross income, net income and the benefit-cost (B:C) ratio over three consecutive years.

Fig 2: Economic analysis between demonstration plot of beneficiaries and farmer’s plot (non-beneficiaries).


       
In the 2019-20 period, the cost of cultivation in demonstration plots was Rs. 20,350 per hectare, higher than Rs. 18,050 in farmers’ fields. However, the gross income from demonstration plots reached Rs. 39,200 per hectare, substantially exceeding Rs. 28,000 in farmers’ fields. This resulted in a net income of Rs. 18,850 in demonstration plots, nearly double the Rs. 9,950 seen in farmers’ fields. The benefit-cost ratio followed the same trend, with demonstration plots showing a ratio of 1.92 compared to 1.55 in farmers’ fields. In 2020-21, the cost of cultivation increased slightly in both demonstration plots (Rs. 20,900 per hectare) and farmers’ fields (Rs. 18,500 per hectare). Gross income improved further, with demonstration plots generating Rs. 40,000 per hectare while farmers’ fields yielded Rs. 30,800 per hectare. This led to a net income of Rs. 19,100 in demonstration plots, compared to Rs. 12,300 in farmers’ fields. The B:C ratio for demonstration plots remained high at 1.91, while farmers’ fields showed a moderate increase to 1.66. By 2021-22, the cost of cultivation rose to Rs. 21,700 in demonstration plots and Rs. 18,000 in farmers’ fields, reflecting increased investment in agronomic practices. Gross income peaked at Rs. 46,000 per hectare in demonstration plots, whereas farmers’ fields showed a more modest gain of Rs. 32,800 per hectare. The net income from demonstration plots climbed to Rs. 24,300, surpassing Rs. 14,800 in farmers’ fields. The B:C ratio reached 2.11 in demonstration plots, indicating superior economic returns compared to 1.82 in farmers’ fields. Similar trend of findings has been reported by Sorokhaibam et al. (2023) and Roy et al., (2010).
       
On average, the cost of cultivation in demonstration plots was Rs. 20,983.33 per hectare, while farmers’ fields required Rs. 18,183.33 per hectare. Gross income was significantly higher in demonstration plots at Rs. 41,733.33 per hectare, compared to Rs. 30,533.33 per hectare in farmers’ fields. Consequently, net income averaged Rs. 20,750 per hectare for demonstration plots, while farmers’ fields generated a lower Rs. 12,350 per hectare. The overall B:C ratio stood at 1.98 for demonstration plots, significantly outperforming farmers’ fields at 1.67. The results are in line with the results achieved by Kumar et al., (2023) and Rajashekar et al., (2022).

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed a positive and impactful influence of the CFLD programme on farmers. The demonstrations introduced the improved cultivation practices, which proved to be more effective than traditional farmer’s methods. While the crop yield showed notable enhancement, certain extension and technological gaps persisted, directly affecting productivity. Addressing these gaps through increased extension efforts is crucial. Economic indicators including gross returns, net returns and the B:C ratio were consistently higher in demonstrations compared to farmers’ conventional practices. Overall, the CFLD programme contributed to enhanced production, improved productivity and increased farmer income, ultimately reinforcing food and nutritional security at a national level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors take the chance to thank and acknowledge all the farmers engaged in the cultivation of field pea under the CFLD programme, all the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendar, Baksa and Assam Agricultural University for allowing them to carry out the study.
 
Disclaimers
 
The perspectives and findings presented in this research article reflect the authors’ own viewpoints and do not necessarily align with those of their affiliated institutions. While the authors ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, they disclaim any liability for direct or indirect losses that may arise from its use.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There is no conflict of interest among the authors.

REFERENCES


  1. Agarwal, D., Sneh. J., Devra, R.., Siddharajsinh, R. (2024). Pulses in India: Comprehensive analysis of production, challenges and strategic, Vision for 2030. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 46(11): 293-304. doi: 10.9734/jeai/ 2024/v46i113053.

  2. Balai, C.M., Meena, R.P., Meena, B.L., Bairwa, R.K. (2012). Impact of frontline demonstration on rapeseed and mustard yield improvement. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 12(2): 113-116.

  3. Das, S., Deka, N., Phukan, R., Bhagawati, S., Bezbarua, R. (2021). Impact assessment of cluster front line demonstration on relay field pea (Pisum sativum L.) production on rice fallows in the Nagaon district of Central Brahmaputra Valley Zone. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 10(1): 1299-1304. doi: 10.20546/ ijcmas.2021.1001.154.

  4. Dayanand, V.R.K. and Mehta, S.M. (2012). Boosting mustard production through front-line demonstrations. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 12(3): 121-123.

  5. Deka, K., Bora, D., Deka, D., Sarma, U.J., Saud, R.K. (2021). Impact of management practices on field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivation in Baksa district of Assam. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 10(1): 146-150.

  6. Deka, P., Das, P., Barman, S., Saikia, P., Borah, J., Bora, S.S., Borah, D., Neog, M. (2024). An evaluative study of cluster frontline demonstration (CFLD)-pulse in Udalguri district of Assam. Legume Research. 48(8): 1405-1414. doi: 10.18805/LR-5379.

  7. Devi, M.T., Kumar, B., Boruah, M., Tripathi, A.K., Bordoloi, R.M., Kumar, R., Sinha, P.K. (2023). Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) yield gap analysis: A study from Assam, India. Indian Journal of Hill Farming. 36(Special Issue): 23-29. doi: 10.56678/ iahf-spl36.2023.4.

  8. Gogoi, B., Das, S., Bhagowati, S., Nath, D.C., Bordoloi, N.J., Deka, N.(2022). Enhancing profitability and sustainability through increased pulses production in Assam. Journal of Crop and Weed. 18(2): 9-17. 

  9. Hooda, K.S., Bhatt, J.C., Joshi, D., Sushil, S.N., Gupta, H. (2006). Impact of biocontrol agents on the health of garden pea (Pisum sativum) in Kumaon hills of Himalayas. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 76(9): 573-574. 

  10. Jena, N.K., Behera, K., Giri, P.M., Jena, M.K., Patra, A., Sahu, S. (2024). Impact of cluster front line demonstration (CFLD) on yield and economics of toria in rain-fed north eastern coastal plain zone of Odisha. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 10(4): 347-354.  doi: 10.9734/ajsspn/ 2024/v10i4409.

  11. Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Kumari, P.P.V.L., Kumar, S. (2023). Impact assessment of CFLD pulses on pigeonpea productivity and profitability in farmer’s field. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 59(2): 36-40.  doi: 10.48165/ijee.2023.59208.

  12. Kumar, N., Yadav, N.K., Singh, B. (2021). Effect of cluster front-line demonstrations (CFLD) on production, profitability and social impact on mustard cultivation. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science. 10(8): 629-635.

  13. Kumar, S., Nongthombam, J., Chaudhary, K.P., Prakash, O., Swaroop, J. (2018). Economics and impact of FLD on broccoli yield at farmers filed of Aizawl District Mizoram. Agro-Economist.  5(2): 81-86.

  14. Malik, D.P., Bishnoi, D.K., Pawar, N., Kumar, N., Sumit (2021). Additional income generation from cultivation of summer mung bean in rice-wheat system of Haryana. Legume Research. 40: 187-190. doi: 10.18805/LR-4253.

  15. Mauriya, A.K., Kumar, V., Verma, R.B., Sahu, R., Hashim, M. (2024). Impact of cluster frontline demonstration on increasing productivity and profitability of pigeonpea in Bihar. Journal of Food Legumes. 37(2): 211-214. doi: 10.59797/jfl.v37.i2.197.

  16. Meena, M.L. and Singh, D. (2017). Technological and extension yield gaps in green gram in Pali district of Rajasthan, India. Legume Research. 40: 187-190. doi: 10.18805/lr. v0iOF.3549.

  17. Meshram, V., Sahare, K.V., Ahirwar, R.P., Dhumketi, K., Pandre, N.K., Sharga, P. (2022). Evaluation of cluster frontline demon- strations (CFLD) pulses on increasing yield of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) in tribal district of Mandla, Madhya Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 11(1): 1166-1169.

  18. Mohare, V.Y. (2022). An economic analysis of production of pulses in India. Indian Economic Service. 

  19. Raghav, D.K., Kumar, U., Kumar, A., Singh, A.K. (2020). Impact of cluster frontline demonstration on pigeon pea for increasing production in rain fed area of district Ramgarh (Jharkhand) towards Self-Sufficiency of Pulses. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 20(4): 34-39.

  20. Rajashekar, B., Rajashekhar, M., Reddy, T.P., Reddy, M.J.M., Shankar, A., Ramakrishna, K., Jahan, A. (2022). [Article title not specified]. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 12(11): 2231-2236.

  21. Reager, M.L., Kumar, U., Mitharwal, B.S., Chaturvedi, D. (2020). Productivity and sustainability of green gram as influenced by improved technology of CFLD under hyper arid partially irrigated zone of Rajasthan. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 9: 1778-1786.

  22. Roy Burman, R., Singh, S.K., Singh, A.K. (2010). Gap in adoption of improved pulse production technologies in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 10(1): 99-104.

  23. Shukla, R., Hnamte, V., Lalmuanpuii, R., Kumar, S. (2022). Impact of cluster frontline demonstration on organic nutrient manage- ment in field pea in Mamit district, Mizoram, India. Biological Forum - An International Journal. 14(4): 517-520.

  24. Singh, A., Singh, A.K., Dubey, S.K., Chahal, V.P., Singh, R., Mishra, A., Singh, R., Deka, B.C., Singh, S. K., Singh, S.S., Singh, L., Tripathi, A.K., Prasad, Y.G., Kumar, A., Gowda, M.J.C., Pandey, S., Singh, R. (2023). Ensuring productivity advantages through cluster frontline demonstrations (CFLD)-pulses: Nationwide experiences. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 93(5): 561-566.  doi:10.56093/ijas.v93i5.103296.

  25. Singh, J., Singh, K., Hemender, Premdeep. (2021). Impact assessment of front-line demonstrations on summer mung productivity under irrigated agro-ecosystem of Haryana. Legume Research.  44: 1470-1474.  doi: 10.18805/LR-4517.

  26. Singh, L.K., Zimik, L., Devi, S.R. (2022). Impact of cluster front line demonstrations on field pea (Pisum sativum L.) in valley areas of Manipur. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 58(2): 195-197.  doi: 10.48165/IJEE.2022.58228.

  27. Singh, N. and Singh, A. K. (2020). Yield gap and economics of cluster frontline demonstrations (CFLDs) on pulses under rain-fed condition of Bundelkhand in Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences. 7(8): 1-7. doi:10.22192/ijarbs.2020.07.08.001.

  28. Sorokhaibam, S., Meetei, K.B., Singh, N.A., Maipak, K., Bidyananda, P. (2023). Analysis of yield gap and economics of cluster frontline demonstration (CFLDs) on field pea in Bishnupur district, Manipur. The Pharma Innovation Journal. SP-12(9): 30-32.

  29. Suresh, M., Naaiik, R.V.T.B., Kumar, B.K., Vijaykumar, P., Swetha, M., Vijayalaxmi, D., Rajkumar, B.V., Manjari, M.B., Padmaveni, C. (2020). Cluster front line demonstration evaluation programme on Bengal gram (Cicer arietinum L.) variety (NBeG-3) in Nizamabad district of Telangana. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 39(48): 312-317. doi:10.9734/CJAST/2020/v39i4831236.

  30. Tiwari, A.K. and Shivhare, A.K. (2017). Pulses in India Retrospect and Prospects. Technical Report No. DPD/Pub.1/Vol. 2/2016. Ministry of Agri. and Farmers Welfare (DACandFW), Govt. of India and Directorate of Pulses Development, Vindhyachal Bhavan, Bhopal, M.P.

  31. Vishwatej, R., Ramprasad, M., Narayanamma, L., Shiva, B., Ratnakar, V., Veeranna, G., Reddy, U. (2023). Impact of cluster frontline demonstrations (CFLD) pulses on yield enhancement of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) in aspirational district of Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 12(7): 226-229.

  32. Yadav, M.P., Yadav, S.C., Mali, H.R., Khandelwal, S., Arya, V. (2022). Technology Intervention in CFLD on Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum Linn) in Alwar district of Rajasthan, India. Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. December Special e-Issue. 22(5): 300-306.
Published In
Legume Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    A Comprehensive Evaluation of Cluster Frontline Demonstration (CFLD) on Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in Baksa District, Assam

    J
    Jyotismita Borah1
    0009-0001-5479-3784
    P
    Pallabi Das2,*
    0000-0001-62474058
    P
    Pallavi Deka3
    0000-0001-9750-0287
    K
    Kanku Deka1
    D
    Debajit Deka1
    R
    Roji Chutia1
    U
    Utpal Jyoti Sarma1
    1Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Baksa, Assam Agricultural University, Kharua-781 346, Assam, India.
    2Department of Extension Education, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat-785 013, Assam, India.
    3Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Udalguri, Assam Agricultural University, Darrang-784 514, Assam, India.

    • Submitted06-05-2025|

    • Accepted11-10-2025|

    • First Online 31-10-2025|

    • doi 10.18805/LR-5519

    ABSTRACT

    Background: India is a leading global producer, consumer and importer of pulses, contributing significantly to food security, especially in vegetarian diets. Despite an annual production of 25 million tonnes, domestic consumption surpasses supply, driving imports. Assam, particularly Baksa district, cultivates field pea, but productivity remains low due to outdated farming practices. The Cluster Frontline Demonstration program, introduced in 2015-16, aims to bridge the technology gap and enhance yields through improved agro-technologies and farmer awareness. Hence, the present study was undertaken to analyse the impact of CFLD on Field pea in Baksa district of Assam. 

    Methods: The study was conducted in Baksa district during 2024 and assessed the impact of the CFLD-Pulses programme on field pea cultivation. Implemented across 150 hectares, it benefited 375 farmers between 2019-2023, with scientists providing technical support. Data from three selected villages were analyzed using statistical tools, focusing on yield variations, economic viability, extension and technology gaps and the benefit-cost ratio. Findings were derived from personal interviews, PRA techniques and pre-tested schedules to ensure reliability.

    Result: The results revealed that there is a declining trend in technology gap and extension gap and an increase in average yield of field pea of beneficiaries over the years, approximately ten quintals per hectare as compared to early seven quintas per hectare of non-beneficiaries. The mean gross return, net return and B:C ratio from pea cultivation was found higher in beneficiaries as compared to non-beneficiaries.

    INTRODUCTION

    India is one of the leading producer and consumer of pulses, accounting for about 25 percent of production, 27 percent of total consumption and 14 per cent of imports globally (Agarwal et al., 2024). Pulses play a crucial role in India’s food security, providing essential proteins, especially in vegetarian diets. The total area under pulse cultivation in India is around 30 million hectares with an annual production of approximately 25 million tonnes (Kumar, 2021) and (Mohare, 2022).
           
    The annual pulse consumption is estimated to be 28 million tonnes in India which is exceeding the domestic production levels. This gap has led to increased imports, particularly of field peas (Pisum sativum L.), which accounted for 31 per cent of total pulse imports in FY25. The rising demand is driven by population growth, dietary shifts and government initiatives promoting pulse-based nutrition. Field pea is extensively grown in Assam, especially in districts like Baksa, owing to its suitability for the Lower Brahmaputra Valley Zone. Assam, with a larger cultivation area of 12,500 hectares, produces approximately 10,650 tonnes of field pea. The productivity, measured at 852 kg/ha, indicates the average yield obtained per hectare across the state. Baksa district, a smaller region within Assam, has 850 hectares under cultivation, yielding 726 tonnes of field pea, with a slightly higher productivity of 855 kg/ha.
           
    The productivity of field pea in Assam remains significantly lower compared to other states, primarily due to the prevalence of outdated seed varieties, excessive seed rates, traditional broadcasting sowing methods and various biotic and abiotic stresses (Deka et al., 2021). Addressing these challenges requires heightened awareness among farmers and the promotion of location-specific improved varieties to enhance both production and productivity across the state (Gogoi et al., 2022).
           
    Therefore, the initiative taken by MoA, GOI implement CFLD programme aims to popularize improved agro-technologies by showcasing them on farmers’ fields, adapting them to diverse farming conditions and effectively bridging the gap between indigenous and modern technologies to boost pulse yield, particularly under rainfed conditions (Tiwari et al., 2017). To implement CFLDs across India, the Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi entrusted Krishi Vigyan Kendras with the responsibility of conducting demonstrations on critical pulse crops. These efforts are overseen by eleven ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institutes (ATARI) nationwide to systematically improve productivity.
           
    In Assam, the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Baksa, initiated CFLDs on field pea in 2017-18, recognizing the effectiveness of this extension approach. To assess its impact, a study was undertaken, focusing on key evaluation parameters such as changes in yield, economic viability, extension gap, technology gap, technology index and the benefit-cost ratio.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    The study was conducted in Krishi Vigyan Kendra of Baksa district located in the Lower Brahmaputra Valley Zone of Assam, during the month of June, 2024. Before initiating the Cluster Frontline Demonstration programme, scientists from Krishi Vigyan Kendra gathered baseline data from selected villages. Through group meetings, farmers were identified and a structured training programme was conducted to familiarize them with the recommended package of practices for field pea cultivation as prescribed by Assam Agricultural University. The CFLD-Pulses programme was then implemented across 150 hectares, benefiting 375 farmers between 2019-20 and 2022-23. Essential inputs were provided based on specific requirements and KVK scientists supervised demonstration plots, ensuring farmers received the necessary technical support.
           
    To evaluate the programme’s impact, the study focused on three purposively selected villages viz., Bunbari, Barimakha and Kharua involving 100 beneficiaries and 100 non-beneficiaries. The impact assessment utilized various parameters such as yield variations, economic analysis, extension gap, technology gap, technology index and the benefit-cost (B:C) ratio. Data collection followed both personal interview methods and Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques with pre-tested schedules. Various statistical tools were used to analyse the data. The Extension Gap (EG), Technology Gap (TG) and Technology Index (TI) were calculated as suggested by Singh et al., (2022) and Dayanand et al., (2012).
     
     
    Technology gap (TG) = Potential yield (Py) - Demonstrated yield (Dy)
     
    Extension gap (EG) = Demonstration yield (Dy) - Farmer’s practice yield (Fpy)



     
     
     
     

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Technological intervention in CFLD-field pea
     
    To uplift the production and productivity of field pea, both Krishi Vigyan Kendra and the farmers made collaborative efforts. A recommended packages of practices on field pea were followed to conduct the CFLDs at the farmers’ fields. Table 1 shows that the CFLD programme introduced various technological interventions to enhance field pea cultivation at Baksa district. One of the key improvements was the use of high-yielding variety ‘Aman’, replacing traditional local varieties which had lower productivity and disease resistance. Farmers traditionally sowed field pea later in the season (November–December), whereas CFLD recommended variety sowed during middle of October to middle of November for optimal crop establishment, minimizing yield loss due to delayed germination. Additionally, CFLD promoted line sowing, ensuring uniform spacing and efficient nutrient uptake, whereas traditional farming relied on broadcasting, which resulted in irregular plant distribution. The seed rate was also optimized with CFLD, recommending only 60 kg/ha, significantly lower than the 80 kg/ha used by farmers with traditional practices, reducing overcrowding and enhancing growth conditions. One of the critical improvements was seed treatment, where CFLD introduced treatment with carboxin @ 2 g/kg of seed, protecting against fungal infections. Farmers, however, did not practice seed treatment, exposing crops to higher disease risks. Fertilizer management under CFLD followed a balanced application of 20:46:10 (N:P: K) kg/ha along with Borax @10 kg/ha, whereas traditional farming involved random fertilizer application without precise dosage, often leading to either nutrient deficiency or excess. Finally, plant protection practices were introduced in CFLD based on need-based pesticide application, while traditional methods lacked of pest management measures, increasing susceptibility to pest and disease outbreaks. Similar findings were revealed in the research findings of Shukla et al., 2022, Kumar et al., (2018), Mauriya et al., (2024), Hooda et al., (2006) and Raghav et al., (2020).

    Table 1: Technological intervention in CFLD-field pea.


     
    Extent of adoption of recommended package of practices of field pea
                   
    It can be concluded from Table 2 that, before implementation of CFLD programme, no farmers used improved variety of seeds. Then later after CFLD implementation, 159 farmers (80%) adopted it. CFLD provided demonstrations showcasing the advantages of improved cultivars in terms of yield stability, pest resistance and market value. Initially, 22 farmers (37%) followed the recommended sowing method, but after CFLD, 150 farmers (75%) adopted it. The CFLD programme educated the farmers on these benefits and give demonstrations how shifting of the sowing period could improve productivity. Before CFLD, no farmers followed the correct seed rate, whereas 148 farmers (74%) adopted it after CFLD. Farmers had lacked knowledge about the ideal plant population for optimal yield. CFLD guided them on the precise seed quantity per hectare, improving spacing and reducing competition among plants. These findings are in line with the findings of Jena et al., (2024) and Singh et al., (2023). Farmers often neglect seed treatment due to lack of awareness or unavailability of treatment materials. No farmers practiced Integrated Nutrient Management programmes before CFLD, but 145 farmers (73%) adopted it afterwards. CFLD introduced balanced nutrient applications by integrating organic and inorganic inputs, enhancing soil health and crop productivity. Further, for plant protection measures, the adoption rose from 19 farmers (32%) to 147 farmers (74%). CFLD provided practical demonstrations of effective pest management techniques, making farmers more willing to implement them.

    Table 2: Extent of adoption of recommended package of practices of Field Pea.


     
    Impact of technological intervention on crop yield
     
    The data in Table 3 illustrates the significant impact of technological interventions on the yield of the Aman variety of field pea over three consecutive years. Before the intervention, farmers’ fields yielded between 7.0 to 8.2 q/ha, while in the demonstration fields, benefiting from improved agronomic practices under CFLD, the achieved yields range from 10 to 11.5 q/ha. This consistent increase in yield, averaging 37 per cent across the three years, highlights the effectiveness of improved seed selection, optimized nutrient management and better pest control. The highest increase was observed during 2021-22 season, where yield rose by 40 per cent, reflecting the gradual adoption and refinement of scientific techniques. Similar results had been disclosed in the research findings of Suresh et al., (2020), Kumar et al., (2023) and Das et al., (2021). However, despite notable improvements, the yields still fell short of the potential 18 q/ha, indicating that external factors such as soil conditions, climatic variability and farm level management practices may have constrained on maximum yield. This trend indicates the importance of sustained farmer education, enhanced resource accessibility and continuous refinement of interventions to bridge the gap between actual and potential yields.

    Table 3: Impact of technological intervention on crop yield.


     
    Impact of CFLD- pulse on yield, technology gap, extension gap and technology index 
      
    Table 4 and Fig 1 illustrates the impact of the CFLD program, highlighting the variations in yield, extension gap and technology gap.

    Table 4: Impact of CFLD-pulse on yield, technology gap, extension gap and technology index.



    Fig 1: Yield gap of Field Pea under CFLD.



    Yield performance
     
    The analysis of the data presented in Table 4 revealed that the adoption of improved practices in demonstration plots increased the grain yield of field pea over farmer’s practice in all the years of study period. The mean grain yield recorded in demonstrations was 10.43 q/ha with a range of 9.8 q/ha in 2019-20 to 1115 q/ha in 2021-22. Whereases, in case of farmer’s practice, the mean grain yield recorded was 7.63 q/ha with the range from 7 q/ha to 8.2 q/ha only.
    The enhanced crop yield observed in demonstration plots compared to traditional farmer practices can be attributed to the adoption of recommended agronomic techniques. These include improved planting methods, utilization of high yielding varieties, disease resistant varieties, optimized irrigation strategies and precisely calibrated fertilization schedules, all contributing to superior agricultural performance in the demonstration plots. Singh et al., (2021), Yadav et al. (2022), Balai et al., (2012) and Kumar et al., (2021) also obtained similar findings from their studies.
     
    Technology gap
     
    It was evident from Table 4 that the technology gap ranged from 8.2 q/ha in 2019-20 to 6.5 q/ha in 2021-22 with an average of 7.6 q/ha in three years. The disparity between potential yield and demonstration yield highlights the need for further refinement of technologies developed by researchers. To minimize this technology gap, it is essential to implement location specific technology packages tailored to regional agricultural conditions (Malik et al., 2021). Similar results were achieved by Vishwatej et al., (2023) and Meshram et al., (2022).
     
    Extension gap
     
    It was predicted from the Table 4 that the extension gap in the yield ranged from 2.8 q/ha in 2019-20 to 3.3 q/ha in 2021-22 with an average of 2.8 q/ha. The extension gap arises from inconsistencies in the adoption of recommended technologies and can be effectively reduced through coordinated efforts among researchers, extension personnel and farmers. Deka et al., (2024) and Singh et al., (2020) have reported comparable findings.
     
    Technology index
     
    The technology index serves as a metric for assessing the adoption and effectiveness of technologies across various conditions. It reflects the demonstrated utility of a technology, along with its observability and feasibility in real world farming scenarios. A lower Technology Index value signifies greater utility and practical applicability of the presented technology. For the crop Field pea, it was delineated from Table 4, that with a mean value of 42 per cent, the technology index ranged from 36 percent in 2021-22 to 44 per cent in 2020-21.
           
    The three years study period shows a downward trend in the Technology Index, indicating the impact of CFLD activities. It underscores the effectiveness of technical interventions in facilitating the adoption of improved technologies, ultimately enhancing yield performance on farmers’ fields. These results are line with the findings of Meena et al., (2017), Reager et al., (2020) and Devi et al., (2023).
     
    Economic analysis among the demonstration plot and farmer’s plot
     
    Fig 2 exhibits the economic performance of demonstration plots compared to farmers’ fields through cost of cultivation, gross income, net income and the benefit-cost (B:C) ratio over three consecutive years.

    Fig 2: Economic analysis between demonstration plot of beneficiaries and farmer’s plot (non-beneficiaries).


           
    In the 2019-20 period, the cost of cultivation in demonstration plots was Rs. 20,350 per hectare, higher than Rs. 18,050 in farmers’ fields. However, the gross income from demonstration plots reached Rs. 39,200 per hectare, substantially exceeding Rs. 28,000 in farmers’ fields. This resulted in a net income of Rs. 18,850 in demonstration plots, nearly double the Rs. 9,950 seen in farmers’ fields. The benefit-cost ratio followed the same trend, with demonstration plots showing a ratio of 1.92 compared to 1.55 in farmers’ fields. In 2020-21, the cost of cultivation increased slightly in both demonstration plots (Rs. 20,900 per hectare) and farmers’ fields (Rs. 18,500 per hectare). Gross income improved further, with demonstration plots generating Rs. 40,000 per hectare while farmers’ fields yielded Rs. 30,800 per hectare. This led to a net income of Rs. 19,100 in demonstration plots, compared to Rs. 12,300 in farmers’ fields. The B:C ratio for demonstration plots remained high at 1.91, while farmers’ fields showed a moderate increase to 1.66. By 2021-22, the cost of cultivation rose to Rs. 21,700 in demonstration plots and Rs. 18,000 in farmers’ fields, reflecting increased investment in agronomic practices. Gross income peaked at Rs. 46,000 per hectare in demonstration plots, whereas farmers’ fields showed a more modest gain of Rs. 32,800 per hectare. The net income from demonstration plots climbed to Rs. 24,300, surpassing Rs. 14,800 in farmers’ fields. The B:C ratio reached 2.11 in demonstration plots, indicating superior economic returns compared to 1.82 in farmers’ fields. Similar trend of findings has been reported by Sorokhaibam et al. (2023) and Roy et al., (2010).
           
    On average, the cost of cultivation in demonstration plots was Rs. 20,983.33 per hectare, while farmers’ fields required Rs. 18,183.33 per hectare. Gross income was significantly higher in demonstration plots at Rs. 41,733.33 per hectare, compared to Rs. 30,533.33 per hectare in farmers’ fields. Consequently, net income averaged Rs. 20,750 per hectare for demonstration plots, while farmers’ fields generated a lower Rs. 12,350 per hectare. The overall B:C ratio stood at 1.98 for demonstration plots, significantly outperforming farmers’ fields at 1.67. The results are in line with the results achieved by Kumar et al., (2023) and Rajashekar et al., (2022).

    CONCLUSION

    The present study revealed a positive and impactful influence of the CFLD programme on farmers. The demonstrations introduced the improved cultivation practices, which proved to be more effective than traditional farmer’s methods. While the crop yield showed notable enhancement, certain extension and technological gaps persisted, directly affecting productivity. Addressing these gaps through increased extension efforts is crucial. Economic indicators including gross returns, net returns and the B:C ratio were consistently higher in demonstrations compared to farmers’ conventional practices. Overall, the CFLD programme contributed to enhanced production, improved productivity and increased farmer income, ultimately reinforcing food and nutritional security at a national level.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The authors take the chance to thank and acknowledge all the farmers engaged in the cultivation of field pea under the CFLD programme, all the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendar, Baksa and Assam Agricultural University for allowing them to carry out the study.
     
    Disclaimers
     
    The perspectives and findings presented in this research article reflect the authors’ own viewpoints and do not necessarily align with those of their affiliated institutions. While the authors ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, they disclaim any liability for direct or indirect losses that may arise from its use.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    There is no conflict of interest among the authors.

    REFERENCES


    1. Agarwal, D., Sneh. J., Devra, R.., Siddharajsinh, R. (2024). Pulses in India: Comprehensive analysis of production, challenges and strategic, Vision for 2030. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 46(11): 293-304. doi: 10.9734/jeai/ 2024/v46i113053.

    2. Balai, C.M., Meena, R.P., Meena, B.L., Bairwa, R.K. (2012). Impact of frontline demonstration on rapeseed and mustard yield improvement. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 12(2): 113-116.

    3. Das, S., Deka, N., Phukan, R., Bhagawati, S., Bezbarua, R. (2021). Impact assessment of cluster front line demonstration on relay field pea (Pisum sativum L.) production on rice fallows in the Nagaon district of Central Brahmaputra Valley Zone. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 10(1): 1299-1304. doi: 10.20546/ ijcmas.2021.1001.154.

    4. Dayanand, V.R.K. and Mehta, S.M. (2012). Boosting mustard production through front-line demonstrations. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 12(3): 121-123.

    5. Deka, K., Bora, D., Deka, D., Sarma, U.J., Saud, R.K. (2021). Impact of management practices on field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivation in Baksa district of Assam. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 10(1): 146-150.

    6. Deka, P., Das, P., Barman, S., Saikia, P., Borah, J., Bora, S.S., Borah, D., Neog, M. (2024). An evaluative study of cluster frontline demonstration (CFLD)-pulse in Udalguri district of Assam. Legume Research. 48(8): 1405-1414. doi: 10.18805/LR-5379.

    7. Devi, M.T., Kumar, B., Boruah, M., Tripathi, A.K., Bordoloi, R.M., Kumar, R., Sinha, P.K. (2023). Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) yield gap analysis: A study from Assam, India. Indian Journal of Hill Farming. 36(Special Issue): 23-29. doi: 10.56678/ iahf-spl36.2023.4.

    8. Gogoi, B., Das, S., Bhagowati, S., Nath, D.C., Bordoloi, N.J., Deka, N.(2022). Enhancing profitability and sustainability through increased pulses production in Assam. Journal of Crop and Weed. 18(2): 9-17. 

    9. Hooda, K.S., Bhatt, J.C., Joshi, D., Sushil, S.N., Gupta, H. (2006). Impact of biocontrol agents on the health of garden pea (Pisum sativum) in Kumaon hills of Himalayas. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 76(9): 573-574. 

    10. Jena, N.K., Behera, K., Giri, P.M., Jena, M.K., Patra, A., Sahu, S. (2024). Impact of cluster front line demonstration (CFLD) on yield and economics of toria in rain-fed north eastern coastal plain zone of Odisha. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 10(4): 347-354.  doi: 10.9734/ajsspn/ 2024/v10i4409.

    11. Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Kumari, P.P.V.L., Kumar, S. (2023). Impact assessment of CFLD pulses on pigeonpea productivity and profitability in farmer’s field. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 59(2): 36-40.  doi: 10.48165/ijee.2023.59208.

    12. Kumar, N., Yadav, N.K., Singh, B. (2021). Effect of cluster front-line demonstrations (CFLD) on production, profitability and social impact on mustard cultivation. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science. 10(8): 629-635.

    13. Kumar, S., Nongthombam, J., Chaudhary, K.P., Prakash, O., Swaroop, J. (2018). Economics and impact of FLD on broccoli yield at farmers filed of Aizawl District Mizoram. Agro-Economist.  5(2): 81-86.

    14. Malik, D.P., Bishnoi, D.K., Pawar, N., Kumar, N., Sumit (2021). Additional income generation from cultivation of summer mung bean in rice-wheat system of Haryana. Legume Research. 40: 187-190. doi: 10.18805/LR-4253.

    15. Mauriya, A.K., Kumar, V., Verma, R.B., Sahu, R., Hashim, M. (2024). Impact of cluster frontline demonstration on increasing productivity and profitability of pigeonpea in Bihar. Journal of Food Legumes. 37(2): 211-214. doi: 10.59797/jfl.v37.i2.197.

    16. Meena, M.L. and Singh, D. (2017). Technological and extension yield gaps in green gram in Pali district of Rajasthan, India. Legume Research. 40: 187-190. doi: 10.18805/lr. v0iOF.3549.

    17. Meshram, V., Sahare, K.V., Ahirwar, R.P., Dhumketi, K., Pandre, N.K., Sharga, P. (2022). Evaluation of cluster frontline demon- strations (CFLD) pulses on increasing yield of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) in tribal district of Mandla, Madhya Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 11(1): 1166-1169.

    18. Mohare, V.Y. (2022). An economic analysis of production of pulses in India. Indian Economic Service. 

    19. Raghav, D.K., Kumar, U., Kumar, A., Singh, A.K. (2020). Impact of cluster frontline demonstration on pigeon pea for increasing production in rain fed area of district Ramgarh (Jharkhand) towards Self-Sufficiency of Pulses. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 20(4): 34-39.

    20. Rajashekar, B., Rajashekhar, M., Reddy, T.P., Reddy, M.J.M., Shankar, A., Ramakrishna, K., Jahan, A. (2022). [Article title not specified]. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 12(11): 2231-2236.

    21. Reager, M.L., Kumar, U., Mitharwal, B.S., Chaturvedi, D. (2020). Productivity and sustainability of green gram as influenced by improved technology of CFLD under hyper arid partially irrigated zone of Rajasthan. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 9: 1778-1786.

    22. Roy Burman, R., Singh, S.K., Singh, A.K. (2010). Gap in adoption of improved pulse production technologies in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 10(1): 99-104.

    23. Shukla, R., Hnamte, V., Lalmuanpuii, R., Kumar, S. (2022). Impact of cluster frontline demonstration on organic nutrient manage- ment in field pea in Mamit district, Mizoram, India. Biological Forum - An International Journal. 14(4): 517-520.

    24. Singh, A., Singh, A.K., Dubey, S.K., Chahal, V.P., Singh, R., Mishra, A., Singh, R., Deka, B.C., Singh, S. K., Singh, S.S., Singh, L., Tripathi, A.K., Prasad, Y.G., Kumar, A., Gowda, M.J.C., Pandey, S., Singh, R. (2023). Ensuring productivity advantages through cluster frontline demonstrations (CFLD)-pulses: Nationwide experiences. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 93(5): 561-566.  doi:10.56093/ijas.v93i5.103296.

    25. Singh, J., Singh, K., Hemender, Premdeep. (2021). Impact assessment of front-line demonstrations on summer mung productivity under irrigated agro-ecosystem of Haryana. Legume Research.  44: 1470-1474.  doi: 10.18805/LR-4517.

    26. Singh, L.K., Zimik, L., Devi, S.R. (2022). Impact of cluster front line demonstrations on field pea (Pisum sativum L.) in valley areas of Manipur. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 58(2): 195-197.  doi: 10.48165/IJEE.2022.58228.

    27. Singh, N. and Singh, A. K. (2020). Yield gap and economics of cluster frontline demonstrations (CFLDs) on pulses under rain-fed condition of Bundelkhand in Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences. 7(8): 1-7. doi:10.22192/ijarbs.2020.07.08.001.

    28. Sorokhaibam, S., Meetei, K.B., Singh, N.A., Maipak, K., Bidyananda, P. (2023). Analysis of yield gap and economics of cluster frontline demonstration (CFLDs) on field pea in Bishnupur district, Manipur. The Pharma Innovation Journal. SP-12(9): 30-32.

    29. Suresh, M., Naaiik, R.V.T.B., Kumar, B.K., Vijaykumar, P., Swetha, M., Vijayalaxmi, D., Rajkumar, B.V., Manjari, M.B., Padmaveni, C. (2020). Cluster front line demonstration evaluation programme on Bengal gram (Cicer arietinum L.) variety (NBeG-3) in Nizamabad district of Telangana. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 39(48): 312-317. doi:10.9734/CJAST/2020/v39i4831236.

    30. Tiwari, A.K. and Shivhare, A.K. (2017). Pulses in India Retrospect and Prospects. Technical Report No. DPD/Pub.1/Vol. 2/2016. Ministry of Agri. and Farmers Welfare (DACandFW), Govt. of India and Directorate of Pulses Development, Vindhyachal Bhavan, Bhopal, M.P.

    31. Vishwatej, R., Ramprasad, M., Narayanamma, L., Shiva, B., Ratnakar, V., Veeranna, G., Reddy, U. (2023). Impact of cluster frontline demonstrations (CFLD) pulses on yield enhancement of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) in aspirational district of Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 12(7): 226-229.

    32. Yadav, M.P., Yadav, S.C., Mali, H.R., Khandelwal, S., Arya, V. (2022). Technology Intervention in CFLD on Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum Linn) in Alwar district of Rajasthan, India. Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. December Special e-Issue. 22(5): 300-306.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Legume Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)