On Farm Trials

Technologies Links

ATARI DIRECTOR

Dr. Shaik N. Meera
Director, ICAR-ATARI,

Hyderabad

Notifications/Downloads

Technology Assessment and Refinement 2022-2023

1. Crop Production

01/ OFT/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK

1.	Name o the technology	:	Assessment of drought mitigation technologies in rainfed groundnut (Kadiri 6) by spraying 0.5% 19:19:19
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Groundnut
4.	Objectives	:	To assess the yield improvement in rainfed groundnut by spraying 0.5% 19:19:19 during dry spell
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved : 0.5 ha b) Organized : 0.5 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	Spraying of 19:19:19 (N:P₂O₅:K₂O) @ 5g/lit at one week interval during dry spell recorded 5.47 % higher yield (1872 kg/ha) over no spraying of 19:19:19 (N:P₂O₅:K₂O) (1775 kg/ha) and further it has resulted in Rs.5470/- higher net returns per ha with a benefit cost ratio of 1.59 than farmers practice 1.51
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers expressing that Spraying of 19:19:19 during dry spell is beneficial for rainfed groundnut
11.	Feed back points	:	--
	(a) To the scientist	:	Requesting for provision of alternative to 19:19:19
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	The extension persons need to increase the area through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Trial was concluded
13.	Remarks	:	When there is prolonged dry spell it is not working effectively

OFT-1:Assessment of drought mitigation technologies in rainfed groundnut (Kadiri 6) by spraying0.5% 19:19:19
S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	Yield (Kg/ha)
S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	T1: 0.5 % 19:19:19 Spray	T2:2% Urea Spray	T3:FP ( No Spraying)
1	V. Lava Kumar Reddy, Chintalavaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M).	7285950726	1870	1840	1770
2	B. Ramesh, Chintalavaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M).	9966841372	1895	1879	1790
3	G. Bhaskar Reddy, Chintalavaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M).	7702627959	1850	1810	1765
Average yield (kg/ha)			1872	1843	1775
Gross Returns (Rs.)			112320	110580	106500
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			70750	70550	70400
Net returns (Rs.)			41570	40030	36100
B:C Ratio			1.59	1.57	1.51

02/ OFT/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of Organic farming package in Groundnut
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Groundnut
4.	Objectives	:	To assessthe Organic farming package in Groundnut
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved: 0.5 ha b) Organized : 0.5 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed		---
9.	Results	:	Crop cultivated under recommended practicesresulted higher yield (1891 kg/ha) over organic farming practice (1570 kg/ha) whereas higher B:C Ratio (1.62) recorded with Organic farming practices than recommendedpractice (1.6) and farmers practice (1.54).
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers are expressing reduction in yield but satisfaction in terms of reduction in cost of cultivationand having a demand as the product is organic with good purchasing value
11.	Feed back points
	(a) To the scientist		Need to assess the suitable varieties and better weed management practices under organic groundnut
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Need to create awareness on organic preparations on community basis
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Trial will be continued
13.	Remarks	:	Separate market for selling of organic products is required

S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	Yield (kg /ha)
S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	T1: Organic Package Practice	T2: ICM	T3: Farmers Practice
1	B. Venkata Ramana, Guttapalem (V), Kalikiri (M)	8179875174	1600	1890	1770
2	G.Padmanabaiah, Guttapalem (V), Kalikiri (M)	9052484254	1540	1910	1810
3	S.Nagabhushanam, Guttapalem (V), Kalikiri (M)	9550736061	1570	1875	1765
Average yield (kg/ha)			1570	1891	1782
Gross returns (Rs.)			102050	113460	106920
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			62800	70750	69800
Net returns (Rs.)			39250	42710	37120
B:C Ratio			1.62	1.6	1.54

03/ OFT/ CP /2022-23/Kharif/KVK/KLK

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of Rice variety NLR 3354 in Western Mandals of Annamayya District
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Paddy
4.	Objectives	:	To test the variety NLR-3354 for suitability
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved: 0.5 ha b) Organized : 0.5 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	Tested variety NLR-3354 recorded 9.1 per cent higher yieldover RNR-15048. Higher B:C ratio (2.2) was recorded in NLR 3352 over farmer’s practice and noticed very less incidence of blast and non Lodging.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers expressing that the selling price was low compared to RNR-15048 and BPT 5204 varieties but due to non lodging and blast tolerance some farmers are willing to adopt the variety.
11.	Feed back points
	(a) To the scientist		Required more fine grain variety
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	The extension persons need to increase the area through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24or not	:	Trial was concluded
13.	Remarks	:	Need to test in large area

S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	Yield (kg/ha)
S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	TO-1: NLR-3354	TO-2: RNR-15048	FP: BPT 5204
1	G Arjun, Pategada (V), Kalikiri (M)	6300217722	6020	5425	4926
2	V. Nagaraja, Palem (V), Kalikiri (M)	9701930206	5924	5530	5170
3	K. Siva, Mudiyamvaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M)	9581027693	5982	5467	5007
Average yield (kg/ha)			5975	5474	5034
Gross returns (Rs.)			125475	114954	105714
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			56500	56500	56500
Net returns (Rs.)			68975	58454	49214
B:C Ratio			2.2	2.03	1.88

01/ FLD/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration of Groundnut VarietyKadiriLepakshi (K-1812)
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Frontline demonstration
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Groundnut
4.	Objectives	:	To popularize the variety KadiriLepakshi (K-1812)
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved: 4.0 ha b) Organized : 4.0 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	2022-23: Demonstrated groundnut varietyKadiriLepakshi recorded 24.6 % higher yield (2415 kg/ha) over Narayani ( 1938 kg/ha) under rainfed conditions. Groundnut varietyKadiriLepakshi also recorded higher net returns Rs.70250/- per ha with a B:C ratio of 1.94 than Narayani (1.74).
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers expressing that market price are low for Kadirilepakshi. Gave good yield even under high rainfall as well as in dry spell situations.
11.	Feed back points (a) To the scientist	:	Pegging and pod formation is at different times
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Good yield but maturity is not uniform
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 not	:	Popularize the tested variety through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.
13.	Remarks	:	Trial was concluded

Yield obtained by the individual farmers:

S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	Yield (Kg/ha)
S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	T1: K-1812	T2: FP: Narayani
1	A. Amarnath, Joginenipalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	8106224429	2491	2020
2	A. Leelavathamma, Joginenipalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	9298559599	2320	1987
3	K.Munirathnam, Manchuru (V), Vayalpadu (M)	6304460019	2268	1895
4	M. Gurunatha Reddy, Murevandlapalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	9490445207	2472	1934
5	M. Raghunatha Reddy, Murevandlapalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	9490445207	2287	1970
6	B. Satyaraju, Murevandlapalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	9010005456	2391	1968
7	D. Srinivasulu, Thurupuvaddipalli (V), Kalakada (M)	9390692140	2470	1872
8	K. Venkateswarlu,Thurupuvadipalli(V), Kalakada(M)	8374300138	2520	1920
9	P. Madhusudhan, Balayagaripalli (V), Kalakada(M)	9110307555	2435	1872
10	Y. Reddeppa Reddy, Balayagaripali(V),Kalakada (M)	6305493843	2492	1946
Average yield (kg/ha)			2415	1938
Gross returns (Rs.)			144900	125970
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			74650	72250
Net returns (Rs.)			70250	53720
B:C Ratio			1.94	1.74

02/ FLD/ CP /Kharif/2022-23/KVK/KLK

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration of Nutrient mixture in Sugarcane
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Frontline demonstration
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Sugarcane
4.	Objectives	:	To demonstrate the nutrient mixture in Sugarcane
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved: 4.0 ha b) Organized : 4.0 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	Demonstration of Nutrient Mixture in Sugarcane 6.76 per cent higher cane yield ( 101.21 t/ha) than farmers Practice (94.8t/ha). Further spraying of nutrient mixture also noticed Rs.10460/- higher net returns per ha than farmers practice with a B:C ratio of 2.19.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers expressed that, Spraying of nutrient mixture gave higher net returns due to higher yield and is economical
11.	Feed back points
	(a) To the scientist	:	Can formula 4 or formula 7 be used instead of this
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Popularize this technology through field visits, field days, print and electronic media.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24or not	:	Trial will be concluded
13.	Remarks	:	Separatly spraying of mico nutrients is laborious and expensive

S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	Yield (t/ha)
S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	T1: Spraying of Nutrient Mixture	T2: Farmers Practice
1	N. Praveen Kumar, Jogivaripalli (V), Sodum (M)	9502045048	101.25	95.4
2	J.Ramesh Kumar Reddy,Jogivaripalli(V),Sodum(M)	9959459592	98.78	94.1
3	K.Mallikarjuna, Jogivaripalli (V),Sodum(M)	929855959	100.7	96.2
4	D. Alivelu, Chintalavaripalli(V),Sodum(M)	7382177339	102.1	93.7
5	G. Hemanth, Kamplli(V),Sodum(M)	9515090774	102.9	94.6
Average yield (kg/ha)			101.21	94.8
Gross returns (Rs.)			191900	180120
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			87250	86500
Net returns (Rs.)			104650	93620
B:C Ratio			2.19	2.08

03/ FLD/ CP /Rabi/2022-23/KVK/KLK

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of Horsegram variety ATPHG-11
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Frontline Demonstration
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Horse gram
4.	Objectives	:	To demonstrate the newly released variety ATPHG 11 for its suitability
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved: 4 ha b) Organized : 4 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	2022-23: Tested ATPHG11 variety recorded an yield of 1217 kg/ha compared to farmers practice 1107 kg/ha with 9.93% increase in yieldand recorded higher net returns (Rs. 31180/- per ha) with a benefit cost ratio of 2.78 than local varieties (2.53).
10.	Farmers reaction	:	ATPHG11 variety was given more yield compared to other varieties with better branching.
11.	Feed back points
	(a) To the scientist		Good variety withstanding drought conditions
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Need to create Awareness on new varieties
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24or not	:	Trial will be continued
13.	Remarks	:	Availability of seed in large quantity is required

S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	Yield (kg/ha)
S.No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	TO-1: ATPHG 11	FP:Local varieties
1	A.Narasimha Reddy, Burujupalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	9121147504	1235	1158
2	G.Devender Reddy, Burujupalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	8790890551	1220	1062
3	G. Vannurappa, Burujupalli (V), Vayalpadu (M)	8790890551	1214	1105
4	B Bhaskar Reddy, Rajuvaripalli (V), Kalikiri (M)	9618652174	1204	1086
5	P. Sunil Kumar, Chakkeravandla palli (V), Kalikiri (M)	7093538273	1212	1120
Average yield (kg/ha)			1217	1107
Gross returns (Rs.)			48680	44280
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			17500	17500
Net returns (Rs.)			31180	26780
B:C Ratio			2.78	2.53

04/ FLD/ CP /Rabi/2022-23/KVK/KLK

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration of Groundnut variety Nitya Haritha
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Frontline demonstration
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Ragi
4.	Objectives	:	Popularization of new three seeded pod and Short statured Spanish bunchy type high yielding variety
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved: 4.0 ha b) Organized : 4.0 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	Demonstrated groundnut variety Nitya Haritha recorded 13.1 % higher yield (3220 kg/ha) over K-6 (2846 kg/ha) under irrigated condition.Groundnut varietyNitya Haritha also recorded higher net returns Rs.114930/- per ha with a B:C ratio of 2.47 than K-6 variety (2.25).
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmer Expressed satisfaction with regard to performance of Nitya Haritha Groundnut variety and having good taste.
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	To make it suitable for kharif season also
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Popularize the technology through trainings, print and electronic media
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24or not	:	Trial will be continued
13.	Remarks	:	To create awareness about this variety among farmers

S. No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	Yield (kg/ha)
S. No.	Name & Address of the Farmer	Contact	T₁:Nitya Haritha	T₂: K-6
1	K.Venkataramana Reddy, Parapatla (V), Kalikiri (M)	9440312585	3364	2965
2	K. Charan Kumar, Mudiyamvaripalli, Kalakada (M)	9581027693	3182	2872
3	M Prabhakar, Kalikiri (V0, Kalikiri (M)	9985139507	3264	2920
4	B Ramana, Palem (V), Kalikiri (M)	9959489197	3252	2745
5	A Reddana, Barnepalli (V),	9908342208	3180	2685
6	Y Venkata Ramana, Rajuvaripalli (V)	9996618978	3154	2973
7	C. Varala Reddy, Kotagundlu palli (V), Somala (M)	8179886828	3205	2774
8	N Kumar Reddy, Gandaboyanapalli (V),	7396566800	3224	2865
9	N Ameen Peer, Devapatla (V)	8142537761	3120	2972
10	D Jagadeesh, Mudiyamvaripalli (V), Kalakada (M)	9298559599	3260	2685
Average yield (kg/ha)			3220	2846
Gross returns (Rs.)			193200	170760
Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)			78270	75870
Net returns (Rs.)			114930	94890
B:C Ratio			2.47	2.25

Plant Protection

On Farm Trials

01/OFT/PP/KLK/K/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Biological management of Root rot disease in mulberry
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Mulberry
4.	Objectives	:	Management of root rot
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.4
6.	item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	During this year we did not observe the rootrot in mulberry
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Rootrot is not observed in mulberry by the farmers during previous and current year
11.	Feed back points	:
	To the Scientist	:	Defoliators like hairy caterpillars is a major problem
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Farmers opine that silkworms are dying after feeding on mulberry leaves as mulberry is sown after tomato crop which is being dumped with more pesticides.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	concluded
13.	Remarks	:	No incidence of root rot disease in Mulbery

S. No	Name and of the farmer	Phone number	Remarkes
1	A.Alivelammma, Kothavandlapalli (Village) & Vayalpadu (Mandal)	9010744020	Rootrot disease was not reported / no incidence of rootrot disease
2	N. Purushotham Reddy, Kothavandlapalli (Village) & Vayalpadu (Mandal)	7893002402
3	Y. Sujatha, Thangellavaripalli (Village)& Thambalapalle (Mandal)	9701656373

OFT/02/R/PP/ KVK/KLK/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of organic package for pest and disease management in tomato
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Tomato
4.	Objectives	:	To assess organic farming package in tomato
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.4
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	The yield in T1(31540 kgs/ha), T2(32033.33kgs/ha) and in T3 (34250 kgs/ha) and BC Ratio 1.24, 1.21 and 1.18 respectively in T1, T2 & T3. Inspite of 8% decrease in yield in T1 when compared to T3, there were higher net returns and BC Ratio and low cost of cultivation.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers were satisfied with the decrease in pests and diseases after following the T1 treatments
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	To develop varities that tolerate tomato pinworm, blight
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	It would be better if organically produced tomatoes fetch higher price in the market
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Converted to FLD
13.	Remarks	:	Separate market for selling organic tomatoes is required

S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number		Average Yield (kg/ha)
S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number	T1	T2	T2 (FP)
1	G. Vinod, T.Sakirevupalli (Village) & Valmikipuram (Mandal)	9676815364	31500	31950	33950
2	G.Venkat Reddy, Reddyvaripalli & Pileru (Mandal)	9440104656	31670	32000	34000
3	T.Surendra, Reddyvaripalli (Village) & Pileru (Mandal)		31450	32150	34800
Damage by Tuta absoluta			2.4 %	3.8	11.9%
Average Moth catches per trap
August			8.2		-
September			3.5		-
October			5.1		-
Average			5.6		-
Late blight			3.3%	4.3%	11.4%
Average yield (kg/ha)			31540	32033.33	34250
Average cost of cultivation			176500 /-	182550/-	197500 /-
Gross returns			220500 /-	221029/-	233800 /-
Net returns			44000	38479	36300
BC Ratio			1.24	1.21	1.18

OFT/03/R/PP/ KVK/KLK/2021-22

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of Bacillus thuringiensis C₃₃ strain to manage tobacco caterpillar in Rabi groundnut
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Groundnut
4.	Objectives	:	Management of tobacco caterpillar below ETL
5.	No. of hectares	:	a) Approved: 1.2 ha b) Organized: 1.2 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed		Enclosed
9.	Results	:	In T₁where Bt C33 strain is sprayed there is 14.9 % increase in yield when compared with farmers practice.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmer expressed the decrease in tobacco caterpillar incidence after the use of Bt
11.	Feed back points	:	Farmers were satisfied with the decrease in incidence of tobacco caterpillar
	(a) To the scientist	:	Farmer expressed can they use any insecticide in combination with the bt
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Farmers were satisfied with the decrease in incidence of tobacco caterpillar
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	continued
13.	Remarks	:

S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number		Average Yield (kg/ha)
S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number	T1	T2	T3: FP
1	G. Charan, Mudiyamaripalli(Village) & Kalakada (Mandal)	9581027693	2495	2358	2235
2	T. Jagadeeshwara Mudiyamaripalli(Village) & Kalakada (Mandal)	6305385511	2460	2340	2129
3	Yella Reddy T.Sakirevupalli (Village) Vayalpadu (Mandal)	9573059859	2485	2335	2110
per cent damage due to tobacco caterpillar before treatment			33.33	35.38	33.37
per cent damage due to tobacco caterpillar 7 Days after treatment			20.87	20.12	26.50
per cent damage due to tobacco caterpillar 14 Days after treatment			17.11	16.12	23.87
Average yield (kg/ha)			2480	2344.333	2158
Gross returns			86800	82051.66	75530
Average cost of cultivation			50100	49950	52150
Net returns			36700	32101.66	23380
BC Ratio			1.7	1.6	1.4

04/OFT/CPT/KVK/KLK/Summer/2023

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of management of fruit fly in mango
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Mango
4.	Objectives	:	To demonstrate the integrated management of mango fruit fly.
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.4
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	In T₁where fruit covers are used 22.7 % increase in yield and no incidence of fruitfly was observed when compared with farmers practice.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmer satisfied that the mango fruits were not affected with any pests and the quality was good and fetched higher price in the market
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	Can the fruit covers be tied to different sizes of mangoes
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Its difficult to tie the fruit covers to fruits of old orchards (for the fruits on top portion of plant)
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Converted to FLD
13.	Remarks	:	In Andhra Pradesh availability of fruit covers is only at Tadepalligudem which is a constraint

S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number		Average Yield (kg/ha)
S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number	T1	T2	T3: FP
1	T. Sunil Reddy, Chinthamakulavaripalli (Village) & Sadum (Mandal)	9440835819	11132.5	9472.5	8500
2	K. Narasimhulu Vengamvaripalli (Village), Nimmanapalli (Mandal)	9393810966	11530	9780	8797.5
3	G. Anand Vengamvaripalli (Village), Nimmanapalli (Mandal)		11045	9530	8747.5
Fruitfly damage (%)			0.00	0.00	16.78
Thrips damage (%)			0.5	23.8	24.7
Fruitfly trap catches			0.0	16.7	0.00
Average yield (kg/ha)			11235.83	9594.167	8681.667
Gross returns			337075	335795.8	303858.3
Average cost of cultivation			112500	135000	137500
Net returns			224575	200795.8	166358.3
BC Ratio			2.9	2.4	2.2

01/FLD/CP/KVK/KLK/ Kharif/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of integrated management of black thrips in chilli
2.	Name of the intervention	:	On Farm Testing
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	chilli
4.	Objectives	:	Managing the pest below ETL
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.4
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	In T₁7.5 % increase in yield was observed when compared with farmers practice and the BC ratio was 2.5, 2.3 and 2.0 respectively in T1, T2 and T3.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmer opines the black thrips are not effectively controlled
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	To develop varities that tolerate black thrips and virus diseases
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Farmers asked for better control measures of black thrips
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	continued
13.	Remarks	:	Black thrips is a severe problem in chilli and its incidence is being observed in other crops like mango which is causing more damage

S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number		Average Yield (kg/ha)
S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number	T1	T2	T3: FP
1	M. Kalavathi, T.Sakirevupalli (V), Vayalpadu (Mandal)	8985760238	25205	24955	23850
2	K.Alivelu, Reddyvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)	9618931630	26220	24899	23899
3	T. Reddappa, Reddivaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)		26015	24885	23865
Thrips damage (%)			13.37	16.48	23.55
Average yield (kg/ha)			25813.33	24913	23871.33
Gross returns			413013.3	398608	381941.3
Average cost of cultivation			162050	169020	183080
Net returns			250963.3	229588	198861.3
BC Ratio			2.5	2.3	2.0

02/FLD/CPT/KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration of blast tolerant ragi variety Tirumala
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Front Line Demonstration
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Finger millet
4.	Objectives	:	To demonstrate blast tolerant / resistant ragi varities with high yield potential.
5.	No. of hectares	:	4.0
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	In T₁18.34 % increase in yield was observed when compared with farmers practice and the BC ratio was 2.1 and 1.7 respectively in T1 and T2.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmer expressed the less incidence of blast and higher yields
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	Research on control of weeds (Cyperus rotundus) and other weeds in fingermillet
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Satisfied with the yields of the variety
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	concluded
13.	Remarks	:	-

S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number	Average Yield (kg/ha)
S. No	Name and address of the farmer	Phone number	DP	FP
1	M. Ramachandra Reddy, Muthakamvaripalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	9000613906	2286	1880
2	R.Chinnappa, Muthalaamvaripalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	8500112589	2300	1860
3	C.Rajareddy, Nagamvaripalli (V) Ramasamudram (Mandal)	9000613904	2280	1870
4	M. Ramaiah, Agraharam , Ramasamudram (Mandal)	951569952	2278	1870
5	P. Bhasheer khan, Thurakapalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	7993073255	2300	1860
6	K. Akkulappa, Chinnareddypalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	8790739914	2280	1870
7	S. Boyakondamma , Eguvaharijanawada (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	8106988653	2280	1860
8	T. Manikumar, Kammavaripalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	8008668181	2300	1875
9	R. Venktramana Reddy, Parlandlapalli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	9493224471	2300	1878
10	S. Narayana Reddy, Chokkandlapallli (V), Ramasamudram (Mandal)	9849699776	2300	1874
Blast incidence scale			1-2	4-5
Average yield (kg/ha)			2290	1870
Gross returns			57250	46750
Average cost of cultivation			26500	26000
Net returns			30750	20750
BC Ratio			2.1	1.7

03/FLD/CPT/KVK/KLK/Rabi/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration of Arka borer control for the management of mango stem borer
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Front Line Demonstration
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Mango
4.	Objectives	:	Management of stem borer
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.4
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	In T1 and T2 there was 10.38 & 12.81 per cent damage due to stem borer where as after 2 months it was 5.21 & 9.34 respectively. In T1 2.9 BC Ratio was recorded when compared with farmer practice it was 1.7.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmer felt happy with the technology provided
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	It would be better if it is available in liquid form
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Felt satisfied with the decrease in stem borer incidence
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	concluded
13.	Remarks	:	-

S. No	Name and address of the farmer		Average Yield (kg/ha)
S. No	Name and address of the farmer		DP	FP
1	G. Bhaskar, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)	9393947930	9000	9500
2	Chalapathi, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal) Kiran, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)	9494124159	10800	8000
3			9600	10000
4	G. Kumar, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)		8900	9000
5	G. Gnana sekhar, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)	9014187633	9000	7500
6	K. Nagabhushanam, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)	8332881818	8800	8500
7	G. Janardhan, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)		9300	9000
8	G. Sreenivasulu, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)		7500	8500
9	G. Venktramana, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)	6304166735	9500	9500
10	K. Siddarth, Gayamvaripalli (V), Pileru (Mandal)		8500	10000
Per cent damage due to stem borer hole (%) before treatment			10.38	12.87
Per cent damage due to stem borer hole (%) after 2 months of treatment			5.21	9.34
Average yield (kg/ha)			9100	9000
Gross returns			292500	274500
Average cost of cultivation			75000	100000
Net returns			217500	174500
BC Ratio			2.9	1.7

04/FLD/CPT/KVK/KLK/Rabi/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration of integrated management of Fall armyworm in maize/sweet corn
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Front Line Demonstration
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Maize
4.	Objectives	:	To manage the pest below ETL
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.4
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	In T1 there was 6.19% increase in yield when compared with farmer practice. In T1 and T2 there was 3.13 and 2.5 BC Ratio.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers were satisfied with reduction of fall armyworm by using the treatments mentioned
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	To provide fall armyworm tolerant maize hybrids
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	There was good reduction in incidence of fall armyworm by following the T1 treatments.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	continued
13.	Remarks	:	Control measures should be started from the early incidence of fall army worm.

S. No	Name and address of the farmer		Average Yield (kg/ha)
S. No	Name and address of the farmer		T1 (Demo)	T2 (Farmers practice)
1	P. Eswar Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal)	8179229838	8570	8140
2	P. Chandra sekhar Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal)	9441310769	8715	8000
3	P. Padmavathamma, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal)		9005	8420
4	B. Jayaram Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal)		8905	8350
5	B. Arun kumar Reddy, Deganipalli (V), B. Kothakota (Mandal)		8895	8450
Per cent leaf damage due to fall armyworm before treatment			49.9	49.3
Per cent leaf damage due to fall armyworm 5 days after treatment			21.4	37.7
Average yield (kg/ha)			8818	8272
Gross returns			185178	173712
Average cost of cultivation			59000	67000
Net returns			126178	106712
BC Ratio			3.13	2.59

TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR FARMERS

PLANT PROTECTION:03

S. No	Date	Venue	Name of the topic	Resource person	No. of Participants	Feedback
1	08-08-2022	Market Yard, Kalikiri	IPM in tomato	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection)	150	Good
2	07-10-2022	RBK, Pathegada	IPM in Paddy	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection)	50	Good
3	14-10-2022	RBK, Vayalpadu	IPM in Mango	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection)	45	Good

Training programmes for Extension personnel:02

S. No

Date

Title of training

Venue

Resource person

No. of

Participants

Feed back

16-11-2022

GAP in tomato

Madanapalle

Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection)

100

Good

16-11-2022

GAP in paddy

KVK, Kalikiri

Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(Plant Protection)

100

Good

Vocational Training Programmes: 01

S.no

Date

Venue

Name of the topic

Resource person

No of participants

27-01-2023

KVK, Kalikiri

Natural Farming practices in different field crops grown in chittoor district

Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb,

SMS (Plant Protection)

Extension Activities conducted during 2022-23

Field days:1

S.No	Date	Venue	Name of the topic	Resource person	No of participants
1	21-5-23	Kuravapalli, Parupatla	Field day in groundnut on Nithyaharitha variety	SMS (Plant Protection), SMS (Crop Production) and SMS (Extension)	20

Group discussions:
S. No	Date	Venue	Name of the topic	Resource person	No of participants	Feed back
1	10.08.2022	Marrikuntapalli	pests and diseases in tomato, groundnut & cowpea	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	15	Good

2	14.10.2022	Vayalpadu	Fruitfly management practices in different horticulture crops	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	24	Good
3	15.11.2022	Murrevandlapalli	Use of fruit covers in mango	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	21	Good
4	20.12.2022	Mudiyamvaripalli	Seed treatement in different crops	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	41	Good

Method demonstrations: 05

S. no	Date	Venue	Name of the topic	Resource person	No of participants
1	10-8-2022	Chinthalavaripalli	Clipping of leaf tips in paddy	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	12
2	11-8-2022	Pathegada	Alleyways in paddy	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	7
3	14-10-2022	T. Sakirevupalli	Installation of blue sticky traps	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	11
4	17-03-2023	Chinthamakulapalli	Installation of methyl eugenol traps	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	15
5	19-04-2023	Vengamvaripalli	Tying of fruit covers in mango	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	14

Trainings/Workshops/Seminars etc. attended by the KVK staff

S.No	Name of the staff	Title	Duration	Venue	Organized by
1	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP)	Increasing Research Visibility – Use of Reference Manager Toolsand Softwares for Publishing in Scopus indexed journals	02.09.2022	RARS, Tirupati	ANGRAU
2	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP)	Attended Orientation cum Refresher training programme	16^th to 18^th August, 2022	ANGRAU & Lam, Guntur	ANGRAU
3	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP)	Training programme on Urban and Periurban farming for extension professionals	05.09.22 to 09.09.22	EEI, Hyderabad	ICAR
4	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP)	National Workshop on Natural farming	03.12.2022	RVSKVV, Gwalior, M.P	ICAR
5	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS(PP)	Orientation cum training programme for SMS’s of natural farming and nodal scientist of ATARIS on natural farming	05.12.2022 &06.12.2022	State Natural farming training centre, Gurukul, Kurukshetra, Haryana	ICAR

Lectures delivered as resource person

S. NO	DATE	Scientist Participated	VENUE	TOPIC	Clientle	Organised by
1	08.08.2022	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	Kalikiri market yard, Kalikiri	IPM in tomato	FPO members	APMAS & FPO
2	16.11.2022	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	KVK, Kalikiri	GAP in paddy	VAA, VHA	Dept. of Agriculture
3	17.11.2022	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	Madanapalle	GAP in tomato	VAA, VHA	Dept. of Agriculture
4	25.04.2023	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	Chedalla	Pests and disease management in tomato, paddy, mango	Farmers	KVK, Reddipalli
5	26.04.2023	Dr. Y. Peeru Saheb, SMS (Plant Protection)	Sadum	Pests and disease management in tomato, paddy, mango	Farmers	KVK, Reddipalli

Horticulture

01/OFT/HORTI/KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-2023

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of chilli hybrids for higher productivity in a Chittoor district
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Varietal assessment
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Chilli
4.	Objectives	:	To assess the chilli hybrids for higher productivity in a Chittoor district
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.5 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	OFT on ‘assessment of chilli hybrids for higher productivity in a Chittoor district’ can be concluded that Arka Gagan has got yield 5.23 t/ha and has 11.50 per cent increased yield over local sahasra hybrid. Arka meghana performed well when compared to local hybrid and yielded 5.12 t/ha and 8.45% increase over control
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers satisfied with Arka Meghana new hybrid due to utility of both the green chilli and red chilli purpose, also dark red and more pungency.
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	Suitable for rabi season, with good yields and pungency, farmers got higher yields with the cultivation of Arka Gagan and Arka Meghana.
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	The extension persons can recommend the cultivation of Arka Meghana in annamayya district, Arka meghana (Green chilli and Red chilli) cultivation is profitable to the farmers compared to present farmers’ practing hybrids.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Converted as FLD (Arka Meghana)
13.	Remarks	:	Farmer Recommended for cultivation in Annamayya district during Kharif and Rabi seasons

Treatments	Plant Height (cm)	Avg. fruit length (cm)	Avg. 10 fruits Weight (gm)	No. of fruits per plant	fruits weight per plant (kg)	Yield (t/ha)	% increase over control
T1: Arka Gagan	61	8.5 cm x 1.1	98	63	0.61	5.23	11.50
T2: Arka Haritha	59	8.9 cm x 0.9	84	56	0.47	4.87	--
T3:Arka Meghana	58	9.2 cm x 1.2	95	61	0.58	5.12	8.45
T4: local variety	55	6.5 cm x 2.2	82	51	0.25	2.50

Treatments	Cost of cultivation (Rs./ac.)	Gross income (Rs./ha)	Net income (Rs./ha)	C:B ratio
T1: Arka Gagan	175000	4,70,700	2,95,700/-	2.69
T2: Arka Haritha	180000	4,38,300	2,58,300/-	2.44
T3: Arka Meghana	175000	4,60,800	2,85,800/-	2.63
T4: local variety	180000	2,25,000	45,000/-	1.25

02/OFT/HORTI/KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-2023

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of new hybrids in tomato suitable for western mandals of Chittoor district
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Varietal assessment
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	Tomato
4.	Objectives	:	To assess the new hybrids in tomato suitable for western mandals of Chittoor district
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.5 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	OFT on ‘assessment of new hybrids in tomato suitable for western mandals of Chittoor district ’ can be concluded that private hybride sahoo recorded 64.53 t/ha more yield followed by arka adhitya. But more benefit cost ratio was recorded in arka rakshak due to multiple disease resistance, has got yield 3.20.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers are satisfied with the performance of varieties.
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	Installation of fruitfly traps in the mango orchards is recommended, because of their effectiveness in trapping the adult flies. This technology should be adopted in the mango orchards to control the damage.
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	The extension personal need to create awareness on the use of fruit fly traps for management of mango fruit fly.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Continued
13.	Remarks	:	Fa --

Treatments	Plant Height (cm)	Avg. fruit length (cm)	Avg. 10 fruits Weight (gm)	No. of fruits per plant	fruits weight per plant (kg)	Yield (t/ha)	% increase over control
T1: Arka Adhitya	105	95	0.93	62	7.52	60.50	-6.6
T2: Arka Samrat	95	105	1.05	63	7.73	58.00	-9.53
T3: Arka Rakshak	92	89	0.91	58	6.66	59.20	-5.33
T4: Private hybrides	180	90	0.86	72	7.42	64.53

Treatments	Cost of cultivation (Rs./ac.)	Gross income (Rs./ha)	Net income (Rs./ha)	C:B ratio
T1: Arka Adhitya	1,90,000	6,05,000/-	4,15,000/-	3.18
T2: Arka Samrat	1,85,000	5,80,000/-	3,95,000/-	3.14
T3: Arka Rakshak	1,85,000	5,92,000/-	4,07,000/-	3.20
T4: Private hybrides	2,55,000	6,45,300/-	3,90,300/-	2.50

OFT-03/Horti/Rabi/2022-2023/OFT/French Bean

1.	Name of the technology	:	Assessment of Improved Hybrids of French Bean for higher productivity
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Varietal Assessment
3.	Crop/enterprise	:	French Bean
4.	Objectives	:	To assess the performance of French bean varieties To introduce high yielding varieties
5.	No. of hectares	:	0.5 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	French bean is affected by heavy high tempararure during its growth period that resulted in poor. In the previous year, Arka suvidha variety recorded high yield (4.4 t/ha) and Arka Komal (3.85 T/ha), whereas farmer practicing variety recorded 3.16 t/ha.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Farmers satisfied with this high yielding variety due to short duration crop with high benefit cost ratio.
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	Suitable for Kharif season. Not suitable for summer season.
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	The extension persons need to increase the area under French bean, it high yield variety and suitable for export also.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Continued
13.	Remarks	:	Recommended for kharif annamayya district for high yielding

Treatmentsc	Avg. Plant Height (cm)	Days taken to 50% flowering	Avg. 10 pods Weight (gm)	No. of fruits per plant	fruit weight per plant (g)	Yield (t/ha)	% increase over control
T1:Arka Suvidha	35	38	98.64	18	177.48	4.44	40.50%
T2:Arka Komal	30	39	90.56	17	153.85	3.85	21.83 %
T3: Local hybrids	30	40	84.22	15	126.30	3.16

Treatments	Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha.)	Gross income (Rs./ha)	Net income (Rs./ha)	C:B ratio
T1: Arka Komal	1,20,000	1,90,920	70,920	1.59
T2: Arka Suvidha	1,20,000	1,65,000	45,000	1.36
T3: Local hybrids	1,20,000	1,36,000	16,000	1.13

Farmers Details:

S.No	Name of the Beneficiary	Village	Phone No.
01	Mr. Vinodh	Sachirevupalli
02	Mr. D.V Pratap	Kalikiri	9490735609
03	P. Reddeppa Reddy	gandaboinapalli	9177139952

01/ FLD/Horti/ KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration of moringa variety PKM-1
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Frontline demonstration
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Moringa
4.	Objectives	:	To improve yield and quality in Moringa
5.	No. of hectares	:	1 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	Crop is at fruit maturity and harvesting stage. Harvesting is yet to be done. Yield data will be recorded after the harvests. One harvesting was completed. Average 15 fruits per plant was harvested in first plucking.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Use of chemic Farmers accepted with this variety.
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	Suitable for Kharif season.
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	The extension persons need to increase the area under Moringa, it high yield variety and suitable for export also.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Continued
13.	Remarks	:	PKM-1 recommended to Annamayya district for high yield.

Farmers Details:

S.No	Name of the Beneficiary	Village	Phone No.
01	Mr. Y.Yellareddy	Sachirevupalli	-
02	Mr. Subramanyam	kalikiri	9440247765
03	Mr. Ramana	piler	-
04	Mr. Venkataramireddy	kalakada	9391386961
05	Mr. Kiran kumar reddy	Kalikiri	-
06	Sriram	KV Palli	9553388427
06	Mr. A.veeranjaneyulu	KV Palli	8008766046

02/ FLD/Horti/ KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Demonstration on ridge gourd variety Arka Prasan for higher productivity
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Varietal assessment
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:
4.	Objectives	:	1. To spread variety horizontally 2. To compare with existing varieties
5.	No. of hectares	:	1 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	Ridge rd variety arka prasan was recorded more yield (17.5 t/ha) where as in farmers practice naga variety recorded yield 13.5 t/ha. 28 % more yield was recorded in arka prasan variety comare with Naga (farmers practice).
10.	Farmers reaction		Farmers are given good feedback about this variety. Many farmers are interested to cultivate this variety.
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	Suitable for Kharif season. Not suitable for summer season cultivation. More fruit fly incidence recorded in summer.
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	The extension persons need to increase the area under Ridge gourd, it high yield variety.
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Concluded
13.	Remarks	:	During summer season crop bitter taste was nocied in some fruis.

Demonstration on ridge gourd variety Arka Prasan for higher productivity

Treatmentsc	Days taken for first picking	Avg. fruit length (cm)	Avg. 10 fruits Weight (gm)	No. of fruits per plant	Yield per plant (kgs)	Yield (t/ha)	% increase over control
T1: Arka Prasan	45	45 cm	2860 gms	9	2.4	17.5	28.67
T2: Farmers practice (Naga)	52	39 cm	2200 gms	8	1.8	13.6

Treatments	Cost of cultivation (Rs./ac.)	Gross income (Rs./ha)	Net income (Rs./ha)	C:B ratio	Remarks
T1: Arka Prasan	1,45,000/-	4,26,000/-	2,81,000/-	2.93	Early variety, fruit fly incidence was more noticed.
T2: Farmers pratice (Naga)	1,45,000/-	3,35,000/-	1,90,000/-	2.31	fruit fly incidence was more noticed.

Farmers Details:

S.No	Name of the Beneficiary	Village	Phone No.
01	Mr. K. Anandha	Ankireddygaripalli, Kalakada	9703992939
02	Mr. Madhu reddy	parapatla	990843354
03	Mr. Nagamani reddy	Kalikiri	9010067979
04	Mr. Reddeppa naidu	shakamvaripalli	900086849
05	Mr.Mahesh	rajuvaripalli	9966189788

03/ FLD/Horti/ KVK/KLK/Kharif/2022-23

1.	Name of the technology	:	Integrated Disease Management in Tomato
2.	Name of the intervention	:	Varietal Assessment
3.	Crop/ enterprise	:	Tomato
4.	Objectives	:	To expand the area of tomatowith IIHR diseasemanagement technology
5.	No. of hectares	:	1 ha
6.	Item 6 to 8 are given in table form and enclosed
9.	Results	:	Farmers practice recorded 30 % disease incidence where as in IIHR protocol disease incidence was noted 25% and the cost of cultivation also recuded in IIHR technology. More B:C ratio 1.60 was recorded.
10.	Farmers reaction	:	Early blight and late blight incidence are more in kharif season crop.
11.	Feed back points	:
	(a) To the scientist	:	IIHR Diseases management technology cost reduction and controlling the disease incidence in this area.
	(b) To the extension personnel	:	Awarenes among farmers on new technology to be created by training
12.	Whether continued during 2023-24 or not	:	Continued
13.	Remarks	:	Tomato IIHR tomato disease management technology is recommended for cultivation in Annamayya district.

Integrated Disease Management in Tomato

Treatmentsc	Percent of disease incidence (%)	Yield (t/ha)	% increase yield over control
T1: IIHR tomato disease management protocol	25	60.50	9
T2: Farmers practice	30	55.25

Treatments	Cost of cultivation (Rs./hc.)	Gross income (Rs./ha)	Net income (Rs./ha)	C:B ratio
T1: IIHR tomato disease management protocol	5,00,000	8,00,000	3,00,000	1.60
T2: Farmers practice	5,00,000	7,33,333	2,33,333	1.46

S.No	Name of the Beneficiary	Village	Phone No.
1	Subramanyam	Kotagundlapalli	9493226836
2	Malli	kalikiri	9440327146
3	karimulla	yellampalli	9666314546
4	Jagadheesh	palamanda	7995031966
5	K. Anandha	Ankireddygaripalli, Kalakada	9703992939
6	Mohan reddy	Kotta gajjulollapalli	7075640838
7	Nagamani reddy	Kalikiri	-
8	K. Anandha	Ankireddygaripalli, Kalakada	9703992939
9	Mallikarjun naidu	shakamvaripalli	-
10	Reddeppa naidu	Shakamvaripalli	9000868469

TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR FARMERS

HORTICULTURE:10

S. No	Date	Venue	Name of the topic	Resource person	No. of Participants	Feedback
1	08-07-22	Sakirevupalli.	Post harvest management practices in Mango	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	23	Good
2	16-7-22	KVK, Kalikiri	Cultivation practices in Mango	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	56	Good
3	31-10-22	KVK, Kalikiri	Production Technology of Tomato in Annamayya District	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	23	Good
4	16-11-22	KVK, Kalikiri	Post harvest technology in Mango & Production Technology of Tomato	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	102	Good
5	23-11-22	KVK, Kalikiri	Vegetable nursery management (tomato and chilli)	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	24	Good
6	29-11-22	KVK, Kalikiri	Kitchen garden and Roof top gardening	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	24	Good
7	15-12-22	KVK, Kalikiri	Organic cultivation practices in mango	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	24	Good

Participation in Rythu Chaitanya Yatra (RCY)/Rythusadassu/Rythu Polallo Sastravetthalu (RPS)etc., T&V meetingsetc.

Details of the programme	Duration			place
Details of the programme	From (date)	To (date)	Total period
Kisan Mela	31-5-2022	31-5-2022	One day	Tomato market yard, Kalikiri
Krishi mela	4-11-2022	6-11-2022	Three days	GKVK, Bengalure
Rythu Sadassu	3-11-2022	3-11-2022	One day	Mittapalli, Kanduru
Ag- Tech 2022	4-12-2022	5-12-2022	One days	Lam, Guntur

Trainings/Workshops/Seminars etc. attended by the KVK staff

Name of the programme	Period	Venue	Organizing Institution
Orientation cum refresher training programme for SMSs and Farm managers	16-8-2022 to 18-8-2022	Lam, Guntur	Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University
Social media for Agricultural Extension	21-6-2022	25-6-2022	EEI with MANAGE, Hyderabad
Online training programme on Recent Advances in Chilli Chilli Improvement	7^th to 9^th 2022	Online	ICAR-IIHR, Bengaluru
Training programme on Agri Journalism for effective Agricultural Extension	20^th to 24^th September, 2022	Virtual mode	EEI with MANAGE, Hyderabad

Lectures delivered as resource person

S. NO	DATE	Scientist Participated	VENUE	TOPIC	Clientle	Organised by
01	16.11.2022	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	KVK, Kalikiri	ICM in Tomato and mango	VAA, VHA	Dept. of Agriculture
02	23.12.2022	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	PLR Foods, Sadum	ICM, in Mango	FPO members	PLR foods Pvt Lmtd.
03	11.01.2023	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	T. Sandravaripalli	IPM in Mango	FPO members	FPO & Dep. of Horticulture
04	25.04.2023	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	Sadum	Integrated management practices of mango	Farmers	KVK, Reddipalli
05	26.04.2023	Dr. A. Srinivasulu, SMS (Horticulture)	Punganur	Integrated management practices of tomato and pruning operations in mango	Farmers	KVK, Reddipalli

Resesrch papers publication;

No.

Authors

as per the citation

Title of the Publication

Name of Journal

Volume

and Page No.

Position of authorship

NAAS

rating

A Srinivasulu, CM Panda, SN Dash, A Mishra and RK Panda

Screening of citrus rootstocks for salt tolerance at early seedling stage

The Pharma Innovation Journal

SP-11(8): 1847-1853 (2022)

First

5.23

A Srinivasulu, CM Panda, SN Dash, A Mishra and RK Panda

Evaluation of Citrus Rootstocks to Salinity Tolerance

Biological Forum

14(3): 786-793(2022)

First

5.54

Community Home Science

On Farm Trials 2022-23

TRIAL NO 1/ OFT/ H.S /2022-23

Assessment of tomato variety for value addition (First year)

1.	Name of the technology	Assessment of tomato variety for value addition (First year)
2.	Nature of intervention	On Farm Trial
3.	Objective	To assess the pulp yield, Sensory evaluation of the product. Shelf life studies of the product.
4.	Crop	Tomato
5.	Numbers	(a) Approved : 5 (b) Organized : 03
	Name of the farmers	1)KVK farm 2) G.Prabhakar-9985139507,Mure vandlapalli 3) Rajamani reddy -9440192438, Kalikiri

Treatments:

T1: Arka apeksha

T2: Tomato hybrid-34

T3: Saahoo

Results 2022-23:

Observations recorded:

Pulp yield for 1 kg of raw tomatoes % Recovery,
Organoleptic evaluation
Shelf life studies

Data recorded	T1- Arka apeksha	T2- Tomato hybrid-34		T3- Saaho
Average weight	75-80 grams	70-90 gms		70-100 gms
TSS	4.7 brix	6.4		6.3
Acidity	0.34	0.12		0.11
Pulp yield for 1 kg	830 g	720 g		710 g
Sensory evaluation
Color	8.6		8.7	9
Taste	9		8.6	8.7
Consistency	9		8.5	7.8
Overall acceptability	9		7	8
Feedback from farmers			Good	Good
Shelf life studies	No microbial contamination was observed in three treatments for 4 months under refrigerated conditions

6	Farmers Reactions	Heavy rains and water logging are not tolerated. Also the storage period is short
7	Feed back (a) To the Scientists	Good for processing in the preparation of ketchup when compared with other two treatments
7	(b) To the Extension Personnel	Good
8	Whether continued during 2023-24	Yes
9	Remarks	Can be implemented by the farmers at commercial level.

2) TRIAL NO 2/ OFT/ H.S /22-23

Assessment of performance of chaff cutters (I Year)

1.	Name of the Technology	Assessment of performance of chaff cutters
2.	Nature of intervention	Can reduce the time and drudgery in collecting the fodder grass for farm women.
3.	Objective	To assess the performance of hand operated chaff cutter. To calculate the drudgery index
4.	Crop	Fodder grass
5.	Nature of the Trial	On Farm trial
6.	Numbers	(a) Approved : 5 (b) Organized : 5

Treatments:

T1: Hand operated chaff cutrer-CIAE,Bopal

T2: Power operated chaff cutter– TNAU

T3: Farmer’s practice

Observations recorded	T1- Hand operated Chaff cutter	T2- Manual operated chaff cutter	T3- farmers practice
No.of labour required	2	1	1
Fodder weight	5 kg	5 kg	5 kg
Time take for cutting	7 min 23 sec	2 min 13 sec	-
Drudgery index	56.4 (Medium drudgery)	38.4 (Mild drudgery	-

9	(b) To the Extension Personnel	Good
10	Whether continued during 2022-23	Yes (converted to FLD)
11	Remarks	Nil

Front Line Demonstrations 2022-23:

1/FLD/HSC/KVK/KLK /2022-23

Demonstration on Nutri gardens at schools (First year).

1.	Name of the Technology	Demonstration on Nutri gardens at schools(First year).
2.	Nature of intervention	Local Nutrition garden can make vegetables available, which in turn increase the consumption for vegetables and reduce the effect of micronutrient deficiencies especially among women and children in rural areas.
3.	Objective	To establish the nutrition garden at schools To increase the consumption of vegetables. Students able to get pesticide free vegetables from their school campus Expenditure on purchasing vegetables were reduced. To improve the nutritional status of the children
4.	Crop	Vegetables
5.	Nature of the Trial	Front Line Demonstration
6.	Numbers	a. Approved : 10 b. Organized: 10

Treatments:

T₁: T1:-Nutrigarden (MSSRF Model)

T2:- No Garden

S.No.	Name of the village	Phone number
1	Sainik schools, Kalikiri	8179431553
2	Government boys school, Kalikiri	9440400579
3	Residential girls School, Kalikiri	8985093081
4	Anganwadi school, Sakirevu palli	7674836713
5	Anganwadi school, Kotha palli	9121122573
6	Anganwadi school, Nadimpalli	7095176331
7	Anganwadi school, Parapatla	7702628726
8	Anganwadi school, Erra doddi palli	9160816498
9	Anganwadi school, T.G.palli	8008621691
10	Anganwadi school, Girijana colony	9121122493

Results :2022-23

Expenditure incurred(Rs)

Vegetable Gross yield (Kg)

Utilization by the school children(Kg)

Total

(Rs)

Additional Income generated (Rs

1 month

200

40-45

1600-1800

6 months

270

200

10,800

2,800

Gross yield of vegetables from nutri gardens in 10 schools

S.No.	Crop	Yield (Kg)
Vegetables
1	Tomato	24.3
2	Brinjal	15.2
3	Mirchi	14.2
4	Ladies finger	15.8
5	Cluster beans	15.3
Leafy vegetables
6	Palak	11.7
7	Hybiscus	11.3
8	Menthi	10.6
9	Amaranthus	13.9
Roots
10	Carrot	14.5
11	Radish	15.7
Creepers
12	Bitter gourd	16.0
13	Bottle gourd	30.4

7	Farmers Reactions
8	Feed back (a) To the Scientists	Good
	(b) To the Extension Personnel
9	Whether continued during 2023-2024	Yes
10	Remarks

2/FLD/HSC/KVK/KLK /2023-24

Demonstration on Backyard poultry-(First Year)

1.	Name of the Technology	Demonstration on Backyard poultry-(First Year)
2.	Nature of intervention	Backyard poultry is mostly practiced among rural family and introducing high yielding dual purpose variety will enhances the consumption of eggs and poultry meat. Additional income can also be generated by selling the eggs and matured birds. Gagas are dual-purpose chicken variety developed by the ICAR-Directorate of Poultry Research in Hyderabad mainly developed for Rural community where it can be reared in backyard on natural, scavenged food with minimal supplementation. It produces eggs and meat based on rearing and feeding practices. Important features of this breed are multi-color feather pattern, immunity to disease, perform with less nutrition, grow faster, and produce more eggs, produce brown eggs like local hens. These birds give their best performance when reared free range.
3.	Objective	To introduce the improved breeds of backyard poultry To improve the nutritional status and economic status of the farm families.
4.	Crop	-
5.	Nature of the Trial	Front Line Demonstration
6.	Numbers	(a) Approved : 10 location (b) Organized : 10 location

Results :

Observations recorded	Gagas birds	Local birds
Bird weight (6 months)	Cock weight- 1.5 to2.2kg Hen weight- 1.8-2.0 kg	Cock weight- 1.3to 1.6kg Hen weight- 1.2-1.6 kg
Average egg weight	50 – 55 grams	50-60 grams
No.of eggs layed (till now)	20-30 no’s

Indian Council Of Agricultural Research

ACHARYA N.G.RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA

KALIKIRI-517 234

Technologies Links

Notifications/Downloads

Extension Activities conducted during 2022-23