Paper · 2018 · Journal of AgriSearch

Impact Analysis of KrishiVigyanKendras on Zero Tillage Maize, a Resource Conservation Technology in Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh

B MALATHI; DVS RAO; JV PRASAD; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
2
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Frontline demonstrations resulted in a yield of 80.83 q ha-1 with 14.01 per cent increase over farmer’s practice of 70.90 q ha-1which was much more than the district average yield of 47.33 q ha-1and increased net returns of Rs. 18,106 per hectare (53.16 %) over farmers practice. During the study period extension gap of 9.93 q ha-1 was found to be more than technology gap of 6.17 q ha-1 which emphasized the need to educate the farmers through various means for the adoption of this resource conservation technology for improved maize production with reduced cost of cultivation. Technology index of 18.51 per cent, indices of realized potential yield of 81.49 per cent and potential farm yield of 87.71 per cent had shown the feasibility of the demonstrated technology at the farmers’ fields.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Demonstration yield was 80.83 q ha-1, 14.01 per cent above farmer practice.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Treatment
Frontline demonstrationse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
80.83 q ha-1e0
Qualifier
70.90 q ha-1e0
Comparator
farmer’s practicee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Frontline demonstrations resulted in a yield of 80.83 q ha-1 with 14.01 per cent increase over farmer’s practice of 70.90 q ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–128 · show in text ↑
t0

“Zero Tillage Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–60 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Demonstration net returns increased by Rs. 18,106 per hectare over farmer practice.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Treatment
Zero Tillaget0
Outcome
net returnse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
Rs. 18,106 per hectaree0
Qualifier
53.16 %e0
Comparator
farmers practicee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased net returns of Rs. 18,106 per hectare (53.16 %) over farmers practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–278 · show in text ↑
t0

“Zero Tillage Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–60 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The extension gap of 9.93 q ha-1 exceeded the technology gap of 6.17 q ha-1.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Outcome
extension gape0
Direction
more thane0
Value
9.93 q ha-1e0
Qualifier
6.17 q ha-1e0
Comparator
technology gape0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“extension gap of 9.93 q ha-1 was found to be more than technology gap of 6.17 q ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 304–388 · show in text ↑
t0

“Zero Tillage Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–60 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The technology index was 18.51 per cent.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Outcome
Technology indexe0
Value
18.51 per cente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Technology index of 18.51 per cent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 582–616 · show in text ↑
t0

“Zero Tillage Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–60 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The realized potential yield index was 81.49 per cent.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Outcome
realized potential yielde0
Value
81.49 per cente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“indices of realized potential yield of 81.49 per cent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 618–671 · show in text ↑
t0

“Zero Tillage Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–60 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The potential farm yield index was 87.71 per cent.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Outcome
potential farm yielde0
Value
87.71 per cente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“potential farm yield of 87.71 per cent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–714 · show in text ↑
t0

“Zero Tillage Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–60 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.