Technology Evaluation and Dissemination Among Farming Communities Through Crop Cafeteria

Abstract

Krishi Vigyan Kendra P. G College, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh has planned to evaluate and popularize the high yielding varieties of different crops with latest technologies through crop cafeteria among farming communities, rural youth and extension representatives. Four varieties of wheat i.e. CBW-38, K-307, PBW-502 and PBW-550; eighteen varieties of chickpea viz. GNG-663, CSJD-884, RSG-888, RSG-807, RSG-963, RSG-931, RSG-973, RSGK-6, RSG 896, RSG 945, RSG 991, RSG 902, RSG 895, CSJ 140, RSG 959, RSG 974, CSJK 21, and CSJ 313; five varieties of mustard i.e. Varuna, Urvashi, NDR-8501, KVKSM-1 and NRCHB-101; three varieties of field pea i.e. KPMR-144-1, KPMR-522, and KPMR-400; three varieties of barley viz. K-409, K-508 and Narendra barley-3 were sown in crop cafeteria at the instructional farm of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 to 2016-17. Data were recorded on yield characters revealed that the average maximum yield of wheat was obtained from K-307 (49.98 q/ha) while minimum was in variety PBW-550 (46.06 q/ha). Wheat crop gave average productivity by 92.52, 66.17 and 72.12 per cent more over district, state and national yield, respectively. Chickpea variety RSG 959 gave average highest yield i.e. 24.59 q/ha while RSG 991 yielded lowest i.e. 20.31 q/ha. The demonstrated technology of chickpea in crop cafeteria gave 89.09, 155.09 and 138.21 per cent more over district, state and national yield, respectively. The average maximum yields were recorded in mustard variety NRCHB-101 (25.05 q/ha) followed by NDR-8501 (24.16 q/ha), Urvashi (23.54 q/ha), KVKSM-1 (22.35 q/ha) and T-59 (22.21 q/ha). The mustard crop gave 109.86, 111.75 and 107.51 per cent more yield over district, state and national yield, respectively. The 24.50 q/ha yield was recorded from field pea variety KPMR 522 and the lowest yield (29.29 q/ha) was received in variety KPMR 144-1. Field pea crop varieties showed 92.81, 96.26 and 133.56 per cent more yield in crop cafeteria over district, state and national yield, respectively. Barley cultivar K 508 gave higher productivity (37.58 q/ha) followed by K-409 (36.29 q/ha) and Narendra barley-3 (29.29 q/ha). The barley crop varieties produced 100.86, 42.68 and 72.68 per cent more yield over district, state and national yield, respectively. The variation in yield was due to varietal characteristics and changes in weather (erratic rainfall, high wind pressure) during cropping period. 1321 farmers including extension functionaries' footfalls were recorded during six years cropping period and they were aware about latest technologies. Demonstrations of high yielding varieties of different crops with latest production technologies in crop cafeteria were found more effective in changing attitude, skills and knowledge of farming communities and extension functionaries.

Full text

ABSTRACT
Krishi Vigyan Kendra P. G College, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh has planned to evaluate and popularize the high yielding
varieties of different crops with latest technologies through crop cafeteria among farming communities, rural youth and
extension representatives. Four varieties of wheat i.e. CBW-38, K-307, PBW-502 and PBW-550; eighteen varieties of
chickpea viz. GNG-663, CSJD-884, RSG-888, RSG-807, RSG-963, RSG-931, RSG-973, RSGK-6, RSG 896, RSG 945,
RSG 991, RSG 902, RSG 895, CSJ 140, RSG 959, RSG 974, CSJK 21, and CSJ 313; five varieties of mustard i.e. Varuna,
Urvashi, NDR-8501, KVKSM-1 and NRCHB-101; three varieties of field pea i.e. KPMR-144-1, KPMR-522, and KPMR-
400; three varieties of barley viz. K-409, K-508 and Narendra barley-3 were sown in crop cafeteria at the instructional farm
of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh during 2011-12 to 2016-17. Data were recorded on yield characters
revealed that the average maximum yield of wheat was obtained from K-307 (49.98 q/ha) while minimum was in variety
PBW-550 (46.06 q/ha). Wheat crop gave average productivity by 92.52, 66.17 and 72.12 per cent more over district, state
and national yield, respectively. Chickpea variety RSG 959 gave average highest yield i.e. 24.59 q/ha while RSG 991
yielded lowest i.e. 20.31 q/ha. The demonstrated technology of chickpea in crop cafeteria gave 89.09, 155.09 and 138.21 per
cent more over district, state and national yield, respectively. The average maximum yields were recorded in mustard variety
NRCHB-101 (25.05 q/ha) followed by NDR-8501 (24.16 q/ha), Urvashi (23.54 q/ha), KVKSM-1 (22.35 q/ha) and T-59
(22.21 q/ha). The mustard crop gave 109.86, 111.75 and 107.51 per cent more yield over district, state and national yield,
respectively. The 24.50 q/ha yield was recorded from field pea variety KPMR 522 and the lowest yield (29.29 q/ha) was
received in variety KPMR 144-1. Field pea crop varieties showed 92.81, 96.26 and 133.56 per cent more yield in crop
cafeteria over district, state and national yield, respectively. Barley cultivar K 508 gave higher productivity (37.58 q/ha)
followed by K-409 (36.29 q/ha) and Narendra barley-3 (29.29 q/ha). The barley crop varieties produced 100.86, 42.68 and
72.68 per cent more yield over district, state and national yield, respectively. The variation in yield was due to varietal
characteristics and changes in weather (erratic rainfall, high wind pressure) during cropping period. 1321 farmers including
extension functionaries' footfalls were recorded during six years cropping period and they were aware about latest
technologies. Demonstrations of high yielding varieties of different crops with latest production technologies in crop
cafeteria were found more effective in changing attitude, skills and knowledge of farming communities and extension
functionaries.
Key words: Crop cafeteria, impact assessment, productivity enhancement, yield gap.
Indian Journal of Extension Education
Vol. 55, No. 4, 2019 (151-157)
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the largest enterprise in the country,
represents as bedrock of Indian economy and it alone
employs more than 50 per cent of the total workforce,
particularly in rural areas and contributes about 17 per
cent to the country's gross value added (GVA). The
overall share of agriculture in the Indian economy has
decreased over the time from around 51.8 per cent in
1950-51 to around 15.8 per cent in 2018-19 in terms of
GVA at current prices (Kumar, 2019).The present
cropping intensity of 141.60 per cent (2014-15) has
Technology Evaluation and Dissemination Among Farming
Communities through Crop Cafeteria
1 2 3 4 5
R. P. Singh , Raksha Pal Singh , A. K. Singh , Dinesh Singh and Mukesh Singh
1. 2. 3.
Senior Scientist & Head, MGKVK, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, Professor & Head, SVBPUAT, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, SMS-Agronomy, MGKVK, Gorakhpur,
4. 5.
Uttar Pradesh, Senior Scientist & Head, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh and Division of Extension Education, IARI, New Delhi

INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXTENSION EDUCATION
registered on increase of only 25 per cent since
independence (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2018).
Continued degradation of natural resources under
intensive agriculture to attain goals of food sufficiency is
one of the reasons for declining factor productivity in the
country. The health of our soils has been impaired due to
immergence of multi nutrient deficiencies and falling of
organic carbon levels. Climate change has already caused
significant damage to our present crop profile and
threatens to bring even more serious consequences in the
future. Crop productivity is also affected by lack of water
resources, evaporation, land suitability and choice of
suitable varieties, changes in sowing and harvesting
dates(Kumar and Gautam, 2014, Ito et al., 2018). Due to
heavy use of chemical herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers
and intensification of agricultural production during the
past few decades has led to other harmful effects like
nitrate in the ground water, contamination of food
materials, stratospheric changes, loss of beneficial
microorganisms/insects and reduction in genetic-
diversity lead to more susceptibility to pests and diseases
etc. (Aktar, et al., 2009, Khajuria and Ravindranath, 2012,
Pathak, et al., 2012, Prashar and Shah, 2016).
Ghazipur district is also facing same constraints
which are playing a role for lower productivity. No use of
improved varieties of the crop, inappropriate seed rate and
method of sowing, untreated seed, injudicious use of
fertilizers, improper weed management technique,
indiscriminate use of fungicide/insecticide etc. are also
responsible for low productivity of the crop. Field
extension methodologies as individual methods i.e.
Farmers call/office call, scientist visit to farmers field,
plant health clinic, as in group methods i.e. on farm trials,
front line demonstrations, group meetings/trainings, field
day, farmers field school, farmers scientist interaction
programmes and as in mass methods i.e. kisan mela, kisan
gosthi, leaflets, folders, magazines, newspaper coverage,
radio and TV talk programs are using in district Ghazipur
for technology dissemination. In spite of these, innovative
extension methodologies i.e. mobile advisory services,
community radio station, cluster village approach, master
trainer co ncept and cr eation of recent advances
technology module as in crop cafeteria are also applying
for dissemination of agriculture technologies among
farming communities. Among these, crop cafeteria plays
an important role of facilitator in the process of
technology transfer among farming communities. It
provides practical experiences based on the principle of
'seeing is believes' and face to face views along with kvk's
technocrats for disseminating technical know how to the
farmers, rural youths and extension functionaries.
Keeping in view the significance of transfer of technology
to enhance productivity more and more for self-
sufficiency of food, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Ghazipur has
planned to demonstrate good agronomical practices
(GAPs) with latest technological interventions in crop
cafeteria regarding technology evaluation and dissemi-
nation among farming community.
METHODOLOGY
Ghazipur district falls under Eastern Plain zone of
Uttar Pradesh and it is located at 25034′ North latitude and
830 35′ Eastlongitudes. It was an average elevation of
67.5 meters. It has a humid sub-tropical climate with large
variation between summer (32°C to 46°C) and winter
(40°C to 150°C) temperature. The average annual rainfall
received in the district is 900-1110mm during study
period. Fog is common in the winter while hot dry winds
called loo blow in the summer. Rice-wheat cropping
system is dominant in district Ghazipur and cropping
intensity has registered about 156 per cent. Major crops
are paddy, maize, arhar, jwar, bajra in Kharif season
whereas wheat, barley, lentil, toria, mustard and winter
vegetable in Rabi season. The soils of the instructional
farm were sandy loam in texture with 7.5pH. The
available nitrogen and phosphorus were found in low and
potassium in high. Krishi Vigyan Kendra P. G. College,
Ghazipur has planned to evaluate and popularize the
HYVs of Wheat, Chickpea, Mustard, Field pea and
Barley with good agronomical practicesand plant
protection measures among farming communities
through crop cafeteria. Four varieties of wheat i.e. CBW-
38, K-307, PBW-502 and PBW-550; eighteen varieties of
chickpea viz. GNG-663 (Vardan), CSJD-884 (Akash),
RSG-888 (Anubhav), RSG-807 (Abhar), RSG-963
(Adhar), RSG-931 (Anvita), RSG-973 (Abha), RSGK-6;
(Asar), RSG896, RSG945, RSG991, RSG902, RSG895,
CSJ140, RSG959, RSG974, CSJK21, and CSJ313; five
varieties of mustard i.e. Varuna (T-59), Urvashi, NDR-
8501, KVKSM-1 and NRCHB-101; three varieties of
field pea i.e. KPMR-144-1(Sapna), KPMR-522(Jai), and
KPMR-400 (Indra); three varieties of barley viz. K-409
(Priti), K-508 (Pragati) and Narendra barley-3 were sown
in crop cafeteria at the instructional farm of Krishi
Vigyan Kendra, P. G. College, Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh
during the period from 2011-12 to 2016-17. All the
2
varietieswere sown in 4.5m area with appropriate row to
row and plant to plant distances. All the recommended
agronomical and cultural practices were followed for
cultivation of good crop. The yield data were collected
from the crop cafeteria and analyzed by using simple
statistical tools. The yield gap and impact of the crops
were compared with district, state and national yield. Per
cent increase in yield was worked out by using simple
statistical tools and presented in graphical form in results
and discussion.
152

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION AMONG FARMING
COMMUNITIES THROUGH CROP CAFETERIA
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Impact of technological interventions on wheat crop
cafeteria
The latest technological interventions comprising
high yielding varieties seeds, seed treatment, time and
method of sowing, recommended dose of fertilizers, weed
management and proper plant protection measures were
used as per package and practices of each crop. Results of
crop cafeteria on wheat crops during six years are
presented in Table 1. Data were recorded on yield
characters revealed that the average maximum yield of
wheat was obtained from K-307 (49.98 q/ha) followed by
CBW-38 (49.62 q/ha) PBW-502 (48.98 q/ha) and PBW-
550 (46.06 q/ha) during study period. The yield parameter
also compared at district, state and national level
productivity, it reflected significantly more over district,
state and national level productivity in all the crops. The
result clearly indicated in Table 2 that average wheat
productivity was 48.66q/ha from demonstrated plot
during 2011-12 to 2016-17. The highest average wheat
productivity i.e. 53.50q/ha received during 2012-13
followed by 52.72q/ha, 50.59, 47.04, 46.11 and 42.00q/ha
in 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2014-15 and 2011-12
respectively. The demonstrated technology of wheat in
crop cafeteria yielded 92.52, 66.17 and 72.12 per cent
more over district, state and national yield, respectively
(fig 1). Singh et al. (2015) also reported similar findings in
wheat crop under crop cafeteria during 2014-15 crop
seasons.
Table 1: Performance of crop cafeteria on yield parameter
of different crops
Table 2: Impact of wheat crop cafeteria in terms of
productivity enhancement
Fig.1: Impact of technological interventions on wheat crop cafeteria
Name of the
crop/Varieties
Yield (q/ha) Average
yield
(q/ha)
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015 -16 2016-17
Wheat
CBW-38 42.88 53.77 52.88 46.66 51.50 50.00 49.62
K-307 42.22 54.44 55.11 48.88 52.40 46.80 49.98
PBW-502 41.80 52.66 52.22 45.55 53.00 48.65 48.98
PBW-550 41.11 53.11 50.66 43.33 45.45 42.70 46.06
Average 42.00 53.50 52.72 46.11 50.59 47.04 48.66
Chickpea
GNG-663 21.11 22.00 21.55 18.20 20.35 22.40 20.94
CSJD-884 24.44
25.55
22.22
17.77
21.22
25.20 22.73
RSG-888 23.33
24.66
22.66
17.33
22.60
24.75 22.56
RSG-807 24.44
26.22
25.55
18.88
24.55
25.85 24.25
RSG-963 20.88
21.77
21.11
18.66
21.80
21.80 21.00
RSG-931 20.44
21.66
21.33
17.77
21.33
22.00 20.76
RSG-973 20.66
22.00
22.22
17.55
20.22
22.00 20.78
RSGK-6 20.55
21.55
21.77
17.11
21.50
20.65 20.52
RSG 896 23.33
25.55
23.77
18.00
22.72
26.00 23.23
RSG 945 24.44
25.55
23.77
19.11
23.70
25.50 23.68
RSG 991 20.22
21.33
20.88
17.55
20.40
21.50 20.31
RSG 902 25.55
26.66
24.44
17.33
23.45
25.85 23.88
RSG 895 20.11
21.55
21.11
18.00
21.40
21.50 20.61
CSJ 140 26.66
27.11
24.44
17.33
24.70
26.11 24.39
RSG 959 27.77
26.66
24.88
17.55
23.80
26.90 24.59
RSG 974 25.55 24.44 22.66 17.11 22.64 24.68 22.85
CSJK 21 20.55
21.77
21.11
17.77
21.60
21.70 20.75
CSJ 313 24.44
25.77
22.22
17.33
22.40
24.90 22.84
Average 23.04
23.90
22.65
17.80
22.24
23.85 22.2
Mustard
T-59 21.00
24.50
22.22
19.77
22.00
23.75 22.21
Urvashi 24.40
24.30
22.66
23.33
21.86
24.70 23.54
NDR-8501 24.50
24.60
24.00
23.33
24.20
24.30 24.16
KVKSM-1 22.60
22.40
23.33
21.11
22.68
22.00 22.35
NRCHB-101 24.40
26.50
24.88
24.00
24.50
26.00 25.05
Average 23.38
24.46
23.42
22.31
23.05
24.15 23.46
Field pea
KPMR-522 22.75 27.77 24.88 22.22 22.60 26.75 24.50
KPMR-400 21.65 26.88 25.55 21.11 21.45 26.25 23.82
KPMR144-1 20.85 24.84 25.11 20.00 21.80 24.60 22.87
Average 21.75 26.50 25.18 21.11 21.95 25.87 23.73
Barley
K-409 37.11 37.77 32.88 38.33 34.77 36.88 36.29
K-508 37.75 38.88 35.55 38.00 36.80 38.50 37.58
Narendra
Barley-3
28.65 29.77 29.44 29.55 29.30 29.00 29.29
Average 34.50 35.47 32.62 35.29 33.62 34.79 34.3
48.66
26.13 29.79
28.65
92.52
66.17
72.12
Average yield in
crop cafeteria
(q/ha)
District yield
(DY) in q/ha
State yield (SY)
in q/ha
National yield
(NY) in q/ha
Impact (%
change over
DY)
Impact (%
change over SY)
Impact (%
change over
NY)
Year Average yield
in crop
cafeteria (q/ha)
District
yield (DY)
in q/ha
State yield
(SY) in
q/ha
National
yield (NY)
in q/ha
Impact
(% change
over DY)
Impact
(% change
over SY)
Impact
(% change
over NY)
2011-12 42.00 28.11
31.13
31.77
+49.41 +34.92 +32.20
2012-13 53.50 28.73
31.13
31.17
+86.22 +71.86 +71.64
2013-14 52.72 26.26
30.38
31.45
+100.76 +73.54 +67.63
2014-15 46.11 17.70
22.77
27.50
+160.51 +102.50 +67.67
2015-16 50.59 23.90 27.90 23.20 +111.67 +81.33 +118.06
2016-17 47.04 32.10 35.40 26.80 +46.54 +32.88 +75.52
Average 48.66 26.13 29.79 28.65 +92.52 +66.17 +72.12
Impact of technological interventions on chickpea
crop cafeteria
The results of recent advances technologies of
chickpea in crop cafeteria reported in Table 3 that
chickpea yielded 22.25q/ha average productivity during
2011-12 to 2016-17. The average higher yield was
recorded from RSG-959 (24.59 q/ha) followed by CSJ
140 (24.39 q/ha), RSG 807 (24.25 q/ha), RSG 902 (23.88
q/ha), RSG 945 (23.68 q/ha) and it was minimum in
cultivar RSG-991 (20.31 q/ha). The maximum average
productivity was 23.90q/ha in 2012-13 followed by
Source of district, state and national yield data: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2018
153

INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXTENSION EDUCATION
23.85, 23.04, 22.65, and 22.24 in 2016-17, 2011-12,
2013-14 and 2015-16, respectively which was lowest i.e.
17.80q/ha in 2014-15. The demonstrated technology of
chickpea in crop cafeteria gave 89.09, 155.09 and 138.21
per cent more over district, state and national yield,
respectively (Fig 2). Singh et al. (2015)demonstrated
eleven varieties of chickpea i.e. JG 63, JG 16, JG 130, JG
12, JAKI 92-18, JG 11, JG 6, JGK 1, RSG 807, JG 14 and
JGG 1 in crop cafeteria and reported maximum yield in
chickpea variety JG 63 (22.22q/ha) and it was minimum
in cultivar JG 11 (7.94q/ha).
Impact of technological interventions on field pea crop
cafeteria
The results of crop cafeteria in field pea clearly
indicated in Table 1 that field pea variety KPMR-522
(24.50 q/ha) gave average higher yield followed by
KPMR 400 (23.82 q/ha), and KPMR-144-1 (22.87 q/ha)
during six-year program. The impact of field pea in crop
cafeteria results is depicted in Table 5 that average yield
i.e. 23.73q/ha was received during 2011-12 to 2016-17.
The maximum yield i.e. 26.50q/ha was noticed during
2012-13 followed by 25.87, 25.18, 21.95 and 21.75q/ha in
2016-17, 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2011-12, respectively.
The lowest average yield i.e. 21.11q/ha was obtained
during 2014-15 cropping period. The field pea crop
yielded 92.81, 96.26 and 133.56 per cent more yield over
district, state and national yield, respectively (Fig 4).
These findings corroborate with the results of Pandey et
al., 2013.
Table 3: Impact of chickpea crop cafeteria in terms of
productivity enhancement
Table 4: Impact of mustard crop cafeteria in terms of
productivity enhancement
Year Average yield
in crop
cafeteria (q/ha)
District
yield (DY)
in q/ha
State yield
(SY) in
q/ha
National
yield (NY)
in q/ha
Impact
(% change
over DY)
Impact
(% change
over SY)
Impact
(% change
over NY)
2011-12 23.04 12.44
11.85
9.28
+85.21
+94.43 +148.28
2012-13 23.90 11.48
11.19
10.36
+108.19
+113.58 +130.69
2013-14 22.65 9.40
8.24
9.60
+140.96
+174.88 +135.94
2014-15 17.80 12.90
6.59
8.89
+37.98
+170.11 +100.22
2015-16 22.24 15.60 6.10 8.00 +42.56 +264.59 +178.00
2016-17 23.85 14.40 11.20 10.10 +65.63 +112.95 +136.14
Average 22.25 12.70 9.20 9.37 +80.09 +155.09 +138.21
22.25
12.7 9.2
9.37
80.09
155.09
138.21
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Average yield
in crop
cafeteria
(q/ha)
District yield
(DY) in q/ha
State yield
(SY) in q/ha
National yield
(NY) in q/ha
Impact (%
change over
DY)
Impact (%
change over
SY)
Impact (%
change over
NY)
Fig. 2: Impact of technological interventions on chickpea
crop cafeteria
Impact of technological interventions on mustard
crop cafeteria
Similarly, the data reflected in Table 1 that the
average maximum yields were recorded in mustard
variety NRCHB-101 (25.05 q/ha) followed by NDR-
8501 (24.16 q/ha), Urvashi (23.54 q/ha), KVKSM-1
(22.35 q/ha) and T-59 (22.21 q/ha). The mustard results
elicited in Table 4 that average yield i.e. 23.46q/ha were
recorded from crop cafeteria during 2011-12 to 2016-17.
Highest average yield i.e. 24.46q/ha was obtained during
2012-13 followed by 24.15, 23.42, 23.38 and 23.05q/ha
2016-17, 2013-14, 2011-12 and 2015-16, respectively.
The lowest average yield i.e. 22.31q/ha was received
during 2014-15. The mustard crop gave 109.86, 111.75
and 107.51 per cent more yield as compared to district,
state and national yield, respectively (Fig 3).These
findings approbate with the results of Pandey et al., 2013.
23.46
12.16 11.17
11.34
109.86
111.75
107.51
Average yield in
crop cafeteria
(q/ha)
District yield
(DY) in q/ha
State yield (SY)
in q/ha
National yield
(NY) in q/ha
Impact (%
change over DY)
Impact (%
change over SY)
Impact (%
change over NY)
Source of district, state and national yield data: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2018
Year Average yield
in crop
cafeteria (q/ha)
District
yield (DY)
in q/ha
State yield
(SY) in
q/ha
National
yield (NY)
in q/ha
Impact
(% change
over DY)
Impact
(% change
over SY)
Impact
(% change
over NY)
2011-12 23.38 9.02
11.36
11.21
+159.20
+105.81 +108.56
2012-13 24.46 12.62
12.63
12.62
+93.82
+93.67 +93.82
2013-14 23.42 10.14
11.13
11.85
+130.97
+110.42 +97.64
2014-15 22.31 7.80
9.30
10.83
+186.03
+139.89 +106.00
2015-16 23.05 14.00 10.20 10.70 +64.64 +125.98 +115.42
2016-17 24.15 19.40 12.40 10.80 +24.48 +94.76 +123.61
Average 23.46 12.16 11.17 11.34 +109.86 +111.75 +107.51
Source of district, state and national yield data: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2018
Fig. 3: Impact of technological interventions on
mustard crop cafeteria
Table 5: Impact of field pea crop cafeteria in terms of
productivity enhancement
Year Average yield
in crop
cafeteria (q/ha)
District
yield (DY)
in q/ha
State yield
(SY) in
q/ha
National
yield (NY)
in q/ha
Impact
(% change
over DY)
Impact
(% change
over SY)
Impact
(% change
over NY)
2011-12 21.75 17.52
14.33
13.86
+24.14
+51.78 +56.93
2012-13 26.50 12.98
14.95
9.32
+104.16
+77.26 +184.33
2013-14 25.18 9.33
9.92
10.10
+169.88
+153.83 +149.31
2014-15 21.11 11.80
11.38
11.28
+78.90
+85.50 +87.15
2015-16 21.95 14.00 9.90 7.50 +56.79 +121.72 +192.67
2016-17 25.87 11.60 13.80 11.20 +123.02 +87.46 +130.98
Average 23.73 12.87 12.38 10.54 +92.81 +96.26 +133.56
Source of district, state and national yield data: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2018
154

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION AMONG FARMING
COMMUNITIES THROUGH CROP CAFETERIA
Impact of crop cafeteria over district, state and
national level productivity of crop
Yield gap of different crops (Fig. 6) was also analyzed
with average yield of district, state and national are
depicted in Table 7 that wide yield gap was observed in
different crops during study period.
It is emphasized the need to educate the farmers
through various means for the adoption of improved
production and protection technologies to reverse this
trend of wide yield gap. More and more use of latest
production technologies with high yielding varieties and
integrated plant protection components will subsequently
change this alarming trend of galloping yield gap. This
finding is in corroboration with the findings of Singh et
al., 2012 and Raj et al., 2013.
The possibility of increasing yield of wheat,
chickpea, mustard, field pea and barley per unit area was
found in the area at significant level. It may be due to
genetic variability of varieties with optimum seed rate,
seed treatment, spacing with optimum plant stand,
optim um fertilizer application, need based plant
protection, proper weed management and local climatic
situation.
The huge variation in yield was due to varietal
characteristics and changes in weather (erratic rainfall)
during cropping period. Thus, there are bright chances to
increase the yield of these crops by adopting improved
technologies with proper plant protection management.
Fig. 4: Impact of technological interventions on field
pea crop cafeteria
21.75
26.5 25.18
21.11 21.95
25.87
23.73
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Average yield
in crop
cafeteria
(q/ha)
District yield
(DY) in q/ha
State yield
(SY) in q/ha
National yield
(NY) in q/ha
Impact (%
change over
DY)
Impact (%
change over
SY)
Impact (%
change over
NY)
Impact of technological interventions on barley crop
cafeteria
The different barley cultivars results presented in
Table 1 that the K 508variety yielded higher productivity
(37.58 q/ha) followed by K-409 (36.29 q/ha) and
Naren dra barle y-3 (29 .2 9 q/ha) .The impac t of
demonstrated technologies on barley in crop cafeteria are
elicited in Table 6 that average enhanced yield i.e.
34.38q/ha was obtained during 2011-12 to 2016-17. The
highest barley yield (35.47 q/ha) obtained during 2012-13
followed by 35.29, 34.79, 34.50 and 33.62q/ha during
2014-15, 2016-17, 2011-12 and 2015-16, respectively
and lowest yield i.e. 32.62q/ha was found during 2013-14
cropping period. The demonstrated technologies on
barley crop enhanced 100.86, 42.68 and 72.68 per cent
more yield as compared to district, state and national
yield, respectively (Fig 5).These findings endorse with
the results of Pandey et al., 2013
Table 6: Impact of barley crop cafeteria in terms of
productivity enhancement
Table 7: Impact of crop cafeteria over district, state and
national level of crop productivity (pooled data)
Year Average yield
in crop
cafeteria (q/ha)
District
yield (DY)
in q/ha
State yield
(SY) in
q/ha
National
yield (NY)
in q/ha
Impact
(% change
over DY)
Impact
(% change
over SY)
Impact
(% change
over NY)
2011-12 34.50 13.72
25.57
25.16
+151.46
+34.92 +37.12
2012-13 35.47 17.91
26.55
25.21
+98.05
+33.60 +40.70
2013-14 32.62 17.00
28.66
27.18
+91.88
+13.82 +20.01
2014-15 35.29 16.70
18.53
22.80
+111.32
+90.45 +54.78
2015-16 33.62 17.50 21.70 14.10 +92.11 +54.93 +138.44
2016-17 34.79 21.70 27.10 14.20 +60.32 +28.38 +145.00
Average 34.38 17.42 24.69 21.44 +100.86 +42.68 +72.68
Source of district, state and national yield data: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2018
Fig. 5: Impact of technological interventions on
barley crop cafeteria
Fig. 6: Impact of crop cafeteria of different crops
in relation to yield gap (q/ha)
34.38
17.42
24.69 21.44
100.86
42.68
72.68
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Average yield
in crop
cafeteria (q/ha)
District yield
(DY) in q/ha
State yield (SY)
in q/ha
National yield
(NY) in q/ha
Impact (%
change over
DY)
Impact (%
change over
SY)
Impact (%
change over
NY)
Crop name Yield gap (q/ha) as compared to
District level State level National level
Wheat 22.53 18.87 20.01
Chickpea 9.55 13.05 12.88
Mustard 11.30 12.29 12.12
Field pea 10.86 11.35 13.19
Barley 16.96 9.69 12.94
22.53
9.55 11.3 10.86
16.96
18.87
13.05 12.29 11.35
9.69
20.01
12.88
12.12 13.19 12.94
0
5
10
15
20
25
Wheat Chi ckpea Mu stard Field pea Barley
Yield gap (q/ha) at district level Yield gap (q/ha) at state level
Yield gap (q/ha) at national level
155

INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXTENSION EDUCATION
Impact of crop cafeteria on technological inter-
ventions awareness
Impact on improvement of awareness in farmers
about latest technological know-how are depicted in table
8that 1165 farmers and 156 extension officials' footfalls
were recorded during cropping period (Fig. 7) and they
were aware about latest technologies. Demonstrations of
high yielding varieties of different crops with latest
production technologies in crop cafeteria were found
more effective in changing attitude, skills and knowledge
of farming communities and extension functionaries.
Farmers got awareness about disease/pest resistant
varieties of crops, high yielding varieties of crops,
identification of diseases and insect-pests, recommended
practices of the crops like method of sowing, spacing,
intercropping, weeding, seed rate, plant protection
measures etc. and also aware about production potential
of the sown crops in crop cafeteria. Singh et al. (2015)
also reported similar findings under crop cafeteria during
2014-15 crop seasons.
knowledge of farming communities and extension
functionaries. It also improved the relationship between
farmers and scientists and built confidence between them.
Yield gap were found in district, state and national level
data of the respective crops during demonstration period.
It emphasizes the need to educate the farmers and an
extension functionary through various means like off and
on campus training, method demonstrations, front line
demonstrations etc. for enhancement of productivity of
the crops and reducing the alarming trend of galloping
yield gap.
Paper received on : September 30, 2019
Accepted on : October 31, 2019
REFERENCES
Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. (2018). Government of
India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers
Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, New
Delhi.
Aktar, M. W., Sengupta, D. and Chowdhury, A. (2009).
Impact of pesticide use in agriculture: their benefits and
hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2 (1): 1-12.
Ito, R. Vasconcelos, H.L., Feeley, K.J. (2018). Global
climate change increases risk of crop yield losses and food
insecurity in the tropical Andes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24
:592-602.
Khajuria, A. and Ravindranath, N. H. (2012). Climate
change in context of Indian agriculture. Journal of Earth
Science Climate Change, 3: 1.
Kumar, M. (2019). Agriculture: Status, Challenges,
Policies and Strategies for India. International Journal of
Engineering Research and Technology 8 (12): 1-5.
Kumar, R. and Gautam, H. R. 2014.Climate Change and
its Impact on Agricultural Productivity in India. J.
Climatol. Weather Forecasting, 2:1.
Pa ndey, S K, Baksh, H and Ku mar, M. (2013 ).
Performance of hybrid tomatoes in crop cafeteria: An
effective tool for technology evaluation and dissemi-
nation. Annals of Horticulture, 6 (1): 139-141.
Pathak, H., Aggarwal, P. K. and Singh H. D. (2012).
Climate change impact, adaptation and mitigation in
agriculture: Methodology for assessment and application.
Division of Environmental Science, IARI, New Delhi,
India.
Table 8: Impact on improvement of awareness in farmers
about technological interventions
Year Farmers footfall (No.) Extension functionary’s footfall (No.)
2011-12 220 23
2012-13 215
35
2013-14 190
21
2014-15 175
25
2015-16 155
20
2016-17 210 32
Total 1165 156
Fig. 7: Farmers' and extension functionaries' footfalls
(in numbers) over the years
0
220 215 190 175
155
210
23 35
21 25 20
32
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014 -15 2015-16 2016-17
Farmers footfall Ex tension functionary’s footfall (No.)
CONCLUSION
Crop cafeteria is the most suitable innovative method
for technology evaluation and dissemination. On the basis
of findings, the present study can be concluded that
demonstrations of high yielding varieties of different
crops with latest production technologies in crop cafeteria
were found more effective in changing attitude, skills and
156

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION AMONG FARMING
COMMUNITIES THROUGH CROP CAFETERIA
Prashar, P. and Shah, S. (2016). Impact of fertilizers and
pesticides on soil microflora in agriculture. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/301542254.
Raj, A.D., Yadav, V. and Rathod, J.H. (2013). Impact of
front-line demonstrations (FLD) on the yield of pulses.
International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, 3(9): 1-4.
Singh, Mamta, Yadav, K.S., Singh, Vinita, Pachauri,
Vivekin and Dwivedi, A.P. (2015). Cropcafeteria: an
effective approach for technology evaluation and
dissemination. National Conference on GRISAAS-2015
at RSKVV, Gwalior, M.P.
Singh, R.P., Singh, A.N., Dwivedi, A.P., Mishra, A. and
Singh, M. (2012). Assessment of yield gap in chickpea
through frontier technology. Journal of Extension
Education, 17(1): 85-89.
157