Research Report.docx · Web viewFig. : Process flow-chart Fig. Asst. Director Agriculture-being explained the on-farm ResearchApart from the Representatives from BCKV, conscious look

(2011-2013) (On-Farm Research on Weed, Water and Nutrient Management in SRI)

(Final Report on key findings of on-farm Research conducted by Ambuja Cement Foundation and PRASARI in collaboration with Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalay (At Gosaba and Uluberia)Submitted toSir Dorabji Tata TrustMumbaiIndia)

Executive Summary

There have been three the farmers have taken up the research in their fields. Fields remained unchanged irrespective of the seasons. There are total 28 farmers who have been putting in the research in their fields in two locations under the supervision of Ambuja Cement Foundation and PRASARI under the guidance of SRI-Secretariat and Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalay (BCKV). There are three different aspects for research: Weed, nutrition and Water Management.The Research lay-outs and designs are prepared at the BCKV and thereafter the field orientation programme is taken-up to detail the design to the Farmers. The implementing Organization categorically follow-up the activities with every farmers standing on their fields. Any innovation planned to be introduced is followed by a farmers meeting and close handholding with the farmers.The aspect wise data is collected by using a jointly developed format by BCKV and Livolink Foundation (SRI-Secretariat). Apart from the observations the samples are also collected for analysis in the BCKV laboratories.The collected data put in the specific formats and the observations are shared back to the Research Farmers and cross-checked with their gut-feeling of best Treatment in all three aspects of weed, Water and Nutrient Management. Cross visits from on-farm to on-station and on-farm enriches the learning of the Research Farmers and mutual experiences.

Weed Management yield data of grain and straw has exhibited very little variances but other analysis of soil,micr-flora would establish the co-relations. General feeling by the Farmers from both the locations said-a couple of mechanical weeding along with a hand weeding gives best results at Howrah. The on-field data from the plots (remained unchanged for entire three years) have shown inconsistencies. In year-1 there is no specific trend of impact of weed treatment over the yield. Year-2 data have exhibited that the best yield is acquired by T4 (Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25 days of transplantation), where as the year-3 data has exhibited the best results in T5 (Chemical weedicide application 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days) followed by T4.

Three years data from Uluberia have been analyzed across a couple of parameters namely the impacts of treatments on yield and the grain-straw ratios. The maximum yield potential here lies between T3 and T4 whereas the grain: straw ratio significantly does not lead to any conclusion. At Gosaba, The data on nutrient management based on two years observation has shown the dominations of treatments T2 (100 % Chemical) and T3 (25% Ogranic & 75% Chemical )where as the year-3 data has exhibited gradual increasing trend from Treatment 1 to 5.

On farm research on water management has been the most challenging aspect to cover with. PRASARI took it as a challenge to experiment on that and has come up with an interesting data set with a couple of replication where inter-treatment seepage has been restricted using impermeable membranes. At Gosaba out of four replications two replications were planned to be conducted using impermeable lining materials. Four treatments were separated through excavated trenches of 2.5 ft. depth (hard pan could be found at that depth) and 3 ft wide. 600 plastic sheets have been used vertical in the trenches. Mostly the FYM and pebble free clay has been used at the plastic wall to avoid any perforation risks. The portion of the plastic rose to a height of 1 ft. above the ground level and covered with soils to create lined bunds, to avoid spilling of water from one treatment to other.

The water application data has established that the hair crack stage water application in rice no-way reduces the yield and takes just 50% of water compare to the traditional watering practices. This has led to further calculations of reduction of Carbon Foot Print of almost 1 ton. hectare/season and deserves an amount of Carbon Credit of almost Rs. 1000/ha/season.

A report on key findings: on- farm research at Gosaba and Uluberia

There has been four seasons the farmers have taken up the research in their fields. Fields remained unchanged irrespective of the seasons. There are total 28 farmers who have been putting in the research in their fields in two locations under the supervision of Ambuja Cement Foundation and PRASARI.

There are three different aspects for research: Weed, nutrition and Water Management. To combat with the on-field situation in the monsoon, only the weed management aspect is undertaken. All three aspects have been covered in the summer-season as there is less-threat of water and nutrition migration.

Research design process

Central Orientation:

( Fig. On farm orientation of the farmers) (Fig . PI of the Project &Pro-Vice Chancellor (BCKV) receiving the SDTT representative in the BCKV orientation programme)Research design generally follows two tier orientation systems. In the central orientation workshop led by BCKV (The SAU) where all the Research Farmers, on station Scientists, On-farm implementing agencies, representatives from SDTT and SRI-Secretariat sit together and interact. The on-farm farmers share their previous season experience and deliberate on the on-farm research practicalities, the Scientists provide their inputs towards finalization of the design in all three aspects. Calculation of inputs is also a responsibility of the respective Scientists with specializations in weed, water and nutrients. Once the research design gets finalized action plans with dead-lines are being made.

Local Orientation:

This orientation programme is done at the respective on-farm locations. Farmers are again shared with the designs finalized in the Central orientation programme and are asked to narrate they lay-outs they

have understood. Here also research farmers reflect to their earlier seasons experiences and plan the activities with the dead-lines. Local level schedules for inputs distributions and monitoring and handholding supports are also made in this orientation. Direct visit to the fields and practice measurements of the treatment plots are also being done by the Research Farmers.

Putting-in the research:

First thing is done in every season is a leaf-let in Bengali with complete field lay-out for every aspect and the list of inputs with the application schedule. The implementing Organization categorically follow-up the activities with every farmers standing on their fields. Any innovation planned to be introduced is followed by a farmers meeting and close handholding with the farmers.

Monitoring and Data collection:

Monitoring system involves day to day visit to the research plots by the Executives. The Executives have daily contacts with the Research Farmers. There is a regular meeting schedule for every fortnight with the research farmers. The women members of the research families also have good understanding on what they are doing in the research and being discussed in the SHG meetings.

(Fig. RS-BCKV collecting on-farm data)The data collection formats are being developed by BCKV and SRI-Secretariat and the Implementing agencies undergo the orientation programme for data collection. What are the data to be collected and relevance of that data is also clearly explained to the research farmers.

There are some purely technical data like-chlorophyll analyses or micro flora primarily done by the Scientists through on-farm station visits whereas primary samples of soil, weed , water application etc. is collected by the Executive with support from Farmers.

(Fig. SDTT representative-interacting with the research farmers in the village)Cross field visits of the farmers on-farm (both the locations) to on-station and the cross learning visit of on-station farmers to another location. Visits from SDTT representatives and the SRI-Secretariat takes place in every research season where primary farmers are being interacted and the on-farm fields are visited.

Along with the intermediary data collection special care has been taken towards the yield data collection. Initially the crop cutting samples used to be taken from 5 mX5 m and the grain and straw

Fig. Weed count by research farmers. Fig. Scholars from BCKV assessing crop cutting

yield calculated thereafter projected for the yield per ha. This also left the scopes for the critics that only the best yielding portion has been considered for crop cutting! To minimize the scope-the yield data for every treatment is now collected from three 5mX5m area and then averaged to assess the yield from 100 sq.m.

Fig. : Process flow-chart

(Fig. Asst. Director Agriculture-being explained the on-farm Research)Apart from the Representatives from BCKV, conscious look has been provided to involve the Dept. of Agriculture of the Govt. of West Bengal. The On-farm implementing agencies intimate the Dept. offices before the cropping cutting dates in the research plots and accordingly the Asst. Directors send their representatives to be physically present in the crop cutting stages and measurements of grain and straw yields. Based on these data-the Dept. issues yield- certificate to the Research Farmer and the implementing agencys name is also mentioned there.

Weed Management:

Weed management has been experimented on farm across 2 locations namely Gosaba and Uluberia. There were six different treatments designed by the Scientists of BCKV and the SRI-Secretariat and put on-farm along three years. The treatments were as following:

T1

Farmers choice (conventional)

T2

Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days, 25 days and 40 days of transplantation.

T3

Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 20 days and 40 days of transplantation.

T4

Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25 days of transplantation

T5

Chemical weedicide application 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days.

T6

Organic weedicide spray 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation.

The three years data has been analyzed as displayed below:

The data gathered from the field and further analyzed in the year 2011 did not exhibit any clear trend of best result of any one treatment over the others. In the second year the trend was almost clear that in Uluberia on-farm, T4 (Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25 days of transplantation) has the best impact on the yield. In year-1 (2011) there were only 4 farmers who underwent the treatments and there were 10 more who were kept as the base line, to start with. In year-2 three of the farmers could not take up the experiment properly and there were crop losses but a clear evidence of T4s yield dominance revealed out of 11 farmers field. The yield of grain and straw has been taken from the field from 5mX5m crop-cutting area from each of the treatments of each farmer. Apart from yield data, all other relevant data as per the prescribed format by BCKV and the SRI-Secretariat has been taken. The learning from year-2 got strengthen from the data revealed in year-3. As shown in the graph below-T4 clearly has the impact to result in the best yield.

The same weed management practices were put in the fields of Gosaba-belongs to coastal saline zones of West Bengal. The on-field data from the plots (remained unchanged for entire three years) have shown inconsistencies. In year-1 there is no specific trend of impact of weed treatment over the yield. Year-2 data have exhibited that the best yield is acquired by T4 (Mechanical weeding with cono- weeder after 15 days and 40 days of transplantation. One hand weeding after 25 days of transplantation), where as the year-3 data has exhibited the best results in T5 (Chemical weedicide application 1 day after transplantation, two mechanical weeding after 15 days and 40 days) followed by T4.

Nutrient Management:

Nutrient management has been experimented on farm across 2 locations namely Gosaba and Uluberia. There were six different treatments designed by the Scientists of BCKV and the SRI-Secretariat and put on-farm along three years. The treatments were as following:

T1

T1 Farmer won practice

T2

100 % Chemical

T3

25% Ogranic & 75% Chemical

T4

50 % Organic & Chemical

T5

50% in Chemical & 50 % in organic with Matka khad

The observations from Uluberia fields across 3 years were as following:

Three years data from Uluberia have been analyzed across a couple of parameters namely the impacts of treatments on yield and the grain-straw ratios. The maximum yield potential here lies between T3 and T4 whereas the grain: straw ratio significantly does not lead to any conclusion.

The same experimentation was repeated in Gosaba and the results are as shown in the chart below:

The data on nutrient management based on two years observation has shown the dominations of treatments T2 and T3 where as the year-3 data has exhibited gradual increasing trend from Treatment 1 to 5.

Water Management:

On farm research on water management has been the most challenging aspect to cover with. It has again been a challenge for the BCKV Scientists who kept on deliberating at length for respective two seasons. Initially, the plot water used to be measured using graduated sticks on the plots but the data were not convincing to the Scientists who talked about the inter-treatment seepages in the field. Though the pattern of water use for different treatments in both the locations (Uluberia and Gosaba) was same, but the problem is much more in case of Uluberia fields as the supply water source is River Lift Irrigation. PRASARI took it as a challenge to experiment on that and has come up with an interesting data set with a couple of replication where inter-treatment seepage has been restricted using impermeable membranes.

Journey in assessing water efficiency issues of SRI scientifically:

SRI has been globally on the agenda for research for quite a few years, but there is limited research on water management aspects compared to other principles of SRI on-farm. PRASARI, an agency with 7 years of SRI experience in extension working with SRI farmers on 6200 ha also struggled a lot to capture accurately this aspect of SRI on-farm.

Year 2010

This first year, PRASARI put in trials in the Sundarbans with the support from SRI Secretariat, promoted by SDTT and based at Bhubaneswar. The data tracking parameters on-farm were irrigation applicationsin terms of days after inundation for different treatments. This was to assess SRI water efficiency in terms of yield per unit volume of water application. It was accepted that there would probably be some gain in efficiency, but capturing the exact water applicationswas very difficult and proving their authenticity was a challenge.

Year 2011

By this time, PRASARI has been facilitated by SDTT to work jointly with BCKV on the stated problem. There was enough hue and cry over the results for this component to be evaluated also with on-station research at the state agricultural university (BCKV) and on the farms of rice research institutes.It has been a challenge for the BCKV scientists who kept on deliberating at length for the respective two seasons.Half-willingly, the scientists proposed to carry out the experiment themselves and recommended that the plot water can be measured by using graduated sticks on the plots. Following is the water management aspect design for research:

Table1: Research design for on-farm water management aspects of SRI

Aspects

No. of Treatments

No. of Replicates& Location

Design

Detail (minimum plotsize For each treatment is 100 m2)

Proposed Observations

Water Management

4

6

RBD

T1 Farmers common practice (5-6 cm of standing water throughout the crop cycle)

I) Available moisture status @initialtillering, active tillering, PI stage, and at harvest

T2 2 cm of standing water throughout the season

2) Status of methane emissions @ initialtillering, PI, and at harvest

3) Number of tillers and panicles at harvest

T3 Irrigation at soil hair- crack stage.

4) Grain and straw yield of paddy at harvest

T4 - Irrigation at soil hair-crack stage during vegetative phase + 3 cm of standing water at PI and flowering stages

(Fig. On farm water management plot in summer 2011)With this design and obtaining the consent from the scientists, the experiments were put in the fields of Gosaba and Uluberia of S-24 Parganas and Howrah districts of West Bengal, respectively. During this experiment, the replications/plots of individual research farmers were subdivided into four 100 m2 treatments and marked as T1,T2,T3 and T4. The plots were separated by channels with elevated boundaries, and graduated pegs were put in the treatments. The irrigation provided was flood irrigation followed by diversion from the main channel cut at the corners of the respective treatments. While collecting the data, the treatment area (100 m2) was multiplied by the average irrigation depth gauged by pegs. It became very hard to maintain different levels of water as designed, and sitting with the research farmers it was finalized to insert pegs of uniform heights across the treatments and a height of 3 cm was maintained above the ground level (GL. There were lots of approximations while calculating the applied water, as the stagnation of water within the treatment and beyond was not uniform, although hard efforts had been made to level the land. Mutually with the farmers, numbers of irrigations for each treatment were recorded. There were not many variations across the replications, and a sample record from Gosaba is presented in the following table.

Table2: Findings in water management aspect of SRI on-farm sample

TREATMENTS

Initial date

No. of irriga-tions

Volume of water per irrigation (litres)

Water saved (liters)

Grain yield (kg/25 m2)

Remarks

T1 : Always 3 -5 cm water

3RD Feb

18

3,000

10.8

Costly water could be saved to ensure target yield

T2:Always 2 - 3 cm water

3RD Feb

17

3,000

3,000

11.5

T-3: When hair cracks appear, 2-3 cm water

3RD Feb

13

3,000

15,000

11.4

T-4 : When hair cracks appear, 2-3cm water but always 2-3cm water @ tillering& milking stages

3RD Feb

15

3,000

9,000

11.3

But the data were not convincing to scientists, who talked about inter-treatment seepages in the field, which was possible. Although the pattern of water use for different treatments in both the locations (Uluberia and Gosaba) was the same, the problem was much more in the case of Uluberia fields as the supply water source there wasriver lift irrigation. PRASARI also agreed to the approximation of the data, but got reproved with the SRI water efficiency principles looking into the trend. This has also provided us with a notion on the quantum of the water losses during irrigation.

Year2012

There had been a lot of deliberation with the research farmers in the field and the executives of PRASARI on this issue. In Gosaba, people reached out to a joint mission on tracking actual water data. At Gosaba, out of the four replications, two replications were planned to be conducted using impermeable lining materials. Two of our tribal research farmers,Bijay and DhananjoyMajhi, agreed in the village meetings to spare their plots for lining material use. Before the watering for rabiseason started, the field lay-outs as per the research design has been given. Four treatments were separated through excavated trenches of 2.5 ft depth (hard pan could be found at that depth) and 3 ft wide. 600 plastic sheets have been used vertically in the trenches. Mostly FYM and pebble-free clay were used at the plastic wall to avoid any perforation risks. A portion of the plastic was raised to a height of 1 ft. above the ground level and covered with soil to create lined bunds, to avoid spilling of water from one treatment to another. For both the plots, the same pump has been used and the discharge of the pump has been calculated at intervals in the cropping period. The discharge was calculated at the delivery points (delivery pipes used right at the treatments) so as to avoid calculation mistakes due to any sort of conveyance losses. As the source of irrigation water is perennial and plentiful, there was not much variation in the total operating head nor in the discharge in the cropping period.

Fig. Separation of treatments using impermeable membranes in water management

Fig: Water delivered right into the treatment Fig.: Lined water management field in 2012

The time for individual irrigation for individual treatments has categorically been noted. The volume of water applied has been calculated from the estimated discharge and total time for irrigation.

A little more simplification had been done by the SAU scientists in this season (summer 2012) to put in the water management experiment on-farm. Along with the lining, digital stop-watches and discharge-measuring graduated containers were used to track the exact time of irrigation and to measure the discharge from the pump. Instead of measuring the irrigation at the field, this time the water at the treatment inlet (pumps discharge outlet) has been measured.

The following table denotes some interesting data for the lined fields:

Table 3: Water management observations from the lined fields, 2012

Farmer

Description

T1

T2

T3

T4

Dhananjoy

Grain (kg)

48.8

50

49.7

49.2

Water applied (litre)

106,080

70,200

50,232

59,280

Litre per kg grain

2,174

1,404

1,010

1,205

Litreper kg biomass

1,028

670

484

573

Vijay

Grain (kg)

49.6

49.2

50.5

50.1


117,000

79,248

57,096

65,832

Litre per kg grain

2,359

1,611

1,130

1,313

Litreper kg biomass

1,112

766

546

628

T1=farmers own methods,T2=2 cm of standing water throughout the season,T3=irrigation at soil hair-crack stage,T4=irrigation at soil hair-crack stage during vegetative phase + 3 cm of standing water at PI and flowering stages.

Generally it is considered that a kg of grain requires 4000-5000 litres of water in the traditional systems. Although T1 was farmers own practice, but they managed to do all the other practices like SRI except the water application. As shown in the table, the production variation is not very much but the consumption of water has plenty of differences. If the water requirement in terms of litres per kg of grain produced is considered, T3 and T4 consumed less than 50% less water to produce the same grain yield. If the grain and straw yield are counted together, the water requirement is again half of the farmers usual water practice. The data categorically prove that rice is not an aquatic plant as half as much water can produce the same yield.

Table 4: Water management observations from the unlined fields, 2012

Farmer

Description

T1

T2

T3

T4

Santosh

Grain (kg)

47.6

48.4

48.3

48.5

Water applied (ltr.)

121,056

100,464

86,424

96,096

Litres per kg grain

2,543

2,076

1,791

1,980

Litres per kg biomass

1,196

988

855

945

Nilkamal

Grain (kg)

48.4

49.2

49.1

48.8

Water applied (litres)

117,312

100,152

84,864

95,160

Litresper kg grain

2,424

2036

1730

1950


1,136

973

822

929

The data from the unlined plots have also been collected with the same conscientiousness as from the lined plots. The trend here also says that T3 and T4 consumed less irrigation, but the 50% reduction in usual water requirement could not be proved, maybe due to seepage in between the treatments.

Efforts have been made to determine the carbon footprintsfor T1,T2,T3 and T4. It is then further projected to an area of 1 ha. Determining the carbon footprint is shown in the table below:

Table5: Carbon footprint analysis in water management, 2012

Farmer

Description

T1

T2

T3

T4

Traditional method

Dhananjoy

Minutes pump operated

340

225

161

190

680

Diesel consumed (600 ml/hr run)

3.4

2.3

1.6

1.9

6.8

Carbon [email protected] kg/litre of diesel

9.2

6.1

4.3

5.1

18.36

Per ha carbon footprint contribution

918

608

435

513

1836

Bijay


375

254

183

211

750


3.8

2.5

1.8

2.1

7.5

Carbon [email protected] kg/litre of diesel

10.2

6.9

4.9

5.7

20.25

Per ha carbon footprint contribution

1,012.5

689

494

570

2025

Analysis has taken up the traditional rice cultivation also. The fuel (diesel) consumption of the pump has also been assessed and found that 1 hr. machine run requires 600 ml. of diesel. The estimation shows that the carbon footprint is almost 50% less in the case of T3 and T4 with respect to the continuous inundation in SRI. Its CFP is almost 20% less with respect to the traditional practices.

Year 2013

(Fig. Prof.R.K.Ghosh (PI)BCKV, in the on-farm field) (Fig. Water management lined field-2013)In this

In this year, special emphasis was given to collecting data from the two lined plots of Dhananjoy and Bijoy. Treatments were segregated with new lining materials to avoid any loss due to their deformation in the previous year. The discharge of the pump was recorded before initiation of every irrigation. To avoid the losses in unlined channels, delivery pipes were used to deliver the water exactly to the treatments.

Measurements from four different parts of the treatment were taken to get an average of the water height (so as to reach the designed height for the treatment) in a particular treatment before stopping the water supply. The stopwatch recorded the time for water supply for each respective treatment, and the supply of irrigation volume has been calculated, multiplying the pump discharge at the field with the irrigation duration. While analyzing the data for the replications, itwas assumed that the losses due to evaporation and deep percolation were uniform throughout the treatments of a particular plot. Following efforts have been made to calculate the water efficiency in the on-farm condition.

Table6: Water management observations from the lined fields, 2013

Farmer

Description

T1

T2

T3

T4

Dhananjoy

Grain (kg)

53

55

56

57


89,010

89,573

60,638

67,183

Litres per kg grain

1,679

1,629

1,083

1,179


994

978

654

716

Vijay

Grain (kg)

54

55

57

58

Water applied (litres)

89,006

88,803

60,1834

62,164

Litres per kg grain

1648

1615

1056

107222

Litresper kg biomass

982

968

642

656

T1=farmers own,T2=2 cm of standing water throughout the season,T3= irrigation at soil hair-crack stage,T4=irrigation at soil hair-crack stage during vegetative phase + 3 cm of standing water at PI and flowering stages.

The table above showd that the water requirement per kg of grain produced was almost 36% less than the farmers own practice in this year. Though farmers own irrigation practices have been changed a lot over the period due to their learning from their SRI experiences, less water was required for the SRI treatment even though it gave more yield. Almost the same trend I seen in the case of water requirement per unit of biomass produced from the field.

This year also the carbon footprint contribution analysis has been done, and this confirmed the same trend as in the previous year as depicted in the table below.

Table7: Carbon footprint analysis in water management, 2013

Farmer

Description

T1

T2

T3

T4

Traditional-considering double watering from experience

Dhananjoy


193

196

140

148

386


1.93

1.96

1.4

1.48

3.86

Carbon di [email protected] kg/ltr. Of diesel

5.211

5.292

3.78

3.996

10.422

Per ha carbon footprint

521.1

529.2

378

399.6

1042.2

Bijay


195

198

135

138

390


1.95

1.98

1.35

1.38

3.9

Carbon di [email protected] kg/ltr. Of diesel

5.265

5.346

3.645

3.726

10.53

Per ha carbon footprint

526.5

534.6

364.5

372.6

1053

The table categorically has indicated that the carbon footprint contribution can be reduced to an extent of 64% if T3 is followed for SRI with respect to the traditional inundated rice. Even T4 exhibits over 60% of the CFP reduction opportunity without hampering the yield, rather increasing.

Conclusions and way forward:

The above two graphs (1&2) based on two years of on-farm data have shown that grain/biomass yield per litre of water is least for the T3 treatment, i.e., irrigation at soil hair-crack stage. This gives yield at par with other water management practices. Thus the practice reduces the costs for irrigation, the wastage of water, negative contributions to the environment in terms of CFP (considering only the fuel emission component in graphs 3&4), and increased return on investment. This also proves that the water management experiments in SRI can be conducted on-farm and proves the water efficiency of SRI.

Further this research points to further subjects for study:

Repetition of the trials in the same plots for additional seasons to strengthen the robustness of the findings

The GHG emissions on-farm in T1 to T4 which monitored, to assess contribution in CFP of different rice production practices

As some areas in the Sundarbanshave arsenic levels in the ground water that are beyond the allowable limits, it should be studiedwhether thereare significant residues in the rice, and whether changes in water management practices from T1 to T4 can have a beneficial impact

There is also need for determining the residues of metals and arsenics in rice in the prevalent zones across the treatments

plots and farmers

Identified by on farm PIA

Validated by BCKV

Research design and orientation

By Scientists, orienting coordinators

Orientation for the farmers in the field

Putting in trials

Inputs distribution and putting in trials

Validation by Scientists-BCKV

Crop Management

Orientation of the coordinators at BCKV

On farm farmers training at villages

Data collection

Orientation of the coordinators on soil,weed and water data

Samples submitted to BCKV, Crop cutting data collected by BCKV ,Ag-Dept-GoWB

Dissemination

Mid term workshops at BCKV

Cross visits: On-farm-on farm &on-farm-on station

Treatment wise impact on yield-2011 (WEED-ULUBERIA)

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T5T612.67800000000000113.18616.50100000000000115.6614.87700000000000218.201000000000001Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T5T614.47814.11916.7799999999999916.43499999999999915.58500000000000417.36Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T5T617.42599999999998118.14300000000000116.59316.42715.65200000000000518.009Farmer-4T1T2T3T4T5T616.28499999999998916.59315.65200000000000516.3615.65200000000000517.417999999999999

Grain yield in kg/25 sq-m


FARMER-1T1T2T3T4T5T68.6258.258.110.18.20000000000000117.55FARMER-2T1T2T3T4T5T68.95000000000000288.578.19.20000000000000118.72000000000000067.9FARMER-3T1T2T3T4T5T68.30000000000000078.68.47000000000000069.20000000000000118.17.9FARMER-4T1T2T3T4T5T68.70000000000000118.20000000000000117.99.20000000000000118.257.2FARMER-5T1T2T3T4T5T68.8500000000000059.69.7510.2000000000000018.92500000000000078.7200000000000006FARMER-6T1T2T3T4T5T68.98.759.19.258.70000000000000118.2000000000000011FARMER-7T1T2T3T4T5T610.71210.5251111.510.89.75FARMER-8T1T2T3T4T5T69.83700000000000159.77500000000000041010.2000000000000019.258.7249999999999996FARMER-9T1T2T3T4T5T68.92500000000000079.279.5250000000000004118.98.7009999999999987FARMER-10T1T2T3T4T5T611.912.211.812.611.810.675000000000002FARMER-11T1T2T3T4T5T611.12512.511.2512.711.910.75

Yield in Kg/25 sq-m


FARMER-1T1T2T3T4T5T63.754.09999999999999964.59999999999999965.74.24.5999999999999996FARMER-2T1T2T3T4T5T63.94999999999999973.75099999999999994.12499999999999564.251000000000000343.8499999999999988FARMER-3T1T2T3T4T5T64.7249999999999974.12499999999999565.09999999999999964.955.09999999999999964.67FARMER-4T1T2T3T4T5T63.723.944.90000000000000045.24.35499999999999783.9699999999999998FARMER-5T1T2T3T4T5T63.23.1253.63.93.213.4FARMER-6T1T2T3T4T5T64.62499999999999564.224.724.874.32499999999999664.4400000000000004FARMER-7T1T2T3T4T5T64.213.96999999999999983.724.34999999999999963.86999999999999973.9899999999999998FARMER-8T1T2T3T4T5T63.6014.09999999999999963.94999999999999973.95899999999999873.23.125FARMER-9T1T2T3T4T5T64.7249999999999974.61999999999999744.25100000000000035.64.52499999999999774.444FARMER-10T1T2T3T4T5T63.17499999999999982.752.85099999999999863.25099999999999992.252.9499999999999997FARMER-11T1T2T3T4T5T64.254.12499999999999564.955.234.754.3119999999999985Farmer-12T1T2T3T4T5T63.753.843.94999999999999974.73.924.2

Treatments

T/ha based on 25 sq-m crop cutting

Treatment wise impact on yield-2011 (WEED-GOSABA)

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T5T611.1910.2000000000000018.54000000000000098.3310Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T5T69.19.510.20000000000000111.99.200000000000001111.5Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T5T67.27.56.46.96.25.9

yield in kg/25 sq-m

Treatment wise impact on yield-2012 (WEED-GOSABA)

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T5T61414.214.114.414.214.1Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T5T612.913.413.114.113.613.7Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T5T613.213.513.413.813.313.4Farmer-4T1T2T3T4T5T612.913.313.113.713.413.5Farmer-5T1T2T3T4T5T613.914.614.31514.614.7Farmer-6T1T2T3T4T5T614.815.114.915.214.714.9Farmer-7T1T2T3T4T5T618.6000000000000011918.819.719.319.399999999999999Farmer-8T1T2T3T4T5T617.517.717.60000000000000118.317.89999999999999917.8Farmer-9T1T2T3T4T5T61313.313.113.513.213.1Farmer-10T1T2T3T4T5T614.214.814.31514.614.5Farmer-11T1T2T3T4T5T613.213.913.414.313.513.6Farmer-12T1T2T3T4T5T616.316.816.39999999999999917.216.716.600000000000001Farmer-13T1T2T3T4T5T614.114.313.214.414.314.2Farmer-14T1T2T3T4T5T612.813.413.314.113.613.5

Treatments

yield in kg/25 sq-m

Weed treatment impact on yield at Gosaba-2013

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T5T65039.98000000000055199.98000000000054999.98000000000055199.98000000000055319.984959.9800000000005Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T5T64959.98000000000054999.98000000000054799.90000000000055719.985399.985479.98Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T5T65399.985439.985279.985679.985799.985719.98Farmer-4T1T2T3T4T5T65239.98000000000055359.984999.98000000000055359.985639.985319.98Farmer-5T1T2T3T4T5T64999.98000000000055359.984959.98000000000055319.985439.985119.9800000000005Farmer-6T1T2T3T4T5T65639.985679.985439.985719.986079.985479.98Farmer-7T1T2T3T4T5T65799.985759.985359.985719.986079.985839.98Farmer-8T1T2T3T4T5T65599.985639.985359.985679.985799.982399.98Farmer-9T1T2T3T4T5T65399.985439.985279.985479.985639.985359.98Farmer-10T1T2T3T4T5T65239.98000000000055359.985039.98000000000055319.985639.985319.98Farmer-11T1T2T3T4T5T65639.985359.984959.98000000000055439.985679.985639.98Farmer-12T1T2T3T4T5T66239.986333.186199.986559.986799.986559.98Farmer-13T1T2T3T4T5T65039.98000000000055239.98000000000054959.98000000000055279.985399.985239.9800000000005Farmer-14T1T2T3T4T5T65439.985399.985079.98000000000055359.985719.985279.98

Treatments

t/ha based on crop cutting from 25 sq-m

Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2011 Uluberia

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T52.79300000000000012.9032.82.41599999999999862.74Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T53.52499999999999993.693.753.53099999999999973.3259999999999987Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T53.28299999999999993.15499999999999983.45799999999999973.5043.1880000000000002Farmer-4T1T2T3T4T52.41599999999999862.42999999999999972.2582.26100000000000012.173Farmer-5T1T2T3T4T54.24800000000000024.10299999999999714.25699999999999973.984.1269999999999971

Treatments

t/ha across treatments

Grain : straw in Nutrient variations-2012 Uluberia


Treatments

grain:straw ratios



Treatments

t/ha based on crop cutting at 25 sq-m

Grain : straw in Nutrient variations-2013 Uluberia


Treatments

Grain: Straw ratios



Treatments

t/ha w.r.t.crop cutting 25 sq-m

Treatment wise yields-2013 at Gosaba on Nutrient

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T56380.96385.396388.176387.236399.98Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T567786780678567906799Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T562286230623562386240Farmer-4T1T2T3T4T563106311631363156319

treatments

t/ha

Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2011 Gosaba

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T56.16.96.56.37.3Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T55.85999999999999856.136.86.06599999999999726.0330000000000004Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T51112.211.311.213.1Farmer-4T1T2T3T4T514.03300000000000113.3314.12999999999999912.114.25

Treatments

kg/25 sq-m

Grain : straw in Nutrient variations-2012 Gosaba

Farmer-10.840764331210191450.924242424242424310.831950207468880270.83539094650205770.87605042016806733Farmer-20.912790697674419340.958984374999999780.934523809523809650.929718875502008490.93164062500000033Farmer-30.906633906633906640.931764705882352270.909930715935334590.94392523364486070.91990846681922178Farmer-40.92656587473002150.924242424242424310.92656587473002150.925213675213675590.92553191489361708

Treatments

Grain: Straw- across treatments

Yield with respect to nutrient variations-2012 Gosaba

Farmer-1T1T2T3T4T552805693.33333333333125346.66666666667425413.33333333333035560Farmer-2T1T2T3T4T562806546.666666666672462806173.33333333333036360Farmer-3T1T2T3T4T5492052805253.33333333333035386.66666666667425360Farmer-4T1T2T3T4T557205693.33333333333125720.00000000000095773.33333333333125800

Treatments

t/ha based on 25 sq-m crop cutting

Graph-2:Bijoy's lined water management field observation two seasons

2012T1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering 2358.91610.7321129.86999999999991313.13999999999992013T1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering 1648.26851851851781614.61055.85701754385971071.7844827586198

ltr. Of water/kg grain yield

Graph-1: Dhananjoy's lined water management field observation two seasons

2012T1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering 2173.800000000000214041010.031204.87999999999992013T1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering 1679.44150943396311628.61082.83821428571421178.6578947368398

ltr. Of water/kg grain yield

Graph-3: CFP-contribution-Dhananjoy

2012yearT1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering Traditional-considering double watering from experience2012918607.5434.70000000000005513.0000000000001118362013yearT1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering Traditional-considering double watering from experience2013521.1529.19999999999993378.00000000000006399.61042.2

CFP contribution in kg/ha

Graph-4: CFP-contribution-Bijay

2012T1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering Traditional-considering double watering from experience918607.5434.70000000000005513.0000000000001118362013T1=Farmers ownT2=2 cm of standing water through out the seasonT3= Irrigation at Soil hair crack stageT4=- Irrigation at Soil hair crack stage in veg.phase + 3 cm at PI and Flowering Traditional-considering double watering from experience526.5534.6364.50000000000006372.61053

CFP contribution in kg/ha

Documents

Research Report.docx · Web viewFig. : Process flow-chart Fig. Asst. Director Agriculture-being explained the on-farm ResearchApart from the Representatives from BCKV, conscious look