Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the premier pulse crop of the Indian subcontinent. India is the largest chickpea producer as well as consumer in the world. In India, chickpea covers an acreage of 10.56 mha contributing 11.38 mt of production with an average productivity of 1078 kg ha^-1 during 2017-18 (Anonymous, 2019). Chickpea production has gone up from 3.65 to 10.56 mt from 1950-51 to 2017-18 and productivity steadily increased to 1078 kg ha^-1 from 482 kg ha^-1 (Anonymous, 2019). In India, the leading chickpea producing states are Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. These six states, contribute 88.48 per cent of total chickpea production of India. The state of Rajasthan has occupied an acreage of 1.57 million hectares with a production of 1.69 mt and productivity of 1074 kg ha^-1 (Anonymous, 2019). There has been a major shift in the area of chickpea in the country. The expansion of irrigation facilities in northern India has laid to replacement of chickpea with wheat and mustard in larger area. As a result, the chickpea area reduced from 3.2 mha to 1.0 mha in northern states of the country. Chickpea is one of most important pulse crops of India due to its multiple functions in the traditional farming system, besides helping in the management of soil fertility with the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen through root nodules. It is an important source of human food and animal feed. (Saxena and Singh, 1987; Ali and Kumar, 2009). Additionally, compared with animal protein, chickpea is the major and cheap source of protein especially for the vegetarian population (Singh et al., 2016).

The demonstration districts under the study viz; Kota covers acreage of 52,419 ha with the production of 77,531 t and productivity of 1,510 kg ha^-1. Likewise, Bundi district produces 64,815 t from an area of 50,597 ha and productivity of 1,280 kg ha^-1. Moreover, Baran district covers an area of 71,017 ha, and contributes 130,884 t with the productivity of 1,840 kg ha^-1 (Anonymous, 2018). It clearly indicates that the productivity of chickpea in Kota, Bundi and Baran districts is comparatively higher than the state average yield (1,070 kg ha^-1). However, still it is low compared with production potential of the zone. This is primarily due to unavailability of suitable high yielding varieties as well as lack of improved agro-techniques, especially methods of sowing, weed management, balanced fertilization and proper insect pest management practices. During last five decades, chickpea has registered significant increase in production, which is primarily due to introduction of high yielding and disease resistant varieties and adoption of improved production technologies. Nevertheless, pulses production enhanced substantially during the last decade but continuing the pace of faster growth is a bigger challenge to the researchers, extension agencies and policy makers to fulfil the domestic demand within the country. The existing technology has the potential of doubling production without increasing area under chickpea as well as existing yield gap can be filled by the farmers adoption of the recommended package of practices (Reddy et al., 2007).

The productivity of chickpea can be further enhanced by adopting improved high yielding varieties and scientific crop management practices (Asiwal and Hussain, 2008 and Kumar et al., 2016). Thus, there is need to increase production and productivity of pulses in the country by more intensive interventions. Front line demonstration is the novel concept of the field demonstration with the focal objectives to demonstrate newly released high yielding varieties following improved agro-techniques at farmer’s field. Improved agricultural technologies are the product of modern science which leads to ultimate sustainable production. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) is established as major rabi crop in central part of India. In India, the gap analysis envisages and set aside alarms for bridging the extension gap through effective extension functionaries (Singh et al., 2013). Survey of technology adoption levels of package of practices in Rajasthan indicated that there was either lack of adoption or partial adoption of improved practices resulting in lower productivity levels as compared to potential yield levels recorded in the yield. Least use of improved varieties, higher seed rate, lack of seed treatment with chemical and bio-agents (Rhizobium, PSB), inadequate and imbalanced fertilizer use, lack of use of plant protection measures were some of the critical production factors contributed to the poor and stable yield.

To convince the chickpea growers on effectiveness of technology and to motivate them for adoption, laying out of demonstration at farmers own field is one of the proven methods. In view of the above facts, frontline demonstrations conducted to demonstrate the potentials of improved technology (IT) versus farmers’ practices (FP) under real farm situations.

Materials and Methods

Under the investigation, a total of 160 Frontline demonstrations were organized on farmers’ field at various locations viz; Ladpura, Singod, Digod tehsils of Kota; Keshoraipatan, Talera and Hindoli tehsils of Bundi and Atru, Chhabra, Chipabarod tehsils of Baran districts to demonstrate the impact of production technology on chickpea productivity over three years during rabi seasons starting from October 2007 to April 2008, October 2008 to April 2009 and October 2009 to April 2010. Before laying out the demonstrations at farmers’ field, the composite soil samples were collected and analyzed to determine the physico-chemical properties of the investigation site. The soil of the demonstration field was neutral in soil pH, non-saline in EC, medium (Kota, Bundi) to low (Baran) in organic carbon, low in available N and Fe, medium in available P₂O₅ and S, high in available K₂O and Zn (Table 1).

Table 1: Physico-chemical characteristics of the demonstration field (0-30 cm)

The soil texture was clay loam in all the demonstrations districts viz; Kota, Bundi and Baran. The selection of cultivators was done on the basis of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). Further, so as to popularize the improved technology, the demonstrations were laid out on road side. Each frontline demonstration was laid out on 0.4 ha area and the adjacent 0.4 ha was considered as check (farmers’ practice).  The improved package of practices include short/medium duration improved varieties (GNG-469, GNG-663), seed treatment with biofertilizers (Rhizobium and PSB culture), fungicides (Carbendazim 2 g kg^-1 seed), application of recommended dose of fertilizer (40 kg N, 20 kg P₂O₅ and 30 kg S ha^-1, respectively), weed management (pendimethalin 30 EC@ 1.0 litre a. i. ha^-1) and pest management (One spray of acephate 75 SP @ 700 g ha^-1) at pod borer infestation. Half of the nitrogen and full amount of phosphorus and sulphur were applied as basal in the respective plots. The performance of chickpea under these demonstrations were compared with the farmers’ practice which include 100 kg ha^-1 self procured seed without seed treatment and no use of any fertilizers.  The results were economically analyzed in terms of B:C ratio and net returns to re-establish the viability. Maximum demonstrations were sown in the first fortnight of October. The yield and economics of data was obtained from 160 respondents from 15 selected villages for a period of three years. The yield data were collected from both the demonstration and farmers practice by random crop cutting methods and analyzed by using simple statistical tools. The Technology yield gap, extension yield gap and technology index (Samui et al., 2000) were calculated using following formulae given hereunder:

Percent increase in yield=[(Demonstration yield (kg ha^-1)-Farmers' practice yield (kg ha^-1)÷(Farmers' practice yield (kg ha^-1)]×100

Technology yield gap (kg ha^-1)=Potential yield (kg ha^-1)- Demonstration yield (kg ha^-1)

Extension yield gap (kg ha^-1) = Demonstration yield (kg ha^-1)- Farmers practice yield (kg ha^-1)

Technology index (%)= Potential yield (kg ha^-1)-Demonstration yield (kg ha^-1)÷ Potential yield (kg ha^-1) ×100

Unlikely, eeconomics of the demonstrations under improved technology and farmers practice were recorded. Based on economics, additional cost, effective gain, additional returns, incremental B:C ratios were calculated. These economic parameters were analyzed using the formulae given below:

Additional cost (Rs. ha^-1) = Demonstration cost (Rs. ha^-1)-Farmers' practice cost (Rs.  ha^-1)

Additional returns (Rs. ha^-1) = Demonstration returns (Rs. ha^-1) -Farmers practice returns (Rs. ha^-1)

Effective gain (Rs. ha^-1) = Additional returns (Rs. ha^-1)-Additional cost (Rs. ha^-1)

Incremental B:C ratio = Additional returns (Rs. ha^-1) ÷ Additional cost (Rs. ha^-1)

Results and Discussion

3.1.  Technology interventions v/s farmers practice

Before initiation of the front line demonstrations at the farmers’ field, participatory rural appraisal was undertaken. Based on this, the gap between farmer practices and improved technology of chickpea cultivation in Kota, Bundi and Baran districts of Rajasthan are presented in Table 2. Among different components, full gap was observed in the components viz; improved varieties, seed treatment, seed inoculation, fertilizer dose and weed management practices. Whereas, partial gap was observed for the components viz; spacing, irrigation and plant protection measures. However, no gap was found for the components field preparation and sowing method. These gaps noticed at the farmers field are ascribed to the slow pace of extension machineries, coupled with unreached public extension system, poor accessibility of advanced or improved agro-technologies especially among smallholder farmers and other vulnerable groups (Babu et al., 2013; Reddy and Swanson, 2006). Further, farmers used local or old varieties of low yield potential instead of newly released varieties with improper application of improved package technologies. Unavailability of good quality seed in time and lack of awareness were also the other important reasons for low productivity at farmer’s field.

Table 2: Difference between technological interventions and farmers practice under front line demonstration on chickpea

3.2.  Chickpea yield

The results of three year (2007-08 to 2009-10) frontline demonstrations conducted on farmer’s field under real farm conditions in Kota, Bundi and Baran districts of Rajasthan indicated that improved technology could lead to average grain yield levels in the range of 1773 to 1907 kg ha^-1 as compared to 1529 to 1649 kg ha^-1 under farmers' practice. Average yield of 160 demonstrations worked out to 1832 kg ha^-1 from improved technology where as the average yield obtained in case of farmers' practice was 1600 kg ha^-1. These results reveal that the adoption of improved production technology of chickpea cultivation enhanced average yield by 14.72% (Table 3) over farmers practice.

Table 3: Productivity, technology yield gap, extension yield gap and technology index of chickpea front line demonstrations in Rajasthan

This results indicated that higher average grain yield in demonstration plots compare to farmers' practice ascribed to the knowledge and adoption of improved technologies i. e. suitable high yielding varieties with more potential yield such as GNG-469 and GNG-663, timely sowing, seed treatment with fungicides and biofertilizers (Rhizobium PSB culture), use of balanced fertilization, timely weed management and need based plant protection measures. Prajapat et al. (2016) also reported yield enhancement, greater yield attributing characters and better root traits of chickpea due to application of recommended dose of fertilizers and biofertilizers. Likewise, yield enhancement in different chickpea varieties ascribed to phosphorus addition in vertisols (Neenu et al., 2014). Moreover, the present findings are in close conformity with the results reported by Dayanand et al. (2014), Mishra and Khare (2017), Tiwari and Tripathi (2014), Kaur et al. (2019)

3.3. Yield gap analysis

The front line demonstrations conducted under the study reveals that the technology yield gap was 493, 585 and 627 kg ha^-1 during 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively (Table 3). On an average, technology yield gap during three years of study under front line demonstration was 568 kg ha^-1. Technology yield gap variations over the years led to the variation in local climatic conditions, soil fertility status of fields and agricultural practices. Unlike technology yield gap, extension yield gap were also recorded to the tune of 166 to 284 kg ha^-1 over the years. On an average, the extension yield gap was recorded to the level of 231 kg ha^-1 (Table 3).The extension yield gap observed under the study emphasized the need to educate the farmers for dissemination of technologies and bridge gap through advanced extension strategies viz; frontline demonstrations, field days, farmers' scientist interactions, trainings, on farm trainings, Kisan gosthi etc. The technology index, another effective tool for analysis of yield gap under the investigation varied from 9.19 to 15.57% (Table 3). On an average technology index was recorded 12.78%. Lower the value of technology index, greater is the feasibility of technology. This shows the efficacy of overt performance of scientific interventions or technologies demonstrated at farmer’s field. As a result, this will increase the yield of chickpea under the existing conditions of agro-ecological region of humid south eastern plain zone of Rajasthan. These findings corroborate the findings as reported by Dwivedi et al. (2014), Kumar (2014), Kumar et al. (2016), Praharaj et al. (2015), and Meena (2017).

3.4.  Economics

Economics, an important parameter to reject or accept the technology was estimated under the study. The economics of the improved technology over farmers practice were calculated depending on the prevailing market prices of the inputs and outputs for the particular year (Table 4).

Table 4: Economics of chickpea front line demonstrations

It was observed that the cost of cultivation of chickpea varied from Rs. 12,255 to Rs. 12,880 ha^-1 with an average of Rs. 12,552 ha^-1. Under improved technologies, as against in farmers practices the cost of cultivation of chickpea ranges from Rs. 10,943 ha^-1 to Rs. 11,661 ha^-1 with an average of Rs. 11,272 ha^-1. Under the present investigation, improved technology fetched higher net returns to the tune of Rs. 28,534 ha^-1 to Rs. 31,347 ha^-1 with the mean of three yeas was Rs. 30,087 ha^-1. However, under farmers practices the net returns ranged to the tune of Rs. 24,217 ha^-1 to Rs. 26,106 ha^-1 over the years and its average value fetched to Rs. 25,445 ha^-1. Under the study, average additional gross returns of Rs. 5,922 ha^-1 and additional net returns of Rs. 4,642 ha^-1 were recorded with the incremental cost benefit ratio of 4.70. As a result of demonstrations, effective gain recorded from Rs. 3,005 ha^-1 to Rs. 3,932 ha^-1 with an average over the years to the tune of Rs. 3,362 ha^-1. Given the economic analysis in terms of benefit cost ratio, it was fetched 3.52 (2007-08), 3.44 (2008-09) and 3.34 (2009-10) following improved technology interventions at farmers field. On the same situation following farmers' practice, fetched lower benefit cost ratio to the tune of 3.35 (2007-08), 3.29 (2008-09) and 3.23 (2009-10). On an average, benefit cost ratio under improved technology and farmers' practice was recorded 3.43.and 3.29, respectively. The higher benefit cost ratio in improved technology was due to the higher yield obtained under improved technology as compared to farmers' practice. Hence higher benefit cost ratio proved the economic viability of the technology interventions and convinced the farmers on the utility of improved technologies. Similar economic benefits owing to adoption of improved technology interventions were also reported by Dwivedi et al. (2014), Kumar (2014), Gorfad, et al. (2016), Singh (2016) and Parmar et al. (2017).

Conclusion

Improved technologies are more productive and remunerative compared with farmers’ practices. On an average, higher gross returns (Rs. 42,639 ha^-1), net returns (Rs. 30,087 ha^-1), effective gain (Rs. 3,362 ha^-1), ICBR (4.70) and benefit-cost ratio (3.43) were fetched under improved technologies over farmers’ practice. Thus, adoption of improved technology has a long-term impact on crop productivity and profitability in chickpea over farmers’ practice.

Acknowledgement

The financial support to meet the expenses towards frontline demonstrations by Department of Agricultural & Farmers Welfare, Government of India through its nodal agency ICAR- Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur is gratefully acknowledged. 

Reference

Ali, M., Kumar, S., 2009. Major technological advances in pulses: Indian scenario. In: Ali, M., Kumar, S. (Eds.), Milestones in Food Legumes Research. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, 1−20.

Anonymous, 2018. Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of  Economics and Statistics, 2017-18, Government of India, Third advance estimate. Available from: https://aps.dac.gov.in/APY/Public_Report1.aspx.

Anonymous, 2019. Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2018-19, Government of India, Third advance estimate. Available from: https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/.

Asiwal, B.L., Hussain, A., 2008. Demonstration- An Effective Technology for Increasing the Productivity of Gram. Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education 16, 221−223.

Babu, S.C., Joshi, P.K., Glendenning, C.J., Asenso-Okyere, K., Sulaiman, V.R., 2013. The State of Agricultural Extension Reforms in India: Strategic Priorities and Policy Options. Agricultural Economics Research Review 26(2), 159−72.

Dayanand, Verma, R.K., Mehta, S.M., 2014. Assessment of Technology Gap and Productivity Gain through Front line Demonstration in Chickpea.  Legume Research-An International Journal 37(4), 430−433.

Dwivedi, A.P., Mishra, A., Singh, S.K., Singh, S.R.K., Singh, M., 2014. Yield gap analysis of chickpea through front line demonstration in different agro-climatic zones of MP and Chhatishgarh. Journal of Food Legumes 27(1), 60−63.

Gorfad, P.S., Baraiya, K.P., Parakhia, A.M., 2016. Impact of front line demonstration (FLDs) of pulse crops in improved technology transfer. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 8(13), 1228−1229.

Kaur, J., Singh, V., Aulakh, G.S., Raina, D., 2019. Assessment of front line demonstrations on chickpea in Ferozepur district of Punjab. Journal of Food Legumes 32(1), 49−52.

Kumar, R., 2014. Assessment of technology gap and productivity gain through crop technology demonstration in chickpea. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 48(2), 162−164.

Kumar, M., Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Kumari, H., 2016. Evaluation of Farmers Saved Seed of Green Gram and Chickpea in Munger District of Bihar. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, 7(4) Special, 773−777.

Meena, M.L., 2017. Effect of front line demonstrations of chickpea Cv. RSG-888 on farmers field in rainfed condition of Rajasthan, India. Asian Journal of Agriculture Extension, Economics & Sociology 18(2), 1−7.

Mishra, P.K., Khare, Y.R., 2017. Impact of front line demonstration on yield and profitability of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in Sagar district of Bundelkhand Region of Madhya Pradesh, India. Plant Archives 17(1), 463−466.

Neenu, S., Ramesh, K.,  Ramana, S., Biswas, A.K.,  Rao, A.S., 2014. Growth and Yield of Different Varieties of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as Influenced by the Phosphorus Nutrition under Rainfed Conditions on Vertisols. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management 5(1), 053−057.

Parmar, M.R., Choudhary, S., Wankhede, A., Swarnakar, V.K., 2017. Impact of Frontline Demonstration in Adoption of Chickpea Production Technology by the Farmers of Sehore District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science10(6) 1, 76−80. 

Praharaj, C.S., Kumar, R., Akram, M., Jha, U.C., Singh, U., Kumar, N., Singh, S.S., 2015. Dissemination of pulses production technologies for enhancing profitability of farmers in Uttar Pradesh.Journal of Food Legumes28(2), 157−161.

Prajapat, K., Vyas, A.K., Dhar, S., 2016. Root Growth and Productivity of Wheat, Chickpea and Potato as Influenced by Nutrient Management Practices. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management 7(1), 052−059.

Reddy, A.A., Mature, V.C., Yadav, M., Yadav, S.S., 2007. Profitability in Chickpea cultivation. In: Yadav, S.S., Redden, B., Chen, W., Sharma, B. (Ed.), The Chickpea Breeding and Management. Wallingford, Oxon, UK- CAB International, 292−321.

Reddy, M.N., Swanson, B., 2006. Strategy for up-scaling the ATMA model in India, In: Vreyens, J.R. (Ed.), In: Proceedings of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education, AIAEE 22^nd Annual Conference, Clearwater Beach, Florida, USA.

Samui, S.K., Maitra, S., Roy, D.K., Mondal, A.K., Saha, D., 2000. Evaluation of front line demonstration on groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.).  Journal of the Indian Society of Coastal Agriculture Research 18(2), 180−183.

Saxena, M.C., Singh, K.B., 1987. The chickpea. C.A.B. International, Wallingford, United Kingdom, 409. ISBN 0 85198 571 8.

Singh, U., Praharaj, C.S., Singh, S.S., Singh, N.P., 2016. Biofortification of food crops. New Delhi, India, Springer

Singh, K.M., Meena, M.S., Burton, S., 2013. Extension in India by Public Sector Institutions: An Overview. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2315457  or http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.2315457.

Singh, R., 2016. Productivity Enhancement of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) through Improved Production Technologies on Farmer’s Field. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 86(10), 1357–60.

Tiwari, B.K., Tripathi, P.N., 2014. Yield gap analysis of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) through front line demonstration on farmers’ fields. Journal of Rural and Agricultural Research 14(1), 5−8.