Abstract
A series of experiments were conducted to determine the economic assessment of various tillage practic es during the maize fallow rotation at NWFP Agricultural University Research Farm, during 1996 - 99. The experiment was laid down in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Tillage practices were managed with seven treatments; Cultivator two times (C2), Cultivator four times (C4), Cultivator six times (C 6), Moldboard plow and rotavator once (M1R1), Moldboard plow and disk harrow once (M1H1), Moldboard plow once and disk harrow two times (M1H2) and Disk plow once and cultivator two times (D1C2) and replicated 6 times. Mean highest cost of production was recorded Rs. 8672 ha -1 in the deep tillage treatments (M1R1) and the lowest cost of production was noted Rs. 823 4 ha -1 in the shallow tillage treatments (C2). The mean h ighest gross revenue and net income were obtained Rs. 94593 ha -1 and 85921 ha -1 in the deep tillage treatments (M1R1) and the lowe st were found Rs. 78280 ha -1 and 70047 ha -1 in the shallow tillage treatments (C2) respectivel y. The deep tillage treatments M1R1 appeared to have provided favorable soil environment for vegetative growth and yield of maize crop as compared to shall ow tillage treatments, whose ultimate affect was on the gross revenue and net income of the crop.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
M1R1 deep tillage had the highest production cost, Rs. 8672 ha -1.
- Treatment
- deep tillage treatments (M1R1)e0
- Outcome
- cost of productione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- Rs. 8672 ha -1e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean highest cost of production was recorded Rs. 8672 ha -1 in the deep tillage treatments (M1R1)”
t0“MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
C2 shallow tillage had the lowest production cost, Rs. 823 4 ha -1.
- Treatment
- shallow tillage treatments (C2)e0
- Outcome
- cost of productione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- Rs. 823 4 ha -1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowest cost of production was noted Rs. 823 4 ha -1 in the shallow tillage treatments (C2)”
t0“MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
M1R1 deep tillage produced the highest gross revenue, Rs. 94593 ha -1.
- Treatment
- deep tillage treatments (M1R1)e0
- Outcome
- gross revenuee0
- Direction
- h igheste0
- Value
- Rs. 94593 ha -1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean h ighest gross revenue and net income were obtained Rs. 94593 ha -1 and 85921 ha -1 in the deep tillage treatments (M1R1)”
t0“MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
M1R1 deep tillage produced the highest net income, 85921 ha -1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean h ighest gross revenue and net income were obtained Rs. 94593 ha -1 and 85921 ha -1 in the deep tillage treatments (M1R1)”
t0“MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
C2 shallow tillage had the lowest gross revenue, Rs. 78280 ha -1.
- Treatment
- shallow tillage treatments (C2)e0
- Outcome
- gross revenuee1
- Direction
- lowe ste0
- Value
- Rs. 78280 ha -1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowe st were found Rs. 78280 ha -1 and 70047 ha -1 in the shallow tillage treatments (C2)”
e1“The mean h ighest gross revenue and net income were obtained Rs. 94593 ha -1 and 85921 ha -1 in the deep tillage treatments (M1R1)”
t0“MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
C2 shallow tillage had the lowest net income, 70047 ha -1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowe st were found Rs. 78280 ha -1 and 70047 ha -1 in the shallow tillage treatments (C2)”
e1“The mean h ighest gross revenue and net income were obtained Rs. 94593 ha -1 and 85921 ha -1 in the deep tillage treatments (M1R1)”
t0“MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
M1R1 deep tillage favored maize vegetative growth relative to shallow tillage.
- Treatment
- deep tillage treatments M1R1e0
- Outcome
- vegetative growthe0
- Direction
- favorablee0
- Comparator
- shall ow tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deep tillage treatments M1R1 appeared to have provided favorable soil environment for vegetative growth and yield of maize crop as compared to shall ow tillage treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
M1R1 deep tillage favored maize yield relative to shallow tillage.
- Treatment
- deep tillage treatments M1R1e0
- Outcome
- yield of maize crope0
- Direction
- favorablee0
- Comparator
- shall ow tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deep tillage treatments M1R1 appeared to have provided favorable soil environment for vegetative growth and yield of maize crop as compared to shall ow tillage treatments”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.