Abstract
On farm demonstrations were conducted in farmers fields to popularize zero tillage maize technology among farmers under supervision of DAATT Centre (Extension unit of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra Pradesh), Anantapuram for four years during Rabi, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2014–15. The comparison was made between zero tillage maize and farmers practice (traditional maize cultivation) with an objective to obtain higher maize productivity and net returns in farmers fields under zero tilled conditions. Results revealed that higher cob length of 17.4 cm was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (15.5 cm). Higher grain weight per plant of 129 gm was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (115 gm). There were more number of grains per cob (421) in zero tillage maize as compared to 385 grains per cob in farmers practice. Higher 100 grain weight of 26.2 gm was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (23.6 gm). In zero tillage maize cob length, grain weight/plant, number of grains/cob and 100 grain weight were increased by 12.3, 12.2, 9.4 and 11.0 per cent respectively over farmers practice. Zero tillage maize recorded higher grain yield (6250 Kg ha-1) and stover yield (7750 Kg ha-1) which was 11.4 and 6.9% respectively higher over farmers practice (5610 Kg ha-1 grain yield and 7250 Kg ha-1 stover yield). Gross returns (Rs. 93, 750/-) and net returns (Rs. 78, 000/-) per hectare were more with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (Rs. 84, 150/-gross returns and Rs. 62, 500/-net returns). Simultaneously cost benefit ratio was higher with zero tillage maize (1: 5.9) compared to farmers practice (1: 3.9) because of lower cost of cultivation and improved yield with zero tillage maize. In zero tillage maize cost of cultivation was reduced by 27.3 per cent where as, gross returns and net returns were improved by 11.4 and 24.8 per cent respectively over farmers practice.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased maize cob length to 17.4 cm versus 15.5 cm under farmer practice.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- cob lengthe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 17.4 cme0
- Qualifier
- 15.5 cme0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher cob length of 17.4 cm was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (15.5 cm).”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased maize grain weight per plant to 129 gm versus 115 gm.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- grain weight per plante0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Value
- 129 gme0
- Qualifier
- 115 gme0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher grain weight per plant of 129 gm was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (115 gm).”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased maize grains per cob to 421 versus 385.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- number of grains per cobe0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 421e0
- Qualifier
- 385e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were more number of grains per cob (421) in zero tillage maize as compared to 385 grains per cob in farmers practice.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased maize 100 grain weight to 26.2 gm versus 23.6 gm.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- 100 grain weighte0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Value
- 26.2 gme0
- Qualifier
- 23.6 gme0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher 100 grain weight of 26.2 gm was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (23.6 gm).”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased maize grain yield to 6250 Kg ha-1, 11.4% above farmer practice.
- Treatment
- Zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6250 Kg ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 5610 Kg ha-1e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zero tillage maize recorded higher grain yield (6250 Kg ha-1) and stover yield (7750 Kg ha-1) which was 11.4 and 6.9% respectively higher over farmers practice (5610 Kg ha-1 grain yield and 7250 Kg ha-1 stover yield).”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased maize stover yield to 7750 Kg ha-1, 6.9% above farmer practice.
- Treatment
- Zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- stover yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 7750 Kg ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 7250 Kg ha-1e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zero tillage maize recorded higher grain yield (6250 Kg ha-1) and stover yield (7750 Kg ha-1) which was 11.4 and 6.9% respectively higher over farmers practice (5610 Kg ha-1 grain yield and 7250 Kg ha-1 stover yield).”
Claim · model-written summary
Gross returns per hectare were higher under zero tillage maize.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- Gross returnse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- Rs. 93, 750/-e0
- Qualifier
- Rs. 84, 150/-e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gross returns (Rs. 93, 750/-) and net returns (Rs. 78, 000/-) per hectare were more with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (Rs. 84, 150/-gross returns and Rs. 62, 500/-net returns).”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns per hectare were higher under zero tillage maize.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- Rs. 78, 000/-e0
- Qualifier
- Rs. 62, 500/-e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gross returns (Rs. 93, 750/-) and net returns (Rs. 78, 000/-) per hectare were more with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (Rs. 84, 150/-gross returns and Rs. 62, 500/-net returns).”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage maize had a higher cost benefit ratio of 1: 5.9 versus 1: 3.9.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1: 5.9e0
- Qualifier
- 1: 3.9e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cost benefit ratio was higher with zero tillage maize (1: 5.9) compared to farmers practice (1: 3.9)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage reduced maize cultivation cost by 27.3% relative to farmer practice.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- cost of cultivatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 27.3 per cente0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In zero tillage maize cost of cultivation was reduced by 27.3 per cent where as, gross returns and net returns were improved by 11.4 and 24.8 per cent respectively over farmers practice.”
The same questions in other 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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
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.