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, 2011Rabi, -12, 2012Rabi, -13, 2013Rabi, -14 and 2014-15. -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 g was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (115 g). 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 g was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (23.6 g). 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 per cent, 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 whereas, 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased cob length to 17.4 cm versus 15.5 cm.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- 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 grain weight per plant to 129 g versus 115 g.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain weight per plante0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Value
- 129 ge0
- Qualifier
- 115 ge0
- 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 g was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (115 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased grains per cob to 421 versus 385.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- number of grains per cobe0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 421e0
- Qualifier
- 385 grains per cobe0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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 100 grain weight to 26.2 g versus 23.6 g.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- 100 grain weighte0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Value
- 26.2 ge0
- Qualifier
- 23.6 ge0
- 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 g was recorded with zero tillage maize compared to farmers practice (23.6 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased grain yield to 6250 kg ha -1, 11.4 percent over farmers practice.
- Treatment
- Zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6250 kg ha -1e0
- Qualifier
- 11.4 and 6.9 per cente0
- 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 per cent, 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 stover yield to 7750 kg ha -1, 6.9 percent over farmers practice.
- Treatment
- Zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- stover yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 7750 kg ha -1e0
- Qualifier
- 11.4 and 6.9 per cente0
- 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 per cent, 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 gross returns to Rs. 93,750/- per hectare.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- Gross returnse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- Rs. 93,750/-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 increased net returns to Rs. 78,000/- per hectare.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- Rs. 78,000/-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 increased the cost benefit ratio to 1:5.9 versus 1:3.9.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1:5.9e0
- 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) because of lower cost of cultivation and improved yield with zero tillage maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage reduced cost of cultivation by 27.3 percent.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- 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 whereas, gross returns and net returns were improved by 11.4 and 24.8 per cent, respectively over farmers practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage improved gross returns by 11.4 percent.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- gross returnse0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 11.4 and 24.8 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 whereas, gross returns and net returns were improved by 11.4 and 24.8 per cent, respectively over farmers practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage improved net returns by 24.8 percent.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 11.4 and 24.8 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 whereas, 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.