Abstract
Cooking oil is India's primary agricultural import, with domestic production only covering 35% of consumption. Climate change, land scarcity, and stagnant oilseed productivity are contributing to this shortfall. Soybean, a major oilseed crop, offers affordable vegetable oil, protein, and health benefits. A Front Line Demonstration (FLD) in Adilabad district of the Northern Telangana zone promoted the improved soybean variety AISb-50, aiming to mitigate climate change, reduce cultivation costs, increase yields, and boost farmers' net income by comparing it to the JS 335 soybean variety. Demo plots consistently outperformed check plots in yielding AISb-50. In 2022-23 and 2023-24, Demo plots yielded 2125 kg ha⁻¹ and 1850 kg ha⁻¹ respectively, with an average yield of 1987 kg ha⁻¹ versus 1629 kg ha⁻¹ in check plots. Despite similar cultivation costs, Demo plots yielded significantly higher gross returns and net returns. The Benefit-Cost ratio for Demo plots was 2.41:1, indicating a more efficient investment in AISb-50. The study found a Yield Gap 1 of 762.5 kg ha⁻¹ and a Yield Gap 2 of 359 kg ha⁻¹ in Demo plots, with a 27.7% technology index, suggesting potential for improved adoption.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
AISb-50 demonstration yield was 2125 kg ha⁻¹ in 2022-23.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In 2022-23 and 2023-24, Demo plots yielded 2125 kg ha⁻¹ and 1850 kg ha⁻¹ respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
AISb-50 demonstration yield was 1850 kg ha⁻¹ in 2023-24.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In 2022-23 and 2023-24, Demo plots yielded 2125 kg ha⁻¹ and 1850 kg ha⁻¹ respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean demonstration yield was 1987 kg ha⁻¹ versus 1629 kg ha⁻¹ in checks.
- Outcome
- average yielde0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 1987 kg ha⁻¹e0
- Qualifier
- 1629 kg ha⁻¹e0
- Comparator
- check plotse0
Not reportedTaxonTreatment
Verbatim
e0“average yield of 1987 kg ha⁻¹ versus 1629 kg ha⁻¹ in check plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivation costs were similar between demonstration and check plots.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Despite similar cultivation costs, Demo plots yielded significantly higher gross returns and net returns”
Claim · model-written summary
Demonstrations generated significantly higher gross and net returns.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Demo plots yielded significantly higher gross returns and net returns”
Claim · model-written summary
The demonstration benefit cost ratio was 2.41:1.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The Benefit-Cost ratio for Demo plots was 2.41:1”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield Gap 1 was 762.5 kg ha⁻¹.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yield Gap 1 of 762.5 kg ha⁻¹”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield Gap 2 was 359 kg ha⁻¹.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yield Gap 2 of 359 kg ha⁻¹”
Claim · model-written summary
The technology index was 27.7%.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“27.7% technology index”