Abstract
During Rabi season, a large portion of the Peddapalli district adopted rice fallow or cotton fallow maize cultivation with conventional method, which involves plow row sowing after two to three ploughings and is very expensive and time-consuming. Due to the late sowing, crop encounters to terminal moisture stress and needs extra irrigations, which decreases its yields and lowers its price in the district. The innovative idea of zero-tillage maize arose in 2012–13 as a countermeasure. Krishi Vigyan Kendra Ramagirikhilla carried out on farm trails and front-line demonstrations in various locations of Peddapalli district from 2012–13 to 2018–19. Total 52 farmers from various villages were chosen to demonstrate zero-tillage maize for seven years in a row. The results revealed that the maize yield (73.30 q ha-1) increased by 10.83 percent when compared to the farmers’ practice (66.26 q ha-1) with a technology index of 13.76%, an extension gap of 7.04 q ha-1, a technology gap of 11.70 q t ha-1 and recorded higher benefit-cost ratio (2.50) with additional income Rs. 16,460.37/- than farmers' practices (2.11). Compared to the farmers’ practice, zero tillage maize proved to be an effective technology for improving farmers’ income with lower cultivation costs due to its utilization of residual moisture, minimizes the number of irrigations and prevents the crop from terminal moisture stress. During the study the adoption of Zero tillage technology increased from negligible to 283.33% with overall adoption level 144.58% and horizontal spread from 0 ha up to 892 ha during 2018-19.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage maize yield was 73.30 q ha-1, 10.83 percent higher than farmer practice.
- Treatment
- zero-tillage maizee1
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 73.30 q ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 percente0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicee0
- Setting
- Peddapalli districte2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maize yield (73.30 q ha-1) increased by 10.83 percent when compared to the farmers’ practice (66.26 q ha-1)”
e1“The innovative idea of zero-tillage maize arose in 2012–13”
e2“various locations of Peddapalli district”
Claim · model-written summary
The zero tillage technology index was 13.76%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a technology index of 13.76%”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The extension gap was 7.04 q ha-1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an extension gap of 7.04 q ha-1”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The technology gap was 11.70 q t ha-1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a technology gap of 11.70 q t ha-1”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage produced a higher benefit-cost ratio of 2.50 versus 2.11.
- Treatment
- zero-tillage maizee1
- Outcome
- benefit-cost ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.50e0
- Qualifier
- 2.11e0
- Comparator
- farmers' practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“recorded higher benefit-cost ratio (2.50) with additional income Rs. 16,460.37/- than farmers' practices (2.11)”
t0“Maize”
e1“The innovative idea of zero-tillage maize arose in 2012–13”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage provided Rs. 16,460.37/- in additional income.
- Treatment
- zero-tillage maizee1
- Outcome
- additional incomee0
- Direction
- additionale0
- Value
- Rs. 16,460.37/-e0
- Comparator
- farmers' practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with additional income Rs. 16,460.37/- than farmers' practices”
t0“Maize”
e1“The innovative idea of zero-tillage maize arose in 2012–13”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage lowered cultivation costs.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee0
- Outcome
- cultivation costse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage maize proved to be an effective technology for improving farmers’ income with lower cultivation costs”
e2“the maize yield (73.30 q ha-1) increased by 10.83 percent when compared to the farmers’ practice (66.26 q ha-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage reduced the number of irrigations.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee3
- Outcome
- number of irrigationse0
- Direction
- minimizese0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“minimizes the number of irrigations”
t0“Maize”
e3“zero tillage maize proved to be an effective technology for improving farmers’ income with lower cultivation costs”
e2“the maize yield (73.30 q ha-1) increased by 10.83 percent when compared to the farmers’ practice (66.26 q ha-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage prevented terminal moisture stress using residual moisture.
- Treatment
- zero tillage maizee3
- Outcome
- terminal moisture stresse0
- Qualifier
- utilization of residual moisturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“due to its utilization of residual moisture, minimizes the number of irrigations and prevents the crop from terminal moisture stress”
t0“Maize”
e3“zero tillage maize proved to be an effective technology for improving farmers’ income with lower cultivation costs”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage adoption rose from negligible to 283.33%, with overall adoption at 144.58%.
- Outcome
- adoption of Zero tillage technologye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 283.33%e0
- Qualifier
- overall adoption level 144.58%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“adoption of Zero tillage technology increased from negligible to 283.33% with overall adoption level 144.58%”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Horizontal spread grew from 0 ha to 892 ha by 2018-19.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“horizontal spread from 0 ha up to 892 ha during 2018-19”
t0“Maize”
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
- 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.