groundnut seminar
Post on 23-Jan-2015
766 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
Introduction Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an annual unpredictable legume cum oilseed crop which is also known as peanut, earthnut, monkeynut.
It has the 13th most important food crop and 4th most important oilseed crop of the world.
Groundnut seeds (kernels) contain 40-50% oil, 20-50 % protein and 10-20 % carbohydrate.
Groundnut seeds are a nutritional source of vitamin E, niacin, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, iron, riboflavin, thiamine and potassium.
Groundnut kernels are consumed directly as raw, roasted or boiled kernels or oil extracted from the kernel is used as culinary oil.
It is also used as animal feed (oil pressings, seeds, green material and straw) and industrial raw material (oil cakes and fertilizer).
These multiple uses of groundnut plant makes it an excellent cash crop for domestic markets as well as for foreign trade in several developing and developed countries.
Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an annual unpredictable legume cum oilseed crop which is also known as peanut, earthnut, monkeynut.
It has the 13th most important food crop and 4th most important oilseed crop of the world.
Groundnut seeds (kernels) contain 40-50% oil, 20-50 % protein and 10-20 % carbohydrate.
Groundnut seeds are a nutritional source of vitamin E, niacin, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, iron, riboflavin, thiamine and potassium.
Groundnut kernels are consumed directly as raw, roasted or boiled kernels or oil extracted from the kernel is used as culinary oil.
It is also used as animal feed (oil pressings, seeds, green material and straw) and industrial raw material (oil cakes and fertilizer).
These multiple uses of groundnut plant makes it an excellent cash crop for domestic markets as well as for foreign trade in several developing and developed countries.
4
Cultivated groundnut originates from South America (Wiess 2000).
It is one of the most popular and universal crops cultivated in more than 100 countries in six continents .
Major groundnut growing countries are India (26%), China (19%) and Nigeria (11%).
Its cultivation is mostly confined to the tropical countries ranging from 40º N to 40º S.
Major groundnut producing countries are: China (40.1%), India (16.4%), Nigeria (8.2%), U.S.A (5.9%) and Indonesia (4.1%).
Conti….
5
Among oilseeds crops in India, groundnut accounts for about 50% of area and 45% of oil production.
In India, about 75% of the groundnut area lies in a low to moderate rainfall zone (parts of peninsular region and western and central regions) with a short period of distribution (90-120 days).
Based on rainfall pattern, soil factors, diseases and pest situations, groundnut-growing area in India has been divided into five zones.
In India, most of the groundnut production is concentrated in five states viz. Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
These five states account for about 86% of the total area under peanut cultivation.
The remaining peanut producing area is scattered in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Orissa.
6
Although the crop can be grown in all the seasons, it is grown mainly in rainy season (Kharif; June-September).
The kharif season accounts for about 80% of the total groundnut production.
In the Southern and Southeastern regions, groundnut is grown in rice fallows during post-rainy season (Rabi; October to March).
If irrigation facilities are available, groundnut can be grown during January to May as a spring or summer crop.
Monsoon variations cause major fluctuations in groundnut production in India.
Groundnut is grown in different cropping systems like sequential, multiple, and intercropping (Basu and Ghosh 1995).
Conti….
7
What is yield gap and how to estimate it ?
Estimation of yield gap : The methodology developed by International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) have been followed to estimate the magnitudes of yield gap, wherein potential yield, potential farm yield and farmers’ yield are defined as yield obtained on research stations, demonstration plots and farmers’ fields, respectively (Gaddi et al., 2002).
Yield gap is the difference between potential yield and actual yield. The difference is explained by a number of constraints - biological, physical and socioeconomic.
All these constraints together account for the total yield gaps. It can be diveded into two parts viz., yield gap I and yield gap II.
Yield gap I = Potential yield - Potential farm yield
This yield gap arises from differences in environment that cannot be managed in the farmers’ fields.
Yield gap II: Potential farm yield - farmers’ yield
This gap reflects the effects of biological, soil and water, physiological, genetic and socio-economic constraints.
8
Table 1 : Estimated yield and yield gap in groundnut (kg/ha)
Particulars of yield Groundnut (Kharif )Bunch Spreading Overall
Experiment station yield 3358 3390 3377On –Experiment yield 2375 2613 2533Actual farm yield 1530 1941 1823Yield gaps
Yield Gap I 983 777 844 Yield Gap II 845 672 710
Total Yield Gap (I+II) 1828 1449 1554Total Yield Gap (I+II)
(percent *)119 75 85
Yield Gap II (percent *) 55 35 39
Dhandhalya and Shiyani, 2009
Junagadh
*based on actual yield
9
TABLE. 2: YIELD GAP IN KARNATAKA
SOURCE:- DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE . GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, 2009
Area (lakh ha) in Karnataka 8.50
Production (lakh t) Karnataka 5.10
National avg. (kg./ha) 1000
State avg. (kg/ha) 451
Potential yield (kg./ha) 2000
Experimental yield (kg./ha) 2300
GAP (kg./ha) 1839
10
Production constraints in groundnut production
11
Production constraints in groundnut lack of varities for late sowing with drought tolerance.
Lack of alternate crops
Non availability efficient drills and harvesters
Imbalanced nutrition (poor soil fertility, non availability of organic manures, acid soils with low
organic matter content, low N and P and widespread Ca, Sulphur deficiency , very low fertilizer use.)
Delayed planting
Use of low seed rate and poor plant population
Use of poor quality seed and non-availability of quality seed
Poor water management
12
Cont….
Severe weed infestation
Moisture stress at more than one growth stage ( critical period)
Incidences of pest and diseases & non adoption of proper pest and disease management
Tikka and bud necrosis diseases.
Pests like Red hairy caterpillar, thrips, aphids etc
Due to terminal drought and harvesting of groundnut under low moisture condition causes yield losses.
Lack of exposure to productive technology packages
Widespread poverty
13
14
TABLE 3 : Estimated production losses and value losses due to major constraints in groundnut production
TABLE 3 : Estimated production losses and value losses due to major constraints in groundnut production
Constraints Average losses (kg/ha)
Total losses (00’ tonnes)
Value losses (Rs. Crores)
Technical Constraints
a) Pest 76 1363.52 190.89
b) Disease 57 1022.64 143.17
c) Weeds 118 2117.04 296.39
d) Adverse soils 119 2134 298.90
e) Water (scarcity/drought)
202 3624.08 507.37
f) Others 54 968.81 135.63
Total 626 11231.07 1572.35
Socio-economic 84 1507.04 210.99
Total 710 12738.11 1783.34
Junagadh Dhandhalya and Shiyani, 2009
15
Constraints Rank
Inadequate and irregular power supply I
High cost of irrigation and shortage of water II
Fear of glut in the market /price risk III
Poor irrigation facilities IV
High cost of inputs V
Fear of crop failure VI
Poor transfer of technology VII
Poor storage facilities VIII
Poor marketing facilities IX
Lack of awareness about improved technology X
TABLE 4 : Socio-economic constraints of groundnutTABLE 4 : Socio-economic constraints of groundnut
Dhandhalya and Shiyani, 2009
Junagadh
16
Table 5 : Ranking of production constraints in groundnut on the basis of average production losses
Table 5 : Ranking of production constraints in groundnut on the basis of average production losses
Rank Constraints
I Drought at anthesis
II Drought at vegetative stage
III Weeds (other than Digera)
IV Poor organic matter
V Delayed sowing
VI Tikka
VII Digera
VIII Thrips
IX Potash deficiency
X Jassids
Junagadh Dhandhalya and Shiyani, 2009
17
STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT
STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT
18
Some of the short term strategies to bridge yield gap in groundnut
Balanced fertilizationSeed treatment with rhizobiumProduction of organic manures, production structure for residue recycling.RDFAdoption of crop rotation and intercropping with redgram based intercropping.Awarenes
Maintenance of optimum plant population Use of improved seed-cum-fertilizer drill with recommended seed rate.Use of quality seed.Supply of seed-cum-fertilizer drill on custom hire basis.
Effective plant protection measuresCreating awareness about use of right PP chemical at right time Conducting demonstration and training regarding pest management
Groundnut harvester and pod plucker Popularization of existing digger and pod pluckers Modification and development of groundnut digger and plucker.
Balanced fertilizationSeed treatment with rhizobiumProduction of organic manures, production structure for residue recycling.RDFAdoption of crop rotation and intercropping with redgram based intercropping.Awarenes
Maintenance of optimum plant population Use of improved seed-cum-fertilizer drill with recommended seed rate.Use of quality seed.Supply of seed-cum-fertilizer drill on custom hire basis.
Effective plant protection measuresCreating awareness about use of right PP chemical at right time Conducting demonstration and training regarding pest management
Groundnut harvester and pod plucker Popularization of existing digger and pod pluckers Modification and development of groundnut digger and plucker. 19
Some of the long term strategies to bridge yield gaps in groundnut
1. Development of /evaluation of varities from existing lines through farmers participatory approach.
2. Adoption of effective moisture conservation practices to mitigate terminal drought.
3. Modification and development of groundnut digger and pod plucker .
1. Development of /evaluation of varities from existing lines through farmers participatory approach.
2. Adoption of effective moisture conservation practices to mitigate terminal drought.
3. Modification and development of groundnut digger and pod plucker .
20
Table7 : Effect of packaging material for storage of groundnut produced during rabi or summer season on field emergence.
Table7 : Effect of packaging material for storage of groundnut produced during rabi or summer season on field emergence.
Treatments Field emergence (%)Month after storage
2 5 8 Mean
C1 : Gunny bag 82 (64.7) 74 (59.0) 58 (49.5) 71
C2 : PLGB 85 (67.5) 78 (62.0) 68 (55.3) 77
C3 : HDPE 82 (64.8) 73 (58.8) 53 (46.6) 69
C4 : PLGB + Silica gel 86 (67.7) 82 (64.8) 70 (56.9) 79
C5: PLGB + Ca CL2 85 (67.5) 80 (63.3) 68 (55.6) 78
C6 : HDPE + Silica gel 84 (67.6) 61.3 (77) 65 (53.9) 75
C7 : HDPE + Ca CL2 85 (66.9) 77 (61.4) 62 (51.8) 74
S.Em ± 1.36 2.66 1.14CD (@ 5%) 4.33 8.42 3.31Raichur Bsavegowda and Nanjareddy, 2008
PLGB: poly lined gunny bag, HDPE: High density polyvinyl bag.Silica gel: 30g.kg-1 pod, Ca CL2 : 10g.kg-1 pod
21
Effect Seed size to bridge yield gaps in groundnut
22
Table 8 : Effect of seed size on pod and haulm yield of groundnut Table 8 : Effect of seed size on pod and haulm yield of groundnut
Category of seed Pod yield (kg /ha)
Haulm yield (kg /ha )
2001 2002 2001 2002
Assorted 1097 626 2135 698
Bold 1180 552 2302 802
Medium 1169 568 2229 698
Small 1001 594 1801 687
Shrivellrd 987 626 1958 740
S.Em.± 105 39 89 111
C.D. 5% NS NS 267 NS
Andrapradesh Sulochanamma and Yellamandareddy , 2007
NS- non significant
23
Table 9 : Yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut as influenced by different size of seed in groundnut
Table 9 : Yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut as influenced by different size of seed in groundnut
Treatments No. of filled
pods /plant
100 kernel
weight (g)
Pod yield
(kg /ha )
B:C ratio
TMV2- Bold 11.1 27.7 1205 2.71
TMV2- Medium 9.2 29.5 1161 2.97
TMV2- Slender 10.6 29.3 1268 3.42
K6 - Bold 9.5 39.7 1446 2.52
K6 - Medium 8.9 34.7 1353 3.30
K6 - Slender 9.1 36.8 1255 3.24
Narayani- Bold 8.7 38.0 1425 2.83
Narayani- Medium 7.2 37.2 1557 3.89
Narayani- Slender 7.1 38.0 1411 3.76
ICGV9114- Bold 9.3 30.8 1444 2.97
ICGV9114-- Medium 7.0 30.7 1265 3.23
ICGV9114- Slender 7.7 29.2 1237 3.30
CD (P=0.05) NS 4.0 249 -
ARS: Anantapur Sahadevareddy et al.,2009
Note : Cost of different categories of seed (Rs/kg) Bold:35, Medium:28, Slender:25. NS- non significant 24
Effect of plant population, date of sowing and varities to bridge yield gap in groundnut
25
Recommended groundnut Varities for Karnataka (ICAR 2006). Recommended groundnut Varities for Karnataka (ICAR 2006).
ICGV 86590ICGV 86325DRG 12GPBD 4DSG 1
ICGV 86590ICGV 86325DRG 12GPBD 4DSG 1
26
Table 10 : Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen management on growth development, yield and yield-attributes in groundnut
Table 10 : Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen management on growth development, yield and yield-attributes in groundnut
Treatments Plant stand (lac/ha)
Dry matter accumulation (g/plant)
Pods/ plant
Kernels/ pod
Test weight (g)
Pod yield (kg/ ha)
Harvest index (%)
Planting geometry 30 cm x 10 cm 3.1 23.2 25.2 2.0 344.5 2100.0 35.1
22.5 cm x 10 cm 4.2 20.9 24.1 2.2 343.9 2424.0 33.4
22.5 cm x 8 cm 4.6 18.1 21.2 2.1 340. 2199.0 29.6
SEm± 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.9 54.2 0.9
CD (P=0.05) 0.1 0.3 1.9 0.1 3.2 187.7 3.0
Nitrogen management Control (no nitrogen) 3.9 19.9 19.1 1.9 324.4 1952.0 32.6
20 kg N/ha (as a basal dose application)
4.0 20.6 22.9 2.0 336.6 2211.0 33.3
40 kg N/ha (as a basal dose application)
4.0 20.8 25.0 2.1 346.0 2376.0 32.6
40 kg N/ha (as a basal dose and ½ as top dressing at 30DAS)
4.0 21.1 25.2 2.2 352.1 2361.0 32.4
60 kg N/ha (1/3 as a basal dose AND 2/3 as top dressing in two equal splits at 30 and 60 DAS)
4.1 21.1 23.4 2.2 354.7 2306.0 32.5
SEm± 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 2.2 79.9 1.1
CD (P=0.05) NS 0.4 2.3 0.1 6.2 229.0 NS
Meena et al., (2011)
Bikaner 27
Table 11: Yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut varieties as influenced by sowing dates Table 11: Yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut varieties as influenced by sowing dates
Treatments No. of pods/plant
Test weight (g)
Shelling (%)
Pod yield (q/ha)
Oil content
(%)
Sowing dates
21 April 20.9 64.0 66.6 25.6 51.7
18 may 21.4 62.8 62.9 25.7 51.6
8 June 17.3 56.9 70.3 16.8 51.4
28 June 18.0 51.6 66.2 15.0 48.7
CD (P=0.05) NS 5.3 NS 3.3 0.76
Varieties
SG 99 15.8 60.8 67.5 24.4 51.1
SG 84 20.0 49.2 69.4 19.9 51.2
M 522 22.4 66.5 62.6 18.0 50.2
CD (P=0.05) 4.9 3.6 4.6 2.1 NS
Virender saradana and kandahola, 2009PAU, Ludhiana
28
Table 12 : Yield and yield attributes of groundnut varities as affected by different dates of sowing during Kharif, 2005
Table 12 : Yield and yield attributes of groundnut varities as affected by different dates of sowing during Kharif, 2005
Date of
sowing
Yield kg/ha Total pods/
plant
No. of filled
pod/plant
100 pod
weight (g)
100 kernel
weight (g)
30-06-05 625 12.1 8.4 74.1 30.7
15-07-05 571 10.8 7.5 70.2 27.7
28-07-05 374 6.6 5.6 64.2 26.5
CD 5% 174.3 1.1 0.7 6.8 2.6
Varities
TPT- 4 511 8.2 6.2 74.0 29.3
K-134 536 11.0 8.4 65.1 27.7
CD 5% NS 1.63 0.68 NS NS
Interaction NS NS NS NS
RARS, Tirupati Chandrika et al., 2008
NS- non significant
29
Table 13 : Pod yield and net realization as influenced by row spacing and plant population in summer groundnut (pooled data of 2 years)
Table 13 : Pod yield and net realization as influenced by row spacing and plant population in summer groundnut (pooled data of 2 years)
Treatments Yield kg/ha Net return
(Rs/ha)Pod Haulm
Row spacing (cm)22.5 2077 4008 1776930.0 1917 3611 1569237.5 1863 3579 1515845.0 1891 3436 15579CD. at 5% 162.3 225.8C.V. % 9.6 6.25Plant population (lakhs/ha) 3.0 1855 3608 153083.5 1982 3639 165654.0 1974 3626 16098CD. at 5% NS NSC.V. % 8.9 6.1Interaction NS NSJunagadh Chaniyara et al., 2001
NS- non significant
30
Effect of tillage and balanced nutrition to bridge yield gap in
groundnut
31
Table 14 : Effect of tillage and nutrient treatments on yield and economics of groundnut
Table 14 : Effect of tillage and nutrient treatments on yield and economics of groundnut
Treatments Pod Yield (kg/ha)
Haulm Yield(kg/ha)
Net returns
Tillage practices
T1 – Traditional method 1426 2133 17425
T2 – Shallow tillage 1480 1989 17591
T3 – Deep tillage 1456 2000 14852
S.Em.± 32 35 -C.D. 5% NS 100 -Fertilizer (F)
F0 1371 2000 16757
F1 1457 2073 17677
F2 1522 2028 18767
F3 1466 2063 17382
S.Em.± 31 33 -C.D. 5% 96 NS -Interaction (T X F)S.Em.± 0.05 0.006C.D. 5% NS NS
Junagadh Sutaria et al., 2010F0 – control, F1 - Recommended dose (12.5:25 NP kg/ha), F2 -50 % N through urea + 50 % N through FYM
(cattle dung), F3 - 50 % N through urea + 50 % N through compost (farm residue)
NS- non significant32
Table 15 : Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield attributes, yield and economics of groundnut (pooled data)
Table 15 : Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield attributes, yield and economics of groundnut (pooled data)
Treatment Pods/plant
100 pod weight (g)
100 kernel weight (g)
Pod yield (t/ha)
Haulm yield (t/ha)
Benefit cost ratio
N20 P 17.4 K 33.3 (RDF) 9.8 81.2 40.2 1.61 3.64 0.53
RDF + Rhizobium 10.4 81.4 40.3 1.6 3.76 0.59RDF + gypsum (250kg/ha) 12.9 98.3 48.7 1.89 3.99 0.75RDF + lime (1/4 LR ) 14.7 103.8 51.1 2.04 4.14 0.83RDF + boron (1 kg/ha) 10.6 85.9 42.1 1.75 3.87 0.56RDF + Rhizobium + gypsum + B 14.0 99.9 44.5 2.01 4.05 0.75RDF + Rhizobium + lime +B 15.7 104.8 51.8 2.14 4.21 0.80
FYM 5 + 75% RDF 15.1 104.1 51.6 2.06 4.11 0.75
FYM 5 + 75% RDF + Rhizobium 15.9 105.7 51.9 2.16 4.22 0.85
FYM 5 + 75% RDF + gypsum 20.4 109.9 54.0 2.45 4.66 1.08
FYM 5 + 75% RDF + lime 17.4 107.3 53.6 2.26 4.35 0.88
FYM 5 + 75% RDF + B 16.1 106.6 52.6 2.17 4.22 0.77
FYM 5 + 75% RDF + Rhizobium +
gypsum + B
23.4 120.4 58.2 2.66 4.83 1.13
FYM 5 + 75% RDF + Rhizobium +
lime + B
19.9 108.9 53.9 2.33 4.56 0.87
S.Em ± 0.4 1.1 1.4 0.05 0.09 -CD (P=0.05) 1.2 3.5 3.9 0.13 0.25 -Orissa Mohapatra and Dixit , 2010
RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizer, LR: land requirement, B: Boron @ 1kg/ha, RDF: 20-17.4-33.3 kg N-P-K/ha, Gypsum (250kg/ha), 33
Table16 : Influence of nutrient management practices on yield attributes , pod yield, haulm yield of groundnut
Table16 : Influence of nutrient management practices on yield attributes , pod yield, haulm yield of groundnut
Treatments Pods/plant
Kernels/plant
Test weight
(g)
Pod yield (t/ha)
Haulm yield (t/ha)
B:C ratio
75% RDF 17.5 1.8 265 1.745 4.47 0.76RDF 24.3 1.9 296 2.03 4.61 1.02125% RDF 21.2 1.8 272 1.9 4.74 0.8575% RDF + FYM 19.5 1.8 253 1.85 4.70 0.5975% RDF + FYM 22.2 1.8 263 1.94 4.79 0.65125% RDF + FYM 24.7 1.8 284 2.07 4.91 0.7475% RDF + NDCP 19.5 1.9 266 1.84 4.62 0.52RDF + NDCP 22.0 1.8 273 1.83 4.72 0.51125% RDF + NDCP 23.7 1.8 284 1.95 4.85 0.5975% RDF + EC 23.5 1.8 276 1.94 4.72 0.33RDF + EC 24.7 1.8 297 11.305 4.87 0.40125% RDF + EC 27.8 1.8 307 2.255 5.01 0.55Control 15.8 1.9 250 0.955 3.97 0.02
S.Em ± 0.4 0.03 15 0.055 0.04 -CD (P=0.05) 1.5 NS NS 0.155 0.14 - TNAU Karunakaran et al., 2010
RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizer (17-34-54 kg N-P-K/ha ), FYM: Farm yard manure (12.5 t/ha), NDCP: Naturally decomposed coir pith (12.5 t/ha), EC: Enriched compost (5t/ha). NS: Non significant
34
Table 17:Yield attributes, pod yield and BCR as influenced by different land configurations
and nutrient management treatments during Kharif 2000
Table 17:Yield attributes, pod yield and BCR as influenced by different land configurations
and nutrient management treatments during Kharif 2000
Treatments No. of matured
Pods/plant
100- kernel
weight (g)
Shelling (%)
Pod yield (kg/ha)
BCR
Land configurations Flat bed 21.8 55.0 66.9 3067 3.08Broad bed and forrow 12.2 53.2 66.7 2397 2.34CD (P=0.05) 2.32 NS NS 173.0
Nutrient management RDF N and P 13.4 51.5 64.6 2505 2.61RDF NPK 15.9 53.5 66.6 2633 2.67RDF NPK + Gypsum @500 kg/ha 18.2 54.9 67.4 2847 2.79RDF NPK + Gypsum @500 kg/ha +
ZnSO4 @ 25 kg/ha
20.2 56.4 68.7 2928 2.78
CD (P=0.05) 3.28 2.86 3.26 244.6 0.10
RRS, TNAU Subramanlyan and Kalaiselvan, 2006
35
Table18 : Effect of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers on growth and yield of groundnut
Table18 : Effect of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers on growth and yield of groundnut
Treatments Plant height (cm)
No. of branches /plant
No of root nodules/plant
No. of pods/plant
Test weight (g)
Pod yield (kg/ha)
Haulm yield (kg/ha)
Chemical fertilizers (F)
F1: 25% RDF 38 6 82.1 17 37.6 1935 3796
F2: 50% RDF 38 6 84.1 20 38.3 2014 3971
F3: 75% RDF 41 7 89.7 20 41.4 2130 4227
F4: 100% RDF 42 6 92.8 22 43.2 2199 4383SEm± 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.7 46 58CD (P=0.05) 2.0 0.7 4.1 1.3 2.0 134 168Organic manures (M)
M1 : Castor cake @ 1 t/ha 38 6 85.4 19.3 39.4 2021 4029
M2 : Castor cake @ 2 t/ha 41 7 88.9 20.2 40.9 2118 4158SEm± 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.5 33 41CD (P=0.05) 1.4 0.5 2.9 0.9 1.4 95 119Biofertilizers (C)
C1: Control 38.9 6 84.6 18.9 36.6 2003 4007
C2: Biofertilizers 40.5 7 89.6 20.5 43.6 2136 4180SEm± 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.5 33 41CD (P=0.05) 1.4 0.5 2.9 0.9 1.4 95 119
Chudhari et al., 2009Gujarat 36
Effect of moisture stress and nutrient management practices to bridge yield gap in groundnut
37
Table 19 : Effect of moisture stress, organic manure and fertilizer with and without gypsum on yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnutTable 19 : Effect of moisture stress, organic manure and fertilizer with and without gypsum on yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut
Treatments Pods/plant Kernels/pod
Shelling (%)
100-kernel weight (g)
Pod yield (q/ha)
Haulm yield (q/ha)
B:C ratio
Moisture stress
M1-No moisture stress 18.97 1.72 66.12 38.09 23.53 45.95 1.71
M2- Moisture stress at
vegetative stage
18.27 1.70 65.62 37.27 22.38 44.56 1.80
M3- Moisture stress at flowering
stage
15.11 1.59 61.16 34.17 16.76 42.93 1.21
CD (P=0.05) 0.94 0.03 1.66 1.28 1.28 1.43Organic manures
O1 – No FYM 16.48 1.63 62.77 35.57 19.27 43.31 1.55
O2 –7.5 t FYM/ha 18.42 1.71 65.83 37.45 22.51 45.65 1.63
CD (P=0.05) 0.68 0.01 1.30 0.97 0.83 1.16Fertilizers
F1-100% RDF 16.29 1.63 62.49 35.26 18.96 42.98 1.42
F2-125% RDF 16.91 1.65 63.35 36.01 19.92 43.11 1.43
F3-100% RDF + 500 kg
gypsum /ha
18.09 1.69 65.48 37.21 22.22 45.91 1.73
F1-125% RDF + 500 kg gypsum
/ha
18.51 1.71 65.88 37.56 22.46 45.92 1.70
CD (P=0.05) 0.88 0.02 1.42 1.14 1.06 1.29Dutta and Mondal, 2006 West Bengal
RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer; 100% RDF, N30P60K40 (kg/ha)38
Effect of water management and micro nutrient management practices to bridge
yield gap in groundnut
39
Table 20 : Growth, yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut as affected by irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur
Table 20 : Growth, yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut as affected by irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur
Treatments Plant height (cm)
No. of branches /plant
Filled pods/plant
Filled pod weight /plant (g)
Test weight (g)
Pod yield (kg/ha)
Haulm yield (kg/ha)
Irrigation schedules 40 mm CPE 47 6 30 23 38 3784 604050 mm CPE 45 6 28 20 36 3475 554660 mm CPE 44 5 27 18 35 3156 5187SEm± 0.3 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 76.3 94.5CD (P=0.05) 1.0 0.16 0.6 0.5 0.5 234.3 290.0Levels (kg/ha)Control 43 5 24 16 33 3085 516120 45 6 28 20 36 3414 550240 47 6 31 23 38 3699 585760 47 6 30 23 38 3688 5843SEm± 0.6 0.04 1.0 0.3 0.1 25.8 33.8CD (P=0.05) NS NS 4.3 1.5 0.5 89.1 117.1
Gujarat Patel et al., 2008
40
Table 21 : Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur on weight of filled pods/plant and pod yield of groundnut
Table 21 : Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur on weight of filled pods/plant and pod yield of groundnut
Irrigation Levels of sulphur (kg/ha)
0 20 40 60
weight of filled pods/plant (g)40 mm CPE 18.2 23.3 25.4 25.250 mm CPE 16.1 20.3 22.4 22.460 mm CPE 14.9 17.3 20.1 20.4SEm± 0.3CD (P=0.05) 0.9
pod yield (kg/ha)40 mm CPE 3339 3697 4073 402650 mm CPE 3082 3386 3717 371660 mm CPE 2834 3159 3308 3323SEm± 44.6CD (P=0.05) 124.9
Gujarat Patel et al., 2008
41
Table 22 : Effect of total water application (ha. mm/ha) on pod and fodder yield obtained under micro sprinkler irrigation (pooled data)Table 22 : Effect of total water application (ha. mm/ha) on pod and fodder yield obtained under micro sprinkler irrigation (pooled data)
IW/CPE Total water applied (mm)
Pod yield (kg/ha)
Fodder yield (kg/ha)
0.6 523 1471 2984
0.7 617 1859 3588
0.8 700 2384 4463
0.9 789 2550 4959
1.0 868 2446 5222
1.2 1047 2205 5319
SEM - 83.10 105.7
CD - 261.8 333.2
Cv - 10.22 7.35
Junagadh Rank, 2007
42
Table 23 : Influence of irrigation schedules and sand application on various parameters on rabi groundnut
Table 23 : Influence of irrigation schedules and sand application on various parameters on rabi groundnut
Irrigation schedule Pod yield /plant (g) Pod yield (kg/ha) Haulm yield (kg/ha) Harvest index
I1 6.33 1818 2851 0.39
I2 5.17 1478 2888 0.33
I3 5.42 1674 3221 0.33
S.EM± 0.13 45 43 0.007
CD (0.05) 0.42 147 139 0.02
Sand application
S1 4.97 1391 2741 0.33
S2 5.50 1675 3042 0.35
S3 6.55 1853 3210 0.36
S4 5.12 1446 2849 0.34
S5 5.53 1694 3003 0.36
S6 6.31 1963 3395 0.36
S7 5.48 1513 2658 0.36
S.EM± 0.13 40 63 0.007
CD (0.05) 0.36 111 175 NS
I1 : Five irrigations at pre-flowering, flowering, pegging, pod formation and pod filling stage, I2 : Three irrigations at flowering, pod formation and pod filling stage, I3 : Control. S1 : Sand incorporation @ 15 t/ha, S2 : Sand incorporation @30 t/ha, S3 : Sand incorporation @45 t/ha, S4 : Sand mulching @ 15t/ha, S5 : Sand mulching @ 30 t/ha, S6 : Sand mulching @ 45t/ha, S7 : No sand application . NS: Non significant
Dharwad Hosamani and Janwade, 2007
43
Table 24 : Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and sand application on various parameters on rabi groundnut
Table 24 : Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and sand application on various parameters on rabi groundnut
Interaction Pod yield /plant (g) Pod yield (kg/ha) Haulm yield (kg/ha) Harvest index
I1 S1 5.44 1462 2601 0.36
I1 S2 6.11 1864 2736 0.41
I1 S3 7.25 2140 2942 0.42
I1 S4 5.10 1530 2771 0.35
I1 S5 6.53 1835 2924 0.39
I1 S6 7.73 2230 3258 0.40
I1 S7 6.14 1665 2724 0.38
I2 S1 4.30 1356 2601 0.34
I2 S2 4.70 1517 3281 0.31
I2 S3 5.84 1626 3244 0.33
I2 S4 5.05 1334 2689 0.33
I2 S5 5.34 1491 2751 0.35
I2 S6 5.76 1690 3233 0.34
I2 S7 5.18 1334 2416 0.35
I3 S1 5.19 1354 3046 0.31
I3 S2 5.70 1643 3108 0.34
I3 S3 6.57 1793 3444 0.33
I3 S4 5.22 1473 3085 0.32
I3 S5 4.71 1756 334 0.34
I3 S6 5.43 1968 3694 0.34
I3 S7 5.13 1541 3834 0.34
S.Em ± 0.22 70 108 0.013CD (0.05) 0.67 216 333 0.04I1 : Five irrigations at pre-flowering, flowering, pegging, pod formation and pod filling stage, I2 : Three irrigations at flowering,
pod formation and pod filling stage, I3 : Control. S1 : Sand incorporation @ 15 t/ha, S2 : Sand incorporation @30 t/ha, S3 : Sand incorporation @45 t/ha, S4 : Sand mulching @ 15t/ha, S5 : Sand mulching @ 30 t/ha, S6 : Sand mulching @ 45t/ha, S7 : No sand application . NS: Non significant
Dharwad Hosamani and Janwade, 2007
44
Effect Weed control treatments to bridge yield gap
in groundnut
45
Table 25: Effect of pre and post-emergence herbicides on weed control efficiency, yield and net return of groundnut
Table 25: Effect of pre and post-emergence herbicides on weed control efficiency, yield and net return of groundnut
Treatments WCE (%)
POD YIELD (kg/ha)
Net returns (Rs./ha)
No weeding - 846 6717IC with star weeder at 20 DAS 47 1269 14267IC with star weeder at 20 DAS fb HW at 40DAS 76 1644 20819
HW at 20 and 40 II 87 2128 29814 PPI of Fluchloralin @ 1.5 kg/ha 60 1420 16500PE application of Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha 64 1420 16500POE application of imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS 48 1274 14684
Fluchloralin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PPI fb imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS I
85 2152 30578
Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE fb fb imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS
87 2162 29808
Fluchloralin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PPI fb HW at 40DAS 81 1840 23992
Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE fb HW at 40DAS 84 1850 23156Imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS fb HW at 40DAS 84 1885 25926S.Em ± 79.32 1096 3215CD (P=0.05) - 232 -
Tirupati Sasikala et al., 2004
PPI-pre –plant incorporation, PE-pre – emergence, POE: Post emergence f b- followed by.
46
Table 26: Effect of plant densities and weed management practices on weed population, weed biomass, pod yield and kernel yield of irrigated groundnut.
Table 26: Effect of plant densities and weed management practices on weed population, weed biomass, pod yield and kernel yield of irrigated groundnut.
Treatments Weed population
at 60 DAS (No.m2)
Weed biomass
(kg/ha)
Pod yield (t/ha) Kernel yield (t/ha)
1998 1999 1998 1999 1998 1999 1998 1999Plant density (lakhs/ha)
3.3 76 79 398.6 387.6 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5
4.0 74 77 337.0 333.3 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.2
5.5 72 75 273.0 279.1 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.9
LSD (P=0.05) 01 01 37.7 38.1 0.1 0.06 0.11 0.1
Weed management practices
Un weeded control 88 92 470.3 464.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.9
Hand weeding at 20 & 40 DAS 75 79 328.2 323.6 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.2
Pre-emergence Oxadiazon at 1.0 kg/ha
84 88 402.5 397.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0
Pre-emergence Oxadiazon at 0.75
kg/ha + one hand weeding at 40 DAS
87 70 276.9 264.3 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.4
Pre-emergence metalachlor at 1.0
kg/ha
80 84 353.6 353.4 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1
Pre-emergence metalachlor at.75
kg/ha + one hand weeding at 40 DAS
68 71 279.8 274.7 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.3
Pre plant incorporation of Fluchloralin
at 1.5 kg/ha
81 85 356.4 359.4 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.1
Pre plant incorporation of Fluchloralin
at 1.5 kg/ha + one hand weeding at 40
DAS
46 48 221.7 231.2 2.5 2.3 1.7 1.5
LSD (P=0.05) 01 02 37.7 22.3 0.1 0.08 0.05 0.07
Madurai Senthilkumar et al., 2004
47
Herbicide Dose
(l a.i./ha)
Weed density (No./m2) Weed dry
matter (g./m2)
Pod yield
(kg/ha)
B:C ratio
30 DAS 60DAS
Oxyflurofen (PE) 0.25 13.00 (3.8) 23.30 (4.9) 95.70 1722 1.58
Oxyflurofen (PE) 0.50 16.70 (4.2) 23.30 (4.9) 57.70 2119 1.88
Trifluralin (PPI) 1.00 21.50 (4.8) 21.30 (4.7) 67.70 2167 1.95
Trifluralin (PPI) + HW (30DAS) 1.00 20.20 (4.6) 18.00 (4.3) 67.00 2021 1.68
Pendimethalin (PE) 0.75 23.00 (4.8) 10.70 (3.4) 62.70 2119 1.88
Pendimethalin (PE) + HW (30DAS) 0.75 24.30 (5.0) 13.30 (3.8) 58.30 2206 1.82
Metalachlor (PE) 1.00 22.30 (4.8) 16.70 (4.2) 55.30 1778 1.60
Metalachlor (PE) 1.50 26.50 (5.2) 20.70 (4.6) 49.70 2627 2.311
Metalachlor (PE) + HW (30DAS) 1.00 22.70 (4.8) 22.70 (4.8) 58.30 1436 1.20
Fluchloralin (PPI) 0.675 15.00 (4.0) 11.30 (3.5) 62.30 1795 1.63
Fluchloralin (PPI) 0.75 25.50 (5.10) 12.30 (3.6) 52.30 2198 1.98
Alachlor (PE) 2.50 19.00 (4.5) 13.30 (3.8) 74.00 1412 1.22
Pendimethalin (PE) + Alachlor (PE) 0.5 + 1.25 12.70 (3.6) 20.70 (4.6) 93.00 1374 1.20
Hand weedings 21 and 42
DAS
6.30 (2.8) 20.70 (4.6) 51.30 1980 1.53
Un weeded control - 33.30 (5.69) 28.70 (5.4) 182.70 1214 1.15
CD (P= 0.05) 7.30 (0.8) 6.00 (0.7) 20.90 483 0.42
Table 27 : 1Influence of weed control treatments on weed density, weed dry matter, pod yield and economics of groundnut
Table 27 : 1Influence of weed control treatments on weed density, weed dry matter, pod yield and economics of groundnut
Virender Sardana and Parvender Sheoran, (2009)PPI= pre-plant incorporation; PE=pre-emergence; figures in paranthesis are the root x+1transformed values. DAS – Days after sowing 48
Table 28: Effect of different weed control treatments on weed control efficiency, yield attributing characters, pod yield and haulm yield in groundnut.
Table 28: Effect of different weed control treatments on weed control efficiency, yield attributing characters, pod yield and haulm yield in groundnut.
Treatments Dose
(kg/ha)
WCE (%) Pods/
plant
Kernels/
pod
100- kernel
weight (g)
Pod yield
(kg/ha)
Haulm yield
(kg/ha)
Flucholarin, ppi 0.675 35.7 15.0 1.40 56.3 1950 7250
Alachlor, Pre-em. 2.5 53.9 15.3 1.46 56.8 2016 7210
Two hand weedings, 20 and 40 DAS - 56.3 15.6 1.47 58.6 2187 7430
Flucholarin, ppi, fb HW 40das 0.675 54.9 17.4 1.48 57.8 2296 7340
Trifluralin, ppi, fb HW 40das 0.75 62.0 20.5 1.43 58.5 2319 7530
Trifluralin, ppi 1.0 48.3 16.0 1.44 57.8 2267 7460
Trifluralin, ppi 1.25 54.8 18.0 1.48 58.0 2307 7420
Pendimethalin, pre-em. fb HW
40DAS
0.75 59.6 17.3 1.42 57.2 2298 7450
Pendimethalin, pre-em. 1.0 50.1 16.2 1.44 56.9 1856 6930
Oxyflurofen, pre-em. fb HW 40DAS 0.25 57.4 20.6 147 59.1 2412 7980
Oxyflurofen, pre-em. 0.375 39.3 16.0 1.45 57.1 2029 7450
Oxyflurofen, pre-em. 0.50 49.8 17.1 1.46 58.2 2303 7520
Alachlor, Pre-em. fb HW 40DAS 1.25 61.8 20.6 1.41 58.7 2349 7620
Unweeded control - - 13.0 NS 53.9 1526 6380
LSD (P=0.05) - 1.9 2.2 293 542Ludhiana Harpeet Singh and Surjit Singh, 2009
PPI-pre –plant incorporation, pre-em-pre – emergence, fb- folloed by, NS- non significant.
49
Effect cropping system to bridge yield gap in groundnut
50
Table 29: Groundnut-equivalent yield and economics of groundnut + pigeonpea and groundnut + maize intercropping system (pooled data of 2
years)
Table 29: Groundnut-equivalent yield and economics of groundnut + pigeonpea and groundnut + maize intercropping system (pooled data of 2
years)
Treatments
Groundnut-equivalent yield (q/ha) Net returns
(kg/ha)B:C ratio
Sole cropping Groundnut 12.87 15200 1.44
Pigeonpea 9.47 10824 1.33Maize 7.95 8612 1.18Intercropping Groundnut : Pigeonpea 3:1 12.56 14762 1.42
4:1 13.62 16557 1.545:1 13.10 15183 1.383:2 12.51 14980 1.494:2 13.32 16186 1.55
5:2 14.42 17986 1.66Groundnut : Maize3:1 12.65 15335 1.544:1 13.34 16289 1.575:1 13.28 15896 1.493:2 12.01 14400 1.50
4:2 13.56 17075 1.705:2 13.52 16572 1.58CD (P=0.05) 1.05 -- --
West Bengal Dutta and Bandyopadhyay, 2006
Note: Prevailing market prices of groundnut, pigeonpea and maize @ Rs. 20.00, 18.00 and 6.50/kg respectively 51
Table 30 : Mean grain and pod yield, LER, Crop equivalent yield and B:C ratio as influenced by different intercropping ratios.
Table 30 : Mean grain and pod yield, LER, Crop equivalent yield and B:C ratio as influenced by different intercropping ratios.
Treatments
Crop equivalent yieldGrain yield (q/ha)
Pod yield (q/ha)
LER Sesame equivalent yield
Groundnut pod equivalent yield
B:C ratio
Intercropping ratio
T1 : sole sesame 4.77 -- 1.00 4.77 15.91 1.19
T2 : Sole groundnut -- 21.60 1.00 6.48 21.60 1.50
T3 :S + G (1:1) 3.89 12.55 1.45 7.66 38.07 1.70
T4 : S + G (2:1) 4.34 8.09 1.32 6.77 30.65 1.55
T5 : S + G (3:1) 5.34 5.42 1.43 6.97 28.65 1.60
T6 : S + G (1:2) 3.52 15.02 1.46 8.03 41.77 1.75
T7 : S + G (1:3) 2.47 15.78 1.29 7.20 39.79 1.63
S.Em ± 0.25 0.451 0.17 0.89 3.94 0.14CD (P=0.05) 0.79 1.42 0.52 2.75 12.13 0.43Dapoli Mahale et al.,2008
Price for sesame Rs.50/kg, Price for groundnut dry pod Rs.15/kg
52
Table 31 : pod yield, haulm yield, castor seed and groundnut pod equivalent yields as influenced by row ratio in groundnut + castor intercropping system (pooled data)
Table 31 : pod yield, haulm yield, castor seed and groundnut pod equivalent yields as influenced by row ratio in groundnut + castor intercropping system (pooled data)
Treatments Pod yield (kg/ha)
Haulm yield (kg/ha)
Castor seed yield (kg/ha)
Groundnut pod equivalent yield (kg/ha)
Row ratio
R1 – 2:1 1472 1892 1219 2840R2 – 3:1 1612 2021 1105 2854S.Em ± 29.3 29.1 34.4 56.5CD (P=0.05) 83.6 83.1 NS NS
Junagadh Solanki et al., 2006
NS – Non significant
53
Effect of mechanization to bridge yield gap in groundnut
54
Table 32 : cost of cultivation for groundnut, activity wise (Rs /ha) in a rainfed location of Anantapur district, A.P.
Table 32 : cost of cultivation for groundnut, activity wise (Rs /ha) in a rainfed location of Anantapur district, A.P.
Field operation Mechanization Farmers practices Field preparation 350.00 500.00Sowing 350.00 500.00 Weeding and Intercultivation 450.00 1000.00Spraying 125.00 125.00Harvesting 500.00 625.00Stripping/ Threshing 350.00 700.00Seed cost @ Rs.25 /kg 2250.00 3125.00Fertilizer and pesticide cost (Rs.) 1000.00 1000.00Total cost per ha 5375.00 7575.00
Anantapur John wisely et al.,2004
55
Table 33: Pests and disease management in groundnut Table 33: Pests and disease management in groundnut
Pests Management
Red hairy caterpillar Set up light traps and bonfire immediately after receipt of rains to attract and kill the moth.Deep ploughing in summer.Dig a deep, straight end trench and dust Carbonyl or Methyl parathion.Poison baits (5 kg rice bran + 1.0 kg jaggery + 500 ml Chloropyriphos) in the form of pellets around the field during evening hours
Aphids, Thrips Spray Monocrotophos (2 ml l-1 of water)
Leaf miner Quinalphos (2 ml l-1 of water)
Bud necrosis Early planting of kharif crop in June.Intercropping with millets Timely chemical control of thrips
Tikka Spray Mancozeb (2.0 g l-1) + Caebendazim (1.0 g l-1)
Source : Agronomy of Field Crops by S.R. Reddy
56
Use of medium sized seed material for sowing is highly profitable.
Sowing of groundnut in 1st fort night of June increases the pod yield.
FYM in combination with chemical fertilizers and micronutrients (like gypsum, lime, boron etc.) enhances the pod yield.
Pre plant incorporation of Fluchloralin fb Imazethapyr was found most economical.
Irrigating the crop at critical stages is economical.
Application of sand to deep black soil increases the pod yield.
57
Need to develop varities suitable for drought, pests, disease resistance.
INM, IWM, IPM modules to be prepared.
Need to develop suitable groundnut genotypes with fresh seed dormancy.
Improved agronomic practices.
58
59
Table : Interaction effect of row spacing and plant population in summer groundnut
Table : Interaction effect of row spacing and plant population in summer groundnut
Row spacing (cm) Plant population (lakhs/ha)
3.0 3.5 4.0
22.5 2283 2250 2467
30.0 1905 1983 1955
37.5 2117 2250 2028
45.0 2150 1955 2117
C.D. at 5% -- 125.8 --
Junagadh Chaniyara et al., 2001
60
top related