HARVEST BUMPER YIELD OF MUSTARD THROUGH- SYSTEM OF MUSTARD INTENSIFICATION (SMI)

H.S. RAI¹, V.P. SRIVASTAVA², S.K. SINGH³, S.K. KHARE⁴*
¹College of Agriculture, Tikamgarh, 472001, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
²College of Agriculture, Tikamgarh, 472001, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
³ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Tikamgarh, 472001, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
⁴ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chhatarpur, 471201, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : getsandipkumar@rediffmail.com

Received : 04-08-2022     Accepted : 27-08-2022     Published : 30-08-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 8       Pages : 11582 - 11585
Int J Agr Sci 14.8 (2022):11582-11585

Keywords : Mustard, SMI, Nipping, Sarson
Academic Editor : Dr L. Nirmala, Jagruti Das, Dr Prashant Shrivastava
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to College of Agriculture, Tikamgarh, 472001; ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Tikamgarh, 472001; ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chhatarpur, 471201, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Total number of 36 SMI demonstrations were conducted with adjacent plot of local practices by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Mandla (Zone-III, Northern hill of Chhattisgarh) in 14 villages in an area of 15 hectors. Farmers were selected through their knowledge basis. Cultivation of improve variety of mustard RP-09 was grown with transplanting method. This technology requires small quantity of seed as compare to normal sowing (i.e., 250 g seed/ha). After 15 to35 days of transplanting nipping was done thrice at an interval of seven days. The crop was harvested after 110 -120 DAT at maturity stage. Out of nine parameters, full gap was found in six parameters i.e., use of traditional varieties & degenerated seeds, higher seed rate, no seed treatment, no use of plant protection measures and without inoculation. Whereas, partial gap was observed in two parameters i.e., Manures, Fertilizers, method of sowing and spacing. However, no gap was found in land preparation. Average plant height 176 cm. in SMI while in traditional method it was 127cm.Mean number of branches/plans clearly indicate the effectiveness of branches i.e., 11 in SMI however 04 branches in farmers practice. Mean of thee years760siliqua/plant in SMI as against 64 in farmer’s practice. Yield/ plant were found 485g. in SMI while only 86g. in farmers practice. SMI showed better response in all yield attributing characters and yield. Yield of 36 SMI demonstrations gave 33.05q/ha yield as against 9.08 q/ha in traditional practice. The percent increase in yield over farmers practice was 265.50 % over farmers practice (FP). Average extension gap was 23.98 q/ha., technological gap + 12.99 q/ha indicate that technology provide more yield than potential yield. Mean of three yearsyield index indicate i.e., 63.93% higher over farmer’s practice. Average cost of cultivation of SMI and traditional practice indicates that cost of cultivation Rs.26,166/-ha-1 in SMI and 13,667/- ha-1 in traditional practice. The average gross return Rs.168572 under SMI as against Rs.46291/- ha-1 in farmer’s practice which was just 25% of SMI. Average net return Rs.142405/-ha-1 was found in SMI demonstrated plots as against Rs. 32624/-ha-1 in farmer’s practice. The pooled mean of three years B:C ratio revealed that it was 6.45 in SMI and 3.39 in farmers practices

1. Agricultural statistics at a glance (2015) Government of India Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, Directorate of economics and Statistics, NewDelhi.
2. Agricultural statistics at a glance (2018) Government of India Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, Directorate of economics and Statistics, NewDelhi.
3. Samui S.K., Mitra S., Roy D.K., Mandal A.K. and Saha D. (2000) Journal of the Indian Society of Costal Agriculture Research, 18(2), 180-183.
4. Khatoon R., Kurmvanshi S.M. and Namdeo K.N. (2018) Annals of Plant and Soil Research, 20(3), 307-309.
5. Mahajan G., Mishra C.M., Dubey D.P. and Engla R. (2014) Environment and Ecology, 32(3A), 1137-1140.