Legume Research, 40(5)2017 : 940-948 Print ISSN:0250-5371 / Online ISSN:0976-0571 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE www.arccjournals.com/www.legumeresearch.in Knowledge and adoption of herbicide application practices by the soybean farmers in Vidarbha N.M. Kale*, D.M.Mankar, P.P. Wankhade and J.P. Deshmukh Department of Extension Education, Post Graduate Institute, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola- 444 104 Maharashtra, India. Received: 25-03-2015 Accepted: 25-01-2017 DOI:10.18805/lr.v40i04.9000 ABSTRACT A systematic survey of 240 soybean growers on adoption of herbicide application practices was conducted in Akola, Buldana, Washim, Amravati, Yavatmal and Wardha districts of Vidarbha during 2013-14 as University Research Review Committee Project. The study revealed that out of 240 selected farmers 221 (92.08%) farmers applied herbicide in soybean crop. Knowledge about the recommended per ha doses of herbicides was not known to 57.08 % farmers. Power spray is never used for spraying of herbicides was not known to 29.17 % farmers in study area. Knowledge about calibration of spray pump was not noted in majority (97.08%) farmers. Use of 500 L water per ha for herbicide application in Soybean crop is not known to more than three fourth (77.50%) per cent farmers. Overall majority 61.25 % farmers have medium level of knowledge about selected 14 herbicide application practices for soybean crop. In selected districts Imazethapyr were more popular among majority (78.28 %) herbicide adopters in soybean crop, followed by 15.85 % farmers used Imazethapyr + Imazamox. Knapsack sprayer used by 61.54% farmers and power sprayer used by 38.46 % farmers for application of herbicides in soybean. Out of the total 85 (38.46%) power sprayer users majority 73 (85.88 %) farmers have not get effective control over weeds in soybean crop. Majority 88.69 % adopter farmers used less than recommended 500 liters of water/ha for herbicide application in soybean. Use of power sprayer and low quantity of water maintained at the time of herbicide application may be the causes of poor results at farmer s level. Key words: Herbicide adoption pattern, Efficacy, Imazethapyr, Knowledge, Time. INTRODUCTION Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] is a crop of multiple qualities as it is both a pulse and oilseed crop. It is third largest oilseed crop of India after rapeseed-mustard and groundnut. Inspite of its high yield potential (4.5 tonnes/ ha) its productivity is much less in India (0.95 ton/ha) than the world average of 2.3 tonnes/ha (FAI, 2006). As per the SOPA (2013) the major Soybean producing States in India are Madhya Pradesh (62.60 lakh ha), Maharashtra (38.70 lakh ha) and Rajasthan (10.58 lakh ha). Vidarbha region of Maharashtra is situated in north-eastern part of the state. It has 13 thousand villages spread over 95 thousand square km area with population of 21 million. Agriculture has been the main source of livelihood in Vidarbha with soybean and cotton as the major crops. Soybean is very sensitive to early weed infestation. The critical crop weed competition period in soybean was observed at 27 to 40 days after sowing (Chhonkar and Balyan, 1999). The uncontrolled weeds at critical period of crop weed competition will reduce the yield of soybean by 58 to 85 per cent depending upon type and intensity of weed infestation (Singh and Singh, 1987 and Kewat and Pandey, 2000). The effective and economical weed control may not be possible through mechanical means due to heavy and continuous rains in kharif. Hence, use of *Corresponding author s e-mail: nmkale1964@gmail.com herbicides offers an alternate method to manage weeds in such situation. The sowing time for soybean in rainy seasons is very short and farmers give first preference to sow the crop rather than to use soil applied herbicides for weed control. Recently non availability of labourers coupled with more cost is a very severe problem with the majority of the farmers (Kale, et.al, 2011 and Kale, et.al 2013). Under such situation post-emergence herbicides remain the only viable option for an effective and economical method of weed control (Kumar et al., 2003, Jha et al., 2014, Dhaker, et al. 2015 and Nandini Devi et al., 2016). Recently maximum number of farmers are using herbicides in soybean crop in Vidarbha. Sometimes, there are complaints from farmers about not getting the effective weed control by using the herbicides. So, it becomes researchable issue to assess the knowledge and adoption pattern of herbicide application practices by the soybean farmers in Vidarbha. Hence this systematic survey of soybean growers on knowledge and adoption of herbicide application practices was conducted in six district of Vidarbha with the objectives to study the profile of soybean farmers and to assess their knowledge and adoption of herbicide application practices.
Volume 40 Issue 5 (October 2017) 941 MATERIALS AND METHODS The present investigation was carried out in Akola, Buldana, Washim, Amravati, Yavatmal and Wardha districts of Vidarbha region of Maharashtra with exploratory design of social research. Multistage sampling method was used for selection of districts, tahsil, villages and farmers. From each district one Tahsil was selected were soybean crop was cultivated by the majority farmers during 2013-14. From each selected Tahsil four villages were selected randomly and from each selected village 10 farmers were interviewed with the help of structured interview schedule. Thus this investigation was confined to a sample of 240 farmers. Data were collected by personal interview method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data with respect to profile characteristics of the selected soybean farmers are furnished in Tables 1. Age of the selected farmers: It is observed from Table 1, that 52.92 % of the selected soybean growers were under middle age group having age between 36 to 60 years. It was followed by more than one fourth (28.75%) respondents in young age category and remaining 18.33 % respondents in old age category i.e. above 60 years. The age profile analysis of respondents indicated that more or less from all age group respondents were covered for the study. The education level: It is observed from the Table 1 that out of the total respondents, more than one third (35.83%) of the selected respondents were having high school level education, 26.68 % had higher secondary school level education followed by college level (15.83%), middle school (12.08%), primary (8.33%), and only 1.25 % were illiterates have not attended formal schooling. Land holding: The data regarding land holding of the selected farmers from Table 1 revealed that more than one third (36.67%) per cent were observed in semi-medium land holding group. Equal percentage of respondents (26.67 %) were having land holding between 1.01 to 2.00 ha (Small) and 4.01 to 10.00 hectares (Medium). Whereas 6.66 % selected farmers were marginal (Up to 1.00 ha.) land holders, only 3.33 % come under large (Above 10.00 ha.) land holding category. Thus it was concluded that all land holding groups of the farmers have been selected for the present study. The average holding was observed 3.62 ha. Irrigation facilities: It is observed from Table 1 that more than half (57.08%) of the selected farmers have well/tube well as a source of protective irrigation when they received normal rainfall. Whereas 41.67 % farmers did not have any source to access the irrigation. They solely depended on monsoon rains and remaining 1.25 % have river as a source of irrigation. Area under soybean crop (2013-2014): Distribution of selected farmers according to their area under soybean crop (2013-14) has been presented in Table 1. It was observed Table 1: Profile of the selected soybean farmers 1. Age of the selected farmers Particulars Frequency % Young (Up to 35) 69 28.75 Middle (36-60) 127 52.92 Old (Above 60) 44 18.33 2. Educational level Illiterate 3 1.25 Primary school 20 8.33 Middle school 29 12.08 High school 86 35.83 Higher secondary school 64 26.68 College 38 15.83 3. Land size Marginal (Upto 1.00 ha.) 16 6.66 Small (1.01 to 2.00 ha.) 64 26.67 Semi-medium (2.01 to 4.00 ha.) 88 36.67 Medium (4.01 to 10.00 ha.) 64 26.67 Large (Above 10 ha.) 8 3.33 Average land holding 3.62 Ha. 4. Irrigation sources No source 100 41.67 River 3 1.25 Well/Tube well 137 57.08 5. Area Under soybean crop (2013-2014) in ha Up to 1.00 87 36.25 1.01 to 2.00 73 30.42 2.01 to 3.00 40 16.67 3.01 to 6.00 33 13.75 Above 6.00 7 2.92 Average area ha 2.02 6. Productivity of soybean crops during 2013-14 (kg/ha) 0 3 1.25 250 to 750 39 16.25 751 to 1250 68 28.33 1251 to 1750 63 26.25 1751 to 2100 51 21.25 2101 to 3000 16 6.67 Average productivity 1932 kg/ha 7. Annual farm income (2013-14) Rs. Up to 50,000 30 12.50 50,001 to 1,00,000 55 22.92 1,00,001 to 2,00,000 59 24.58 2,00,001 to 3,00,000 58 24.17 3,00,001 to 4,00,000 20 8.33 Above 4,00,000 18 7.50 8. Credit access during 2013-14 Yes 187 77.92 No 53 22.08 Table 1 continue...
942 LEGUME RESEARCH An International Journal Table 1 continue... 9. Availability of labourers Abundant 13 5.41 Available to some extent 177 73.75 Not available 34 14.17 Not required due to family labour 16 6.67 10. Own Bullock pair Nil 96 40.00 One 132 55.00 Two 10 4.17 Three 2 0.83 11. Own Tractor No 200 83.33 Yes 40 16.67 from Table 1 that average area under soybean crop is computed 2.02 ha in selected six districts of Vidarbha. The actual area of selected farmers under soybean crop is observed in decreasing trend as, area under soybean up to 1ha was observed with 36.25 % farmers, 1.01 to 2ha (30.42%), 2.01 to 3ha (16.67%), 3.01 to 6ha (13.75%) and above 6ha area under soybean crop was observed with only 2.92 % farmers. Productivity of soybean crops during 2013-14: Yield of selected soybean growers (Per ha 1 kg)in selected six districts of Vidarbha during 2013-14 is given in Table 1 as follows. The average productivity of soybean was observed 1932 kg ha -1 against the national average 979 kg ha -1 during 2013-14. The actual productivity of selected farmers in respect of soybean crop is depicted range wise in Table 1. Annual farm income (2013-14) of selected farmers: From Table 1 it is observed that 24.58 % of farmers were having annual income between Rs. 1,00,001 to 2,00,000. This was followed by 24.17% respondents belonging to income group between Rs. 2, 00,001 to Rs. 3, 00,000 and 22.92 % farmers have annual income between Rs. 50,001 to Rs. 1, 00,000. Up to Rs. 50,000 income was noted in 12.50 % farmers. Whereas 8.33 % farmers had annual income between Rs. 3,00,001 to Rs. 4,00,000 and remaining 7.50 % farmers had annual income above Rs. 4 lacks. Farmers according to credit access during 2013-14: The data revealed that (Table 1) more than three fourth (77.92%) farmers had access the credit for farming from institutional sources and 22.08 % have not access the credit. Availability of labourers : Figures from Table 1 cleared that near about three fourth (73.75%) of the selected farmers express that labourer availability for farming is to some extent and 14.17 % farmers had expressed not availability of labourer in their village these group of farmers have might be more land holding and requires more labourer. While 6.67 % farmers have not required any external labourer due to working of family members in own farm and remaining 5.41 % farmers expressed abundant availability of labourer. Bullock pairs: Bullock pairs are the basic amenity for cultivating the farm, but recently the animal component is reducing day by day either due to lack labourer/ mechanization and hence this variable considered for the study. It was observed from Table 1 that more than half (55 %) of the respondents have one bullock pair and 40.00 % farmers have no bullock pair they totally depend on others, whereas, 4.17 % have two pairs and remaining two farmer (0.83%) has three bullock pairs. Own tractor: Recently mechanization trend is increasing in farming hence this variable was considered for the study and data is depicted in Table 1. From the data presented in Table 1 it was observed that amongst the selected farmers 16.67 % have their own tractor and these are the big farmers. Whereas, remaining majority (83.33%) of the farmers have no own tractor. Distribution of the respondents according to use of herbicides in soybean crop in selected six districts of Vidarbha has been furnished in Table 2. The data regarding the use of herbicides by the selected 240 farmers revealed that majority (92.08%) farmers have used the herbicide in soybean crop and remaining 7.92 % farmers have not use the herbicide, they still doing hand weeding. The district wise users of herbicide technology have been also computed and the data is depicted in Table 2-A. It was observed that in all selected districts majority of the selected farmers have used the herbicides for control of weeds in soybean crop. Time period (In years) of herbicides use: Information on time period of herbicide use by the selected farmers in soybean crop was collected and distribution of the farmers according to time period (In years) of herbicide use have been presented in Table 3. Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to use of herbicides during 2013-14 Use of herbicides Frequency Percentage Yes 221 92.08 No 19 7.92 Table 2 A: District wise herbicide adopters during 2013-2014 District Farmers selected Herbicide users % Washim 40 38 95.00 Buldana 40 34 85.00 Akola 40 36 90.00 Yavatmal 40 36 90.00 Amravati 40 40 100.00 Wardha 40 37 92.50 Total 240 221 92.08
Volume 40 Issue 5 (October 2017) 943 Table 3: Distribution of selected soybean farmers according to time period of herbicides use Time Period (In years) No (%) 8 12 (5.00) 7 17 (7.08) 6 14 (5.83) 5 (2009-10) 40 (16.67) 4 38 (15.83) 3 41 (17.08) 2 26 (10.83) 1 (First time-2013-14) 33 (13.75) Not used 19 (7.92) Total 240 (100.00) (Figures in parenthesis indicates the percentage) Data noted that in selected six districts of Vidarbha since from last 8 years farmers applying herbicides in soybean crop, but from last 5 years (2009-10) use of herbicides application is increased in soybean crop due to non-availability of labourers and cost effective technique. During kharif season of 2013-14 in soybean crop 13.75 % farmers applied herbicide first time. Opinion of farmers about herbicides: Opinion of farmers about herbicides application has been taken and the data is presented in Table 4. Table 4: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about herbicides Opinion about herbicides No. Percentage Herbicide application is better 217 90.41 Intercultural operation is better than herbicides 4 1.67 Majority (90.41%) farmers expressed that herbicide application was better and it was Vardan to farmers because it was time and cost effective technology of weed control. Own sprayer pump: Information regarding own sprayer pump from the selected farmers has been taken and data is presented in Table 5. It was noted that majority (94.58%) of the selected farmers have their own sprayer pump. Types of sprayer pump with the farmers: The data regarding the type of sprayer pump with the farmers has been also collected and presented in Table 5 A. In selected six districts of Vidarbha more than fifty (53.33%) percent farmers have only knapsack sprayer, Table 5: Distribution of the respondents according to Own sprayer pump Own sprayer pump No. Percentage Yes 227 94.58 No 13 5.42 Table 5 A: Distribution of the respondents according to types of sprayer pump Types of sprayer pump No. Percentage Only knapsack 128 53.33 Knapsack + Power sprayer 59 24.58 Only power sprayer 26 10.83 Knapsack + Power sprayer + Battery sprayer 9 3.76 Knapsack + Power sprayer + Boom sprayer 5 2.08 Don t have own pump 13 5.42 followed by knapsack + power sprayer (24.58%), only power sprayer (10.83%), knapsack + power sprayer + battery operated sprayer was observed with 3.76 % farmers and remaining 2.08 % have knapsack + power sprayer + boom sprayer. While 5.42 % farmers don t have own sprayer, they depend on others. Information sources used for spraying of herbicides: Herbicides use is very complex issue at farmers level due to lack of detail knowledge about proper application. Hence an information sources used by the farmers for herbicide application is important variable in this study. Hence the information is collected from selected farmers about use of information sources and data is depicted in Table 6. It was observed from Table 6 that hundred percent herbicide users always contacted with proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendras for use of herbicides and remaining 7.92 % have not used the herbicides. The reason might be proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra is local and easily available to the farmers; secondly he may be the supplier of herbicides to the farmers. While considering the source wise data, it was observed that more than 50.42 % herbicide users have contacted only proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra. It was followed by 16.25 % users have used proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra + company sales man + reading of label on herbicides box + extension functionaries as sources of information, 12.92 % herbicide users have neighbours and extension functionaries as a information source in addition to proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendras. Whereas 8.33 % farmers have used university scientist/ krishi doot and 4.16 % have used university scientist/ krishi doot and Dr.PDKV, Dindarshika as a information source in addition to proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendras. From above finding it was conclude that cent percent herbicide adopters have used the proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendras as source of information. Knowledge of soybean farmers about herbicide application practices: Knowledge as a body of understood information by an individual farmer regarding herbicide application practices. Knowledge is measured on two point continuum i.e. yes and no. Total 14 important practices given in Table 7 were considered for accessing the knowledge of soybean farmers about herbicide application practices in selected six district. The results about the knowledge were presented in Table 7. 13 (5.42)
944 LEGUME RESEARCH An International Journal Table 6: Distribution of the respondents according to their information sources used for spraying of herbicides Information sources used No. % Only proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra 121 50.42 Proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra + Company sales man + Reading of label on herbicides box + Extension functionaries 39 16.25 Proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra + Neighbours + Extension functionaries 31 12.92 Proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra + University Scientist/Krishi doot 20 8.33 Proprietor of Krishi Seva Kendra + University Scientist/Krishi doot + Dr.PDKV Dindarshika 10 4.16 Herbicides not used 19 7.92 Table 7: Distribution of soybean farmers according to the knowledge of herbicide application practices in Vidarbha Herbicide application practices Knowledge (N=240)(%) Yes No Knowledge about any name of recommended herbicides 231 (96.25) 9 (3.75) Knowledge about recommended dose of any herbicide/ha 103 (42.92) 137 (57.08) Knowledge about appropriate time of application of pre-emergence herbicides 27 (11.25) 213 (88.75) Name of pre-emergence herbicides for soybean 25 (10.42) 215 (89.58) Knowledge about appropriate time of application of post-emergence herbicides (At 2-4 leaves stage of weed & at 15-20 DAS) 227 (94.58) 13 (5.42) Name of post-emergence herbicide for soybean 225 (93.75) 15 (6.25) It is necessary to have sufficient moisture in soil during application of herbicides 231 (96.25) 9 (3.75) Avoid herbicide spray during high speed wind & Cloudy weather 229 (95.42) 11 (4.58) Power spray is never used for application of herbicides 170 (70.83) 70 (29.17) Knowledge about calibration of spray pump (10x10 m =100 sqm : 5 lit for 1 ha: 500 lit.) 7 (2.92) 233 (97.08) Muddy water is never used for application herbicide 231 (96.25) 9 (3.75) Flat fan or flood jet type of nozzle should be used for herbicides application. 175 (72.92) 65 (27.08) Quantity of water used for herbicide spray / ha for Soybean crop ( 500 L/ha) 54 (22.50) 186 (77.50) Not take any inter-cultural operation up to 5-10 days after herbicide application 225 (93.75) 15 (6.25) It was observed from Table 7 that majority (96.25%) soybean farmers have a knowledge about name of recommended (Any one) herbicides for soybean. They mostly know the trade name namely Pursuit and not chemical content i.e. Imazethapyr. Knowledge about recommended dose of any herbicide/ha for soybean is known to 42.92 % farmers. It was observed that sizable group of farmers not applying per ha recommended doses of Imazethapyr. They purchase 1 lit Imazethapyr and apply on 1.60 ha soybean crop. Knowledge about appropriate time of application of pre-emergence herbicides and name of pre-emergence herbicides for soybean were not known to majority (89%) farmers. The region behind that they are applying only postemergence herbicide hence they have no knowledge about pre-emergence herbicide s name and application time. Knowledge about appropriate time of application of postemergence herbicides and name of post-emergence herbicide for soybean is known to majority 94.58 % and 93.75 % farmers respectively. Application of herbicide is done when sufficient moisture in soil and avoid herbicide spray during high speed wind & cloudy weather were known to near about cent percent (96.25% & 95.42% farmers respectively) farmers. Power spray is never used for spraying of herbicides and is not known to more than one fourth (29.17%) farmers in study area. Mostly these group of farmers apply herbicide by power sprayer. Knowledge about calibration of spray pump was not noted in majority (97.08%) farmers. Muddy water is never used for spraying herbicide this practice is known to majority (96.25%) farmers. Flat fan or flood jet type of nozzle should be used while spraying herbicides in soybean crop is not known to 27.08 % farmers, this may be due to use of power sprayer for herbicide application by these group of farmers. Use of 500 L water per ha for herbicide application in soybean crop is not known to more than three fourth (77.50%) percent farmers. In study area only 11.31 % adopter farmers have used 500 L water/ha for herbicide application in soybean. The reason might be the sizable group of the farmers applied herbicides by power sprayer. Not take any inter-cultural operation up to 5-10 days after herbicide application, the knowledge about this practice were observed with majority 93.75 % farmers. Overall knowledge level of soybean growers about selected herbicide application practices : Overall knowledge level of soybean growers about selected 14 herbicide application practices has been computed in the form of index and respondents have been distributed in three categories by equal distribution method as given in Table 8.
Table 8: Distribution of soybean farmers according to the overall knowledge level of selected herbicide application practices in Vidarbha Knowledge index No. % Low (Up to 33.33) 9 3.75 Medium (33.34 to 66.66) 147 61.25 High (Above 66.66) 84 35.00 It was observed from Table 8 that majority (61.25%) farmers have medium level of knowledge about all selected 14 herbicide application practices for soybean crop. More than one third (35%) farmers have observed in high level category of knowledge, and remaining 3.75 % farmers noted in low level knowledge category. This group may be the non adopters of herbicides. Adoption of herbicide application practices by the soybean farmers: Adoption of recommended herbicide application practices by the soybean farmers in selected six districts of Vidarbha have been studied and results in detail presented in Table 9. Volume 40 Issue 5 (October 2017) 945 In selected six district of Vidarbha namely Akola, Buldana, Washim, Amravati, Yavatmal and Wardha out of 240 selected farmers 221 (92.08%) farmers applied postemergence herbicide in soybean crop to control weeds and remaining 7.92 % farmers have not use the herbicide, they still doing hand weeding. In selected districts Imazethapyr with trade name Pursuit in market were more popular among majority (78.28 %) herbicide adopters in soybean crop, followed by 15.85 % farmers used Imazethapyr +Imazamox (Trade name is Odyssey). Only 2.26 % farmers preferred mixing of Quizalofop ethyl + Chlorimuron ethyl, whereas 1.81 % adopters preferred Imazethapyr + Quizalofop ethyl. Negligible 0.90 % each have used Quizalofop ethyl and Chlorimuron ethyl respectively in soybean for weed control. While considering the application of recommended herbicide dose 60.18 % adopter farmers used the recommended dose of various herbicides. Less than recommended dose were used by 36.20 % adopter farmers and 3.62 % adopter farmers applied higher than Table 9: Adoption of herbicide application practices by the soybean farmers 1. Use of different by the soybean farmers Herbicides NoN=240 Overall%(n=240) % over adopters(n=221) Imazethapyr 173 72.09 78.28 Imazethapyr +Imazamox 35 14.58 15.85 Quizalofop ethyl + Chlorimuron ethyl 5 2.08 2.26 Imazethapyr + Quizalofop ethyl 4 1.67 1.81 Quizalofop ethyl 2 0.83 0.90 Chlorimuron ethyl 2 0.83 0.90 100.00 2. Applicaton of recommended herbicide dose At recommended dose 133 55.42 60.18 Less than recommended dose 80 33.33 36.20 Higher than recommended dose 8 3.33 3.62 100.00 3. Application time Application of herbicide at recommended time 207 86.25 93.67 Application of herbicide after recommended time 14 5.83 6.33 Not applied 19 7.92 100.00 4. Sprayer pump used Knapsack 136 56.67 61.54 Power sprayer 83 34.58 37.56 Boom sprayer 02 0.83 0.90 100.00 5. Calibration of pump done NoN=240 Overall% % over adopters Yes 0 0.00 0.00 No 240 100.00 100.0 100.00 Table 9 continue...
946 LEGUME RESEARCH An International Journal Table 9 continue... 6. Effective results of weed control by using power sprayer (N=85) 100 % Weed control 12 14.12 75 % Weed control 51 60.00 50 % Weed control 22 25.88 Total 85 100.00 7. Type of nozzle used Flat fan 105 43.75 47.51 Hollow cone 31 12.92 14.03 Power sprayer 85 35.41 38.46 100.00 8. Use of water for herbicide application 125 L/ha 14 5.83 6.33 150 L/ha 40 16.67 18.10 200 L/ha 24 10.00 10.86 250 L/ha 67 27.92 30.32 300 L/ha 35 14.58 15.84 375 L/ha 16 6.67 7.24 500 L/ha 25 10.41 11.31 100.00 9. Use of other methods of weed control in soybean Hand weeding 25 10.42 11.31 Crop rotation 220 91.67 99.55 10. Herbicide use frequency NoN=240 Overall% % over adopters Once in crop duration 218 90.83 98.64 Twice in crop duration 3 1.25 1.36 100.00 10. Application of herbicides was done when sufficient moisture were present in soil Yes 221 92.08 100.00 100.00 11. Herbicide application was not done during high speed wind & Cloudy weather Yes 221 92.08 100.00 100.00 12. Clean water is used for spraying herbicide Yes 221 92.08 100.00 100.00 13. Inter-cultural operations not taken up to 5-10 days after herbicide application Yes 221 92.08 100.00 100.00 14. Use of separate pump for spraying herbicidesnon=240 Overall% % over adopters Yes 0 0.00 0.00 No 221 92.08 100.00 100.00 15. Spraying of herbicides with (by mixing) pesticides in soybean Yes 9 3.75 4.07 No 212 88.33 95.93 100.00
recommended dose for weed control in soybean in selected six districts of Vidarbha. In selected six district majority 93.67 % adopter farmers applied herbicides at recommended time i.e.15-20 DAS in soybean. Punia, et.al, (2013) have also observed that majority wheat farmers applied herbicides at recommended time. While 6.33 % farmers applied after recommended time. While considering the sprayer pump used for applying herbicides in soybean it was observed that 61.54 % adopter farmers used knapsack sprayer, followed by more than one third (37.56 %) adopter farmers applied herbicides by power sprayer and 0.90 % applied by boom sprayer. Use of power sprayer and low quantity of water maintained which is the main reason for poor efficiency at farmers field. While conducting field survey we have collected the information on effective results of weed control from the farmers who applied the herbicides in soybean crop by using power sprayer in selected six districts during 2013-14. The data clears that out of the total 85 power sprayer users 60.00% farmers gets 75% weed control and 25.88% farmers got 50% weed control by applying herbicides by power sprayer pump in soybean. While 14.12% gets the 100% weed control. Hundred percent (100%) farmers have not done the calibration of sprayer pump in selected six district of Vidarbha in soybean crop. Flat fan nozzle used by 47.51 % adopter farmers, followed by 38.46 % farmers used power sprayer for weed controls, even though which is not recommended for application of herbicides and remaining 14.03 % farmers used hollow cone nozzle which is also not recommended for application of herbicides. The results about the use of recommended quantity (500L/ha) of water for herbicide spray in soybean crop clears that (Table 9) only 11.31 % adopter farmers used recommended 500 liters of water /ha, 7.24 % farmers used 375L of water/ha, 15.84 % farmers used 300L of water/ha. Sizable group of 30.32 % adopter farmers have used 250L/ha water, 10.86 % farmers used 200L/ha water, 18.10 % farmers were observed who have used only 150L/ha water and remaining 6.33 % adopter farmers used 125L/ha water for herbicide application. In study area use of power sprayer, use of hollow cone nozzle, and poor quantity of water maintained may be the reason for poor efficacy/ non-effective results of herbicides at farmer s field. While considering other methods of weed control among adopter farmers of herbicides, it was observed that only 11.31 % farmers have used weeding and majority 99.95 % farmers adopting crop rotation. Not a single farmers was observed who have applied herbicide in previous year but Volume 40 Issue 5 (October 2017) 947 duo to good control he has not applied herbicide in next (current) year. In selected six districts of Vidarbha majority 98.64 % adopter farmers have used post-emergence selective herbicide only once in crop duration and negligible 1.36 % applied two applications due to poor results of herbicide due to excess moisture condition in field by heavy rainfall. Hundred percent (100%) adopter farmers each have applied herbicides when sufficient moisture were present in soil, not done herbicide application during high speed wind and in cloudy weather, used clean water and not taken inter-cultural operations up to 5-10 days after herbicide application. It was also observed that cent percent (100 %) herbicide adopter farmers have no separate pump for applying of herbicides. Majority (95.93 %) herbicide adopter farmers applying herbicides separately, but 4.07 % farmers applied with insecticide in soybean crop. This study concludes that in selected six district of Vidarbha out of 240 selected soybean farmers 221 (92.08%) farmers applied herbicides during 2013-14. Increasing trend of herbicide applications was noted among the soybean growers. Overall majority 61.25 % soybean farmers have medium level of knowledge about recommended herbicide application practices. Knowledge about the recommended per ha doses of herbicides is not known to 57.08 % soybean farmers. Also the cent percent herbicide adopters contacted the proprietors of Krishi Seva Kendra as a source of information for herbicide application. Following lacunae on the part of farmers in respect of herbicide application in soybean were observed in selected six districts of Vidarbha. 1.100 % farmers have not done calibration of spray pump. 2.Majority 88.69 % soybean farmers have not used recommended quantity of water for herbicide application. 3.39.82 % farmers not applied the recommended dose of herbicide in soybean. 4.Sizable i.e. 38.46 % farmers have used power sprayer for application of herbicides in soybean crop even though power sprayer is not recommended for application of herbicides. As per the results of this survey out of the total 85 (38.46%) power sprayer users majority 73 (85.88 %) farmers have not get effective control by Imazethapyr application over weeds in soybean crop during 2013-14. For avoiding the poor efficacy /erratic results of herbicide technology above things should be rectified by the farmers and the State Department of Agriculture should organize regular trainings/workshops, demonstrations and preparation of printed material about use of herbicides before sowing season with the expertise of SAU scientists so that soybean cultivators in Vidarbha will get technical knowledge for effective use of herbicides.
948 LEGUME RESEARCH An International Journal REFERENCES Chhonkar, R.S. and Balyan, R.S. (1999). Competition and control of weeds in soybean. Weed Sci. 47:107-111. Dhaker, S.C., S.L. Mundra, R.C. Dhaker and H.K. Sumeriya (2015). Effect of weed management and sulphur on nutrient content and uptake by weeds and soybean. Legume Research., 38 (3): 411-414. FAI. (2006). Fertilizer statistics, (2005-06). The Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi. Jha, B.K., R. Chandra and Rohitashav Singh (2014). Influence of post emergence herbicides on weeds, nodulation and yields of soybean and soil properties. Legume Res., 37 (1) : 47-54. Kale, N.M., Wankhade, P.P. and Jadhao, Gopal (2011). Factors affecting agrarian distress proneness in Western Vidarbha. Journal of Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE, Hyderabad)., 12 (2): 61-68. Kale, N.M., Mankar, D.M. and Wankhade, P.P. (2013). Factors affecting agrarian distress proneness in Vidarbha. Research Review Committee Report 2014, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola (M.S.). : 35-75. Kewat, M.L., Pandey, J., Yaduraju, N.T. and Kulshresthra, G. (2000). Economic and ecofriendly weed management in soybean. Indian Journal of Weed Science., 32 (3&4): 135-139. Kumar, D., Chandrasekhar, B.L., Mishra, P.K. (2003).Effect of integrated weed management on economics of soybean [Glycinemax (L.)Merrill] under vertisols of Chhattisgarh. Annals of Agric Res., 24:212-214. Nandini Devi K, Kh. Lenin Singh, CNJS Arangba Mangang, N. Brajendra Singh, Herojit Singh Athokpam and A. Dorendro Singh (2016). Effect of weed control practices on weed dynamics, yield and economics of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill], Legume Research., 39 (6): 995-998. Punia, S.S., Dharamvir, Yadav and Dhun Anil. (2013). Herbicide adoption pattern in rice and wheat among Haryana farmers. Journal of Weed Science., 45(3): 175-178. Singh, G. and Singh, D. (1987). Weed control efficiency of pendimethalin and methabenjthiazuron in soybean. Indian J. Weed Sci. 19: 230-232. SOPA. (2013). Press release regarding soybean crop survey Kharif 2013, September 28, The Soybean Processors Association of India Indore.