Detail:

Nanje Gowda, a farmer was growing red gram using the conventional practice of sowing the seeds in straight line furrows. However, this results in dense plantation and low yield, which did not improve despite the use of fertilizers, pesticides and weeding practices. He then tried a new practice. The land is ploughed both horizontally and vertically to create furrows. The ploughing is done in such a way that there are holes formed at the intersection of furrows. Two to three seeds and two handfuls of manure are dropped into the hole and it is covered with soil. This practice not only increases yield but also reduces pest damage as there is adequate spacing of the crop.

Knowledge Provider / Innovator: Nanje Gowda
Agro-Ecological Zone: Central Karnataka plateau, hot, moist, semi-arid eco-subregion (8.2), Agro-Climatic Region (Planning Commission) : Southern Plateau And Hills Region (X), Agro Climatic Zone (NARP) : Central Dry Zone (KA-4)
Address: Anekatte, Chikkanayakanahalli
District: Tumkur
State: Karnataka
PIN Code 572101

Crop: Red Gram
Crop Family: Fabaceae
Crop Scientific Name: (Janus cajan)
Crop Vernacular Name: Pigeonpea, red gram, tur, Arhar, pwa kongo in Haiti, or as gungo peas in Jamaica

---

PAS 1:

"Crop growth and productivity may differ under different sowing methods and planting densities. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the influence of different sowing methods and planting densities on growth, yield, quality and economic returns of cotton. Sowing methods included pit planting (1 m × 1 m pits), bed planting (75 cm apart beds), ridge planting (75 cm apart ridges) and line sowing with varied inter row spacing (25, 50 and 75 cm). Sowing methods significantly affected growth and yield of cotton. Pit planting imposed maximum increase in plant height (152 cm), number of monopodial branches (4.7) and sympodial branches (22.6) per plant, number of unopened (9.4) and opened bolls (41.1) per plant, and average boll weight (3.0 g) of cotton. However, highest seed-1 cotton yield (2944.5 kg ha) was obtained by flat sowing on 25 cm apart rows owing to highest planting density per unit area. Maximum ginning out turn (GOT) (41.6%) was noticed in pit planting of cotton, while, fiber quality was not affected significantly by sowing methods. Economic analysis showed that economic returns and benefit cost ratio (BCR) (1.52) was elevated by flat sowing on 25 cm apart rows. In conclusion, maximum seed cotton yield and economic returns can be acquired by flat sowing with 25 cm apart rows, while, fiber quality is independent of sowing methods. [Shahzad, Muhammad & Anjum, Shakeel & Zohaib, Ali & Ishfaq, Muhammad & Warraich, Ejaz. (2017). EFFECT OF DIFFERENT SOWING METHODS AND PLANTING DENSITIES ON GROWTH, YIELD, FIBER QUALITY AND ECONOMIC EFFICACY OF COTTON. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research. 30. 212-219.] "
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315807627_EFFECT_OF_DIFFERENT_SOWING_METHODS_AND_PLANTING_DENSITIES_ON_GROWTH_YIELD_FIBER_QUALITY_AND_ECONOMIC_EFFICACY_OF_COTTON/

PAS 2:

"Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the main staple foods worldwide. Wide precise sowing (Wps) is a sowing method believed to produce the highest winter wheat grain yields; however, the reasons for its high yields and its effect on quality traits have not been effectively studied. Hence, a two-year field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of three sowing methods, dibbling (Db), drilling (Dr), and Wps and seed rates (112.5 kg ha−1, 150 kg ha−1, 187.5 kg ha−1, and 225 kg ha−1) on grain yield and the quality of winter wheat. Wps, Dr, and Db produced statistically similar results in terms of the grain yield and most of the quality traits measured. The grain yield increased significantly with the increasing rate, the highest being 7488.89 kg ha−1 at a seed rate of 225 kg ha−1. The total protein, albumin, and globulin were not affected by the sowing methods, but prolamin and glutelin were affected by the Dr and Wps, respectively. The total starch in both years, and the amylose and amylopectin in the first year, were affected only by the seed rates, with 60.11%, 23.2%, 38.63%, or higher values. The results indicated that for the wheat yield and quality traits, Wps, Dr and Db can mostly be used interchangeably. For the protein, starch, and grain yield, the suitable seed rates were 112.5 kg ha−1, 150 kg ha−1, and 225 kg ha−1, respectively. [Angelique Twizerimana , The Combined Effect of Different Sowing Methods and Seed Rates on the Quality Features and Yield of Winter Wheat, Agriculture 2020, 10(5), 153"
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10050153]

PAS 3:

"Crop growth and productivity may differ under different sowing methods and planting densities. A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the influence of different sowing methods and planting densities on growth, yield, quality and economic returns of cotton. Sowing methods included pit planting (1 m × 1 m pits), bed planting (75 cm apart beds), ridge planting (75 cm apart ridges) and line sowing with varied inter row spacing (25, 50 and 75 cm). Sowing methods significantly affected growth and yield of cotton. Pit planting imposed maximum increase in plant height (152 cm), number of monopodial branches (4.7) and sympodial branches (22.6) per plant, number of unopened (9.4) and opened bolls (41.1) per plant, and average boll weight (3.0 g) of cotton. However, highest seed cotton yield (2944.5 kg ha ) was obtained by flat sowing on 25 cm apart rows owing to highest planting density per unit area. Maximum ginning out turn (GOT) (41.6%) was noticed in pit planting of cotton, while, fiber quality was not affected significantly by sowing methods. Economic analysis showed that economic returns and benefit cost ratio (BCR) (1.52) was elevated by flat sowing on 25 cm apart rows. In conclusion, maximum seed cotton yield and economic returns can be acquired by flat sowing with 25 cm apart rows, while, fiber quality is independent of sowing methods.[ EHSANULLAH ET AL., EFFECT OF DIFFERENT SOWING METHODS AND PLANTING DENSITIES ON GROWTH, YIELD, Pakistan J. Agric. Res. Vol. 30 No.1, 2017]"
https://www.cabi.org/gara/FullTextPDF/2017/20173377106.pdf