The study was carried out by Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Malkangiri, during the winter season of 2018-19 in the Kalimela block of Malkangiri district of Odisha. This block was selected purposefully as groundnut is the major oilseed crop. The demonstrations were conducted in two different adopted villages, i.e., MV-67 and MV-25, in a cluster approach. Sixty numbers of beneficiaries were selected by conducting group meetings, and all the participating farmers were trained on various aspects of groundnut production technologies and recommended agronomic practices. The total area covered under demonstration was 20 ha, and the plot size of the individual farmer was 0.2 to 0.4 ha. The soil of the demonstration site was slightly acidic in reaction (pH-5.0 to 5.3) with sandy loam in texture. The available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium were varied between 180.8-210.3, 14.0-19.8, and 131.1-140.5 Kg/ha, respectively.

The crop was sown under irrigated conditions in the second week of January. The crop was raised with recommended agronomic practices (Table 1) and harvested within the fourth week of March to the first week of April. In the case of local checks, existing practices being used by farmers were followed (Table 1). The observations like plant height, number of pods/plant, 100 seed weight, and seed yield were recorded at harvest from demonstrated as well as from farmer’s practiced plot. Gross returns (₹/ha) were calculated on the basis of the prevailing market price of the groundnut, i.e., ₹ 4000 per quintal. Net return (₹/ha) was calculated by deducting the cost of cultivation from gross return. B: C ratio was calculated by dividing the total cost of cultivation by gross return. Following formulae have been used to estimate the technology gap, extension gap, and technology index as per Samui et al. (2000):

Technology gap = Potential yield – Demonstration yield ------- (I)

Extension gap = Demonstration yield – Farmer’s yield ------- (II)

Technology index = {(Potential yield – Demonstration yield)/Potential yield} x 100 ----- (III)

The study result revealed that major differences were observed between demonstration packages and farmer’s practices were regarding varieties, seed treatment, fertilizer application, method of weed management, and plant protection measures (Table 1). This was mainly because farmers are unaware of a suitable package of practices for groundnut. The findings are corroborated with some other findings (Singh and Chaudhari 1995; Katare et al. 2011). Recorded data viz. plant height, a number of pods/plant, 100 kernel weight, as well as pod yield of groundnut in the demonstrated plot was higher than that of farmer’s practice (Table 2). The average plant height of groundnut under demonstrated variety Devi was 24.2 cm as compared to 21.6 cm in the case of farmer’s practice. Demonstrated plots recorded a 29.4% higher number of pods and 28.2% more 100 kernel weight as compared to farmers’ practice. The results indicated that the average pod yield of groundnut in farmer’s practices was 16.4 q/ha, and it was 21.8 q/ha in the demonstrated plot. The increased in groundnut yield in the demonstrated plot was due to be suitable variety, adequate seed rate, seed treatment, balance dose of fertilizer application, and proper plant protection measures. On the other hand, an inappropriate package of practices gave lower yields in farmer’s practices. Superior impact by intervention practices on groundnut was also observed in others carried out work (Pawar et al. 2018; Solanki and Nagar 2020). The calculated ‘Z’ value (25.949) was found to be significant, indicating a significant difference in yield between farmer’s practice and recommended practice. It was concluded that yield variation was more in the case of farmer’s practices as compared to demonstration practices, as CV was more (7.18%) in farmer’s practices (Table 3).

This study showed a technological gap of 3.2 q/ ha (Table 4). Response of variety to a different environment is varied, and the observed technology gap might be due to variation in soil and weather conditions. So, it is necessary to develop a of variety-wise location-specific packages of practices to bridge the technology gap. An extension gap of 5.4 q/ha was observed from this study. This extension gap should be assigned to the adoption of suitable cultivation packages in demonstration practices. Hence, it is necessary to educate the farmers for more adoption of improved cultivation techniques of groundnut. On the other hand, the technology index shows the feasibility of technology in farmer’s fields. The lower value of the technology index shows more feasibility. Overall technology index of 12.8% recorded in this study. This emphasized the role of Krishi Vigyan Kendra or other line departments to train the non-beneficiary farmers through various means for the adoption of improved cultivation practices of groundnut. These analytical findings were in agreement with the others work carried out by Pawar et al. (2018) and Solanki and Nagar (2020).

The total cost of cultivation for demonstration practice was higher as compared to farmer’s practice (Table 5) due to the additional cost involved in an improved package of practices with demonstration plots. Higher gross return (₹ 87200/ha), net return (₹ 49800/ha), and B:C ratio (2.33) were obtained where the crop was cultivated under cluster front line demonstration. Higher economic return was obtained with demonstration practices because of increased groundnut yield by 32.9%, whereas an increase in the cost of cultivation was less, i.e., 16.1% with demonstration practices as compared to farmer’s practices.

The study showed the positive response of cluster front line demonstration over the existing practices in respect to yield enhancement and economic return of groundnut in the South Eastern Ghat Zone of Odisha. The principal reason of the lower productivity of groundnut in case of existing farmer’s practices in the South Eastern Ghat Zone of Odisha was the non-adoption of an improved package of practices. Differences between demonstration and farmer’s practices (extension gap) emphasize the need to educate farmers in respect to different improved production technologies of groundnut by different extension agencies.