Communication Behaviour of Small Farmers of Aligarh District on Improved Wheat Technology

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 7 Number 05 (2018) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com

Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.705.360

Jaspal Singh1, Amod Sharma2*, D.B. Tyagi3 and S.P. Singh4

1C.C.S.R.B.S. College, Bichpuri, Agra Uttar Pradesh, India 2Department of Agriculture Economics, NU SASRD, Medziphema Campus, Dimapur, Nagaland, India 3S. M. S. Degree College, Abidgarh, Agra Uttar Pradesh, India 4JNKVV, Jabalpur, India

*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

In this research article an emphasis has been laid on four basic issue viz. socio-agro- K e yw or ds economic profile of small farmers, utilization of communication sources, relationship

Communication, Small between socio-agro -economic profile and communication sources and correlation between farmers , Aligarh district, communication pattern and adoption behaviour of small farmers. The study covers 300 Wheat technology respondents of Aligarh district. Majority of small farmers has „medium‟ socio-economic status. In personal cosmopolite channel majority of farmers get communication by training Article Info method demonstration and result demonstration. In case of personal localite channel Accepted: K.V.K., Ag. Supervisor and progressive farmers and in impersonal cosmopolite channels, 22 April 2018 Radio, film and printed media are the most utilizing communication sources. Different Available Online: communication channels influence seed technology, fertilizer technology (nitrogenous 10 May 2018 fertilizers) and weedicides technology are positive component to wheat technology. Introduction Agriculture exports accounts for about 14 per cent of the country‟s total exports. During the Agriculture is the mainstay of Indian economy last 4 decades enormous progress has been both in terms of contribution to GDP and the achieved in agriculture production in the proportion of population dependent upon it. A country. India‟s agriculture from the mid 60‟s high growth rate of agriculture is essential for has made significant strides in food grain achieving the objective of food security at production which has increased from a level macro as well as micro levels and also for of 72.35 million tonnes to 204.6 million alleviating poverty level. tonnes during 1999-2006 and thus despite of the ever growing population, the need for While 21 per cent (at constant price) of the import of food grains for domestic use has GDP in India is contributed by agriculture virtually been eliminated (Directorate of sector almost two-third of the country‟s Economics and Statistics, Department of population is dependent on this sector. Agriculture and Co-operation, Govt. of India).

3087

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094

Wheat is such a food grain which gives farmer towards new wheat technology has also assurance to have success in battle against been studied in depth with following specific hunger and poverty. The population of India objectives. will be 1.25 million by 2020 AD and by that time India‟s annual wheat production should To examine the extent and utilization of reach 109 million tonnes from the present communication sources along with their level of 73.7 million tonnes with an area of pattern and effect on the adoption of wheat 28.17 million hectares. The present national production technology. average of 2.62 tonnes per hectare of wheat has to be raised to 3.5 tonnes per hectare, To study the relationship between which is possible only by proper adoption of communication pattern and socio-economic presently available package of wheat feature of small farmers. technology. In U.P. the total wheat producing area during 2005-06 was 9.16 million-hectare Materials and Methods and the production was 24.07 million tonnes with the average yield of 2.63 tonnes per The study was conducted in Aligarh district of hectare (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, U.P. State. Out of the 17 blocks in Aligarh 2007). district three blocks namely Dhanipur, Akerabad and Gangiri were selected purposely It is generally accepted that communication is as the transfer of technology programme of the basic step in effecting changes in any KVK and farmers training centre under system in the field of agriculture. The greater CSAUAT Kanpur are more concentrated in the number of in finding sought, the greater is these blocks. 10 villages from the selected the adoption by contact among farmers with blocks and 30 small wheat growing farmers communication sources. Mass media plays an from each village were selected randomly. important role in agricultural communication Further, the selected farmers were stratified and information sources. There are many according to their socio-economic status sources of information about agriculture according to SES scale developed by Trivedi technology such as personal cosmopolite and Pareek (1963) with slight modifications channel, personal localite channel and (Table 1). impersonal cosmopolite channel. Source preference and source utilization may also The 2 test, „t‟ test and Pearsonian correlation differ at different stages of innovation and co-efficient were applied to establish various decision process depending upon socio- correlation among different variables used. economic level and infrastructural background of the small farmers. Results and Discussion

The present study focuses on the multi- Personal cosmopolite channels dimensional aspect of the development of small farmers. The study also highlights the Training was found to be an important socio-economic feature of the small farmers communication channel for the adoption of with a wide and detailed coverage of quite a improved farm practices with rank order I new approach in the field of agriculture (Table 2). Second and third most important extension research. The study also takes into channels were noticed as Method account the proper use of communication demonstration and Result demonstration, media as a source of information to the small respectively for HYV seed, organic manure, farmers. The knowledge and attitude of small nitrogenous fertilizer, phosphatic fertilizer, 3088

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094 seed rate, depth of sowing, weedicide, time of Relationship between communication sowing, irrigation, seed treatment and use of pattern and socio-economic features plant protection giving pooled rank order 1.83 and 3 respectively. The overall socio-economic status was found to be significantly correlated with the use of Personal localite channels personal localite and impersonal cosmopolite channels. Taking the socio-economic variables Farmers training center or Krishi Vigyan separately, caste, education, family, size, size Kendra was found to be important of holding, farm power, change agent linkage, communication channel for adoption of socio-economic status, socio participation improved farm practices to the small farmers, were found to be significantly correlated with which has pooled rank order of 2.33 (Table 3). the use of personal cosmopolite channels The second important channel was while caste, education, family size, income, Agricultural Supervisor, which has pooled size of holding, farm power, change agent rank order of 2.5 and the third being linkage, contact with extension agencies, Progressive farmer, which has pooled rank socio-economic status and social participation order of 3.25 for respective improved under personal localite channels and the caste, practices i.e. HYV seed, organic matter, education, family type, income, size of nitrogenous fertilizer, phosphatic fertilizer, holding, farm power, change agent linkage seed rate, depth of sowing, weedicide, time of contact with extension agencies, socio- sowing, irrigation, seed treatment and use of economic status and social participation were plant protection measures. found to be significantly correlated with the use of impersonal cosmopolite channels Impersonal cosmopolite channels (Table 5).

Radio was found to be the most important Correlation coefficient between impersonal cosmopolite communication communication pattern and adoption channel for the adoption of improved farm behaviour practices to the small farmers with pooled rank order of 1.17 (Table 4). Seed technology, nitrogenous fertilizer and weedicide were significantly correlated with Films and Printed materials were the other Personal Cosmopolite Channel, Personal important channel, which have pooled rank Localite Channel and Impersonal Cosmopolite order of 2.5 and 2.67 respectively for Channel while irrigation and phosphatic improved technology of wheat cultivation. fertilizer were significantly correlated with Impersonal Cosmopolite Channel only (Table 6).

Table.1 Distribution of Small farmers according to Socio-economic status

S. No. Socio-economic status No. of Respondents Percentage 1. High Status 56 18.67 2. Medium Status 94 31.33 3. Low Status 150 50.00 Total 300 100.00

3089

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094

Table.2 Use of personal cosmopolite channels by the small farmers regarding adoption of wheat technology

No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO Farm and home 38 7 22 6 24 7 17 8 7 10 6 9 29 8 21 9 18 9 9 8 7 9 9 7 8.08 9 visit (12.67) (7.33) (8.00) (5.67) (2.33) (2.00) (9.67) (7.00) (6.00) (3.00) (2.33) (2.33) Result 122 3 87 3 72 3 64 3 55 3 22 4 102 3 93 3 97 1 72 3 24 4 71 3 3.00 3 demonstration (40.67) (29.00) (24.00) (21.33) (18.33) (7.33) (34.00) (31.00) (32.33) (24.00) (8.00) (23.67) Method 163 2 128 2 109 2 110 2 121 2 36 2 130 2 131 1 61 3 133 2 32 2 110 1 1.83 2 demonstration (54.33) (42.67) (36.33) (36.67) (40.33) (12.00) (43.33) (43.67) (20.33) (44.33) (10.67) (36.67) Office calls 10 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 11 5 10 0 11 0 11 0 10 0 11 7 9 3 8 10.08 11 (3.33) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.67) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.33) (1.00) Tour/Field trif 24 8 19 8 24 7 19 6 12 7 11 8 21 9 23 8 26 7 23 6 13 6 9 7 7.25 8 (8.00) (6.33) (8.00) (6.33) (4.00) (3.67) (7.00) (7.67) (8.67) (7.67) (4.33) (3.00) Group meeting 47 7 21 7 22 8 18 7 11 8 14 6 42 7 33 7 31 5 35 5 9 8 22 5 6.58 7 (154.67) (7.00) (7.33) (6.00) (3.67) (4.67) (14.00) (11.00) (10.33) (11.67) (3.00) (7.33) Campaign 11 9 9 9 7 9 8 9 10 9 12 7 11 10 7 10 0 10 3 10 18 5 3 8 8.75 10 (3.67) (3.00) (2.33) (2.67) (3.33) (4.00) (3.67) (2.33) (0.00) (1.00) (6.00) (1.00) Training 152 1 113 1 122 1 127 1 142 1 40 1 140 1 131 1 71 2 141 1 33 1 98 2 1.25 1 (50.67) (44.33) (40.67) (42.33) (47.33) (13.33) (46.67) (43.67) (23.67) (47.00) (11.00) (32.67) Exhibition 67 4 62 4 46 5 17 8 13 6 12 7 50 5 62 5 22 8 8 9 12 7 0 9 6.42 6 (22.33) (20.67) (15.33) (5.67) (4.33) (4.00) (16.67) (20.67) (7.33) (2.67) (4.00) (0.00) Field day 55 5 43 5 49 4 32 4 30 4 26 3 44 6 39 6 41 4 42 4 27 3 57 4 4.33 4 (18.33) (14.33) (16.33) (10.67) (10.00) (8.67) (14.67) (13.00) (13.67) (14.00) (9.00) (19.00) Kisan Mela 47 6 22 6 38 6 21 5 21 5 18 5 72 4 70 4 27 6 22 7 13 6 12 6 5.50 5 (15.67) (7.33) (12.67) (7.00) (7.00) (6.00) (24.00) (23.33) (9.00) (7.33) (4.33) (4.00) 1. Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage of the respondents. 2. Total of percentage in any column when added will exceed 100 since more than one channel was cited by the respondents. 3. RO = Rank Order

3090

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094

Table.3 Use of personal localite channels by the small farmers for different improved practices

Communication HYV seed Seed rate Time of Method of Depth of Seed Nitrogenous Phosphatic Irrigation Organic Plant Weedicide Pooled rank media sowing sowing sowing treatment ferti feri. matter protection for the package No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO Agriculture 72 5 127 1 99 3 117 1 110 2 31 3 121 1 94 1 40 3 36 5 18 3 41 2 2.50 2 supervision (24.00) (42.33) (33.00) (39.00) (36.67) (10.33) (40.33) (31.33) (13.33) (12.00) (6.00) (13.67) A.E.O. 31 10 29 8 24 9 26 7 19 8 14 9 10 11 16 12 7 10 19 8 11 5 19 8 8.75 9 (10.33) (9.67) (8.00) (8.67) (6.33) (4.67) (3.33) (5.33) (2.33) (6.33) (3.67) (6.33) B.D.O. 19 12 7 12 11 12 9 11 7 12 11 10 11 10 12 13 5 11 17 9 5 9 9 9 10.83 13 (6.33) (2.33) (3.67) (3.00) (2.33) (3.67) (3.67) (2.33) (1.67) (5.67) (1.66) (3.00) S.M.S 53 7 41 6 47 6 42 5 49 4 35 2 40 6 29 7 44 2 22 6 11 5 21 7 5.25 5 (17.67) (13.67) (15.67) (14.00) (16.33) (11.67) (13.33) (9.67) (14.67) (7.33) (3.67) (7.00) K.V.K. or F.T.C 121 1 105 4 107 2 109 3 111 1 55 1 121 1 24 10 80 1 120 2 42 1 111 1 2.33 1 (40.33) (35.00) (35.67) (36.33) (37.00) (18.33) (40.33) (8.00) (26.67) (40.00) (14.00) (37.00) Co-operatives 39 8 21 10 22 10 6 12 27 5 30 4 75 3 34 5 25 5 21 7 7 7 0 11 7.25 8 (13.00) (7.00) (7.33) (2.00) (9.00) (10.00) (25.00) (11.33) (8.33) (7.00) (2.33) (0.00) Farmers 24 11 22 9 18 11 23 8 9 11 1 12 40 6 27 8 0 13 19 8 0 10 0 11 9.83 10 organization (8.00) (7.33) (6.00) (7.67) (3.00) (0.33) (13.33) (9.00) (0.00) (6.33) (0.00) (0.00) Panchayats 13 13 9 11 5 13 5 13 11 10 3 11 25 9 25 9 2 12 22 6 6 8 3 10 10.42 12 (4.33) (3.00) (1.67) (1.67) (3.67) (1.00) (8.33) (8.33) (0.66) (7.33) (2.00) (1.00) Progressive 109 2 111 2 109 1 41 6 25 6 21 5 66 4 66 3 29 4 127 1 23 2 36 3 3.25 3 farmers (36.33) (37.00) (36.33) (13.67) (8.33) (7.00) (22.00) (22.00) (9.67) (42.33) (7.67) (12.00) Friends 77 4 34 7 27 8 13 9 19 8 18 7 32 8 32 6 22 6 55 3 17 4 33 4 6.16 7 (25.67) (11.33) (9.00) (4.33) (6.33) (6.00) (10.67) (10.67) (7.33) (18.33) (5.67) (11.00) Neighbour 82 3 109 3 98 4 110 2 65 3 16 8 107 2 90 2 20 8 52 4 11 5 21 7 4.25 4 (27.33) (36.33) (32.67) (36.67) (21.67) (5.33) (35.67) (30.00) (6.67) (17.33) (3.67) (7.00) Farm leader 62 6 61 5 52 5 49 4 17 9 55 1 44 5 40 4 18 9 14 10 23 2 29 5 5.42 6 (20.67) (20.33) (17.33) (16.33) (5.67) (18.33) (14.67) (13.33) (6.00) (4.67) (7.67) (9.67) Relations 36 9 22 9 29 7 12 10 24 7 19 6 34 7 22 11 21 7 9 11 9 6 23 6 8.00 9 (12.00) (7.33) (9.67) (4.00) (8.00) (6.33) (11.33) (7.33) (7.00) (3.00) (3.00) (7.67) 1. Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage of the respondents. 2. Total of percentage in any column when added will exceed 100 since more than one channel was cited by the respondents. 3. RO = Rank Order

3091

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094

Table.4 Use of impersonal cosmopolite channels by the small farmers for different improved farm practices package of percentages of wheat

Communication HYV seed Seed Time of Method of Depth of Seed Nitrogenou Phosphatic Irrigation Organic Plant Weedicide Pooled media rate sowing sowing sowing treatment s fertilizers fertilizers matter protection rank for the package No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO No. RO

Radio 162 1 140 1 136 1 103 1 63 1 36 2 121 1 117 1 142 1 56 1 24 2 55 1 1.17 1 (54.0 (46.6 (45.3 (34.3 (21.0 (12.0 (40.3 (39.0 (47.3 (18.6 (8.00) (18.3 0) 6) 3) 3) 0) 0) 3) 0) 3) 7) 3) Personal letters 42 4 6 8 19 7 27 4 34 4 10 7 36 5 32 5 23 7 0 7 16 4 17 5 5.58 4 (14.0 (2.00) (6.33) (9.00) (11.3 (3.33) (12.0 (10.6 (7.67) (0.00) 0) 3) 0) 7) (5.13) (5.67) Poster / chart 24 8 13 6 19 7 0 8 0 8 0 8 9 11 7 10 9 8 0 7 13 5 6 6 7.67 8 (8.00) (4.33) (6.33) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 3.00) (2.33) (3.00) (0.00) (4.33) (2.00) Film 77 2 79 2 86 2 75 2 56 2 34 3 82 2 63 2 103 2 42 2 12 6 25 3 2.50 2 (25.6 (26.3 (28.6 (25.0 (18.6 (11.3 (27.3 (21.0 (34.3 (14.0 (4.00) 7) 3) 7) 0) 7) 3) 3) 0) 3) 0) (8.33) Printed material 62 3 55 3 38 3 32 3 41 3 37 1 47 3 44 3 55 3 15 4 25 1 39 2 2.67 3 (20.6 (18.3 (12.6 (10.6 (13.6 (12.3 (15.6 (14.6 (18.3 (13.0 7) 3) 7) 7) 7) 3) 7) 7) 3) (5.00) (8.33) 0) Farm journal 21 9 7 7 23 5 26 5 22 6 14 4 23 6 22 6 31 5 12 5 7 9 24 4 5.92 5 (7.00) (2.33) (7.67) (8.67) (7.33) (4.67) (7.67) (10.3 (4.00) (2.33) (8.00) (7.33) 3) News paper article 26 7 22 4 21 6 25 6 15 7 13 5 11 10 11 8 29 6 41 3 19 3 0 10 6.25 6 (8.67) (7.33) (7.00) (8.33) (4.33) (3.67) (13.6 (6.33) (0.00) (5.00) (3.67) (9.67) 7) Circular letter 28 6 1 11 0 9 0 8 0 8 12 6 19 7 17 7 36 4 0 7 7 9 4 7 7.42 7 (9.33) (0.33) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (4.00) (6.33) (5.67) (12.0 (0.00) (2.33) (1.33) 0) Tea shop board 7 11 2 10 9 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 12 9 9 9 0 10 0 7 8 8 0 10 8.83 9 (2.33) (0.67) (3.00) (0.00) (0.00) (4.00) (3.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.67) (0.00) (0.00) Wall panting 4 12 3 9 0 9 0 8 0 8 0 8 7 12 6 11 4 9 0 7 0 11 2 8 9.33 11 (1.33) (1.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.33) (2.00) (1.33) (0.00) (0.00) (0.66) (0.00) Field board 29 5 17 5 26 4 21 7 29 5 0 8 37 4 39 4 0 10 0 7 11 7 1 9 6.25 6 (9.67) (5.67) (8.67) (7.00) (9.67) (12.3 (13.0 (0.00) (0.00) (3.67) (0.00) 3) 0) (0.33) Banner 14 10 2 10 0 9 0 8 0 8 0 8 15 8 7 10 0 10 11 6 4 10 0 10 8.92 10 (4.67) (0.67) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (5.00) (2.33) (0.00) (1.33) (3.67) (0.00) 1. Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage of the respondents. 2. Total of percentage in any column when added will exceed 100 since more than one channel was cited by the respondents. 3. RO = Rank Order

3092

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094

Table.5 Relationship between communication pattern and socio-economic features

S. Socio-economic Characteristic Communication Channels No. PCC PLC ICC 1. Age (r) -0.094NS -0.077NS -0.079NS 2. Caste (x2) 65.270** 72.112** 66.912** 3. Education (x2) 78.512** 108.313** 98.918** 4. Family type (x2) 8.205NS 8.545NS 23.550NS 5. Family Size (x2) 27.815** 33.355** 5.216NS 6. Income (r) 0.072NS 0.338** 0.415** 7. Size of Holding (r) 0.162** 0.241** 0.203** 8. Farm Power (r) 0.228** 1.168** 0.399** 9. Change agent linkage (x2) 92.912** 122.543** 116.615** 10. Contact with extension agencies (x2) 15.882NS 110.545** 92.512** 11. Socio-economic status (x2) 0.389** 0.114** 0.505** 12. Social participation (r) 93.554* 142.22** 125.544** ** Significant at 1% level, NS-Not- significant, * Significant at 5% level

Table.6 Correlation coefficient between communication pattern and adoption behaviour

S. Adoption behaviour Communication Channels No. PCC PLC ICC 1. Seed technology 0.332** 0.402** 0.325** 2. Nitrogenous fertilizers 0.177** 0.325** 0.367** 3. Phosphatic fertilizers 0.082 NS 0.024 NS 0.302** 4. Pottasic fertilizers 0.054 NS 0.012 NS 0.023 NS 5. Plant Protection technology 0.011 NS 0.266** 0.304** 6. Weedicides 0.198** 0.186** 0.170** 7. Irrigation 0.056 NS 0.089 NS 0.222** ** Significant at 1% level, NS-Not-significant

The significant result clearly indicates that the and field day were the most important extent of adoption of agricultural technology Personal cosmopolite channels used by the is certainly influenced by the use and small farmers while on the other hand the availability of different communication least used channels were office calls, channels to the farmers. Though, the campaign, farm and home visit. phosphatic and potassic fertilizers, insecticides and irrigation are the four It was also observed that the most important important technological components affecting Personal localite channels, which have been wheat production, which in this study are not used by the small farmers, were KVK, found significant for all the communication agricultural supervisor and progressive channels. farmers, while least used channels were B.D.O., Panchayat and farmers organizations. The present study reveals that training, Impersonal cosmopolite channels i.e. Radio, method demonstration, result demonstration Film, Printed material and personal letter

3093

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) 7(5): 3087-3094 were mostly used by the small farmers while adoption of these practices are concerned. The the least used channel were wall painting, use and availability of communication banner and tea shop board. channels influence the adoption of these practices positively. The results of the study highlights that the use and effectiveness of communication channels References very much depends on the general background of the small farmers. In other Jha, P.N. and G.S. Skaktawat (1973) words the variables which were significantly “Adoption behaviour of farmers correlated with the communication channels towards Hybrid Bajra cultivation” are the indication of the influence over the Indian Journal of Ext. Edu. 8 (1-2) 24- acceptance and overall adoption of new 29 technology. Singh, S.P., Y.P. Singh and Vikram Sharma (2000) “Effectiveness of different Seed technology, fertilizer technology communication media for transfer of (nitrogenous) and weedicide are the three wheat production technology. Indian important components of wheat technology, Journal of Adult Education vol. 61 No. which had shown positive trend so far the 3 July-Sept. 2000.

How to cite this article:

Jaspal Singh, Amod Sharma, D.B. Tyagi and S.P. Singh. 2018. Communication Behaviour of Small Farmers of Aligarh District on Improved Wheat Technology. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 7(05): 3087-3094. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.705.360

3094