Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan
Thesis
Submitted to the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in Agriculture
(Extension Education)
by
Kailash Kalwaniya
2008
RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER S.K.N. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, JOBNER
CERTIFICATE - I
Date : ...... 2008
This is to certify that Mr. Kailash Kalwaniya had successfully completed the comprehensive examination held on ………………….. as required under the regulation for Master‟s degree.
(N.K. SHARMA) Head Department of Extension Education S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner
RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER S.K.N. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, JOBNER
CERTIFICATE - II
Date : ...... 2008
This is to certify that this thesis entitled “Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan” submitted for the degree of Master of Science in the subject of Extension Education embodies bonafide research work carried out by Mr. Kailash Kalwaniya under my guidance and supervision and that no part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree. The assistance and help received during the course of investigation have been fully acknowledged. The draft of the thesis was also approved by advisory committee on ………..…2008.
(N.K. SHARMA) (SANGRAM SINGH) Head Major Advisor Department of Extension Education S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner
(B.R. CHHIPA) Dean S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner
RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER S.K.N. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, JOBNER
CERTIFICATE - III Date : ...... 2008 This is to certify that this thesis entitled “Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan” submitted by Mr. Kailash Kalwaniya to the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the subject of Extension Education after recommendation by the external examiner was defended by the candidate before the following members of the advisory committee. The performance of the candidate in the oral examination on this thesis has been found satisfactory. We therefore, recommend that the thesis be approved.
(SANGRAM SINGH) Major Advisor
(N.K. SHARMA) (K.N. GUPTA) Advisor Advisor
(N.K. SHARMA) (S.S. YADAV) HEAD (Dean, PGS, Nominee) Department of Extension Education S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner (B.R. CHHIPA) Dean of the College Approved
DEAN POST GRADUATE STUDIES
RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER S.K.N. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, JOBNER
CERTIFICATE – IV
Date: …...2008 This is to certify that Mr. Kailash Kalwaniya of the Department of Extension Education, S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner has made all corrections/modifications in the thesis entitled “Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan” which were suggested by the external examiner and the advisory committee in the oral examination held on ………2008. The final copies of the thesis duly bound and corrected were submitted on ……..….2008, forwarded herewith for approval.
(SANGRAM SINGH) Major Advisor
(N.K. SHARMA) HEAD Department of Extension Education S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner
(B.R. CHHIPA) DEAN S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner
Approved
DEAN, PGS RAU, Bikaner
CONTENTS
Chapter No. Particulars Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION ......
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......
3. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION ......
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ......
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..…....
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) ......
ABSTRACT (HINDI) ......
APPENDICES ......
LIST OF TABLES
Table Particular Page No. No. 1 Nutritional composition of gram per 100 gm …….. 2 Area, production and productivity of gram …….. 3 Area and production wise distribution in tehsils of …….. Churu district 4 Village wise distribution of selected respondents …….. 5 Measurement of variables …….. 6 Profile of background information of the respondents …….. 7 Distribution of respondents on the basis of their existing …….. knowledge level towards gram production technology 8 Extent of knowledge and knowledge gap of farmers …….. regarding improved gram cultivation practice 9 Significant difference in knowledge between different …….. categories of farmers with respect to improved gram cultivation practices 10 Distribution of respondents of gram growers on the …….. basis of their existing adoption level towards gram production technology 11 Extent of adoption and adoption gap of respondents …….. towards improved gram cultivation practice 12 Analysis of variance of adoption score of respondents …….. in different category of gram growers 13 Constraints perceived by the respondents in adoption …….. of gram cultivation practices 14 Comparison of constraints perceived by the different …….. categories of respondents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page Particulars No. No. 1 Location of the selected Churu district of Rajasthan …….. 2 Multistage sampling procedure …….. 3 Distribution of respondents on the basis of their …….. existing knowledge level towards gram production technology 4 Extent of knowledge and knowledge gap of farmers …….. regarding improved gram cultivation practice 5 Distribution of respondents of gram growers on the …….. basis of their existing adoption level towards gram production technology 6 Extent of adoption and adoption gap of respondents …….. towards improved gram cultivation practice 7 Constraints perceived by the respondents in adoption …….. of gram cultivation
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Particulars Page No. No. I. Interview schedule …….. Part-I General information …….. Part-II Knowledge test …….. Part-III Adoption test …….. Part-IV Constraints as perceived by gram growers in …….. adoption of gram production technology
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I feel myself a fortunate person to express my profound sense of gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. Sangram Singh, Major Advisor, Associate Professor, Department of Extension Education, S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner, for his valuable and inspiring guidance, constant encouragement, constructive suggestions, during investigation and preparation of this research report successfully. I want to pay my heartly thanks to members of advisory committee Dr. N.K. Sharma, Associate Professor & Head, Department of Extension Education, Dr. K.N. Gupta, Associate Professor & Head, Department of Statistics and Dr. S.S. Yadav, Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy (Dean PGS Nominee), for their valuable guidance, incessant support and constructive suggestions during the course of investigation. My heartiest thankfulness and gratitude goes to Dr. N.K. Sharma, Associate Professor and Head, Department of Extension Education, for his moral support, helpful criticism and providing facilities during the course of study. I express my sincere thanks to Dr. B.R. Chhipa, Dean, S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner for providing necessary facilities in this venture. I also want to pay my cordial thanks to Dr. G.S. Bangarva (Assoc. Prof.), Dr. Hanuman Lal, (Assoc. Prof.), Dr. I.M. Khan (Asstt. Prof.), Dr. J.P. Yadav (Asstt. Prof.), Sh. Manish Agarwal, Sh. Ram Singh and other staff members of the Department of Extension Education, S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner whose co-operation made this investigation smooth and easy. I offer my heartly thanks to Dr. Moti Lal Meena and Sh. B.S. Yadav whose co-operation and help in various ways brought this task to completion My vocabulary falls short to express heartiest regards to my parents Smt. Rukmani Devi and Father Sh. Laxmi Narayan Kalwaniya, my elder brother Sh. Ramesh Choudhary, Roopnarayan Choudhary, younger brother Prahalad, my sisters Sunita and Sarita and my nephew Sonu, Monu, Kiran, Ishika whose consistent encouragement and blessing are beyond my expression that brought me here up to dream without which it could not have been sketched. I offer my sincere thanks to Dr. B.L. Jakhar, Dr. Amar Chand Khoji, Dr. M.L. Tetarwal, B.R. Choudhary, Tara Chand, Chandra Singh, Ashok Parihar, Banna Ram, Sardar Nitharwal, S.L. Kantwa. Omprakash, Leela Ram, Ashok, Mukesh, Babulal, Satyanarayan, Bhagwan Sahay, and my juniors Mahaveer, Ram Prakash, Dinesh, Ramanand, Mahendra, Mohan, Arvind, Rajednra and P.R. Jakhar who boosted my morale and extended unreserved help of varied nature. Word cannot express my heartiest feeling of gratitude to my spouse Susheela who has provided me mental support and inspiration not only in the course of study but also in various movements of troubles in my life. I acknowledge warmly Mr. R.K. Bana (Shivam Computers) without whose hard work and incessant effort, this task could not take the shape in due time. Last but not the least, a million thanks to God, the almighty who made me able to do this task and made every job a success for me. Date :……… Place: Jobner (Kailash Kalwaniya) Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan
Kailash Kalwaniya* Dr. Sangram Singh** (Investigator) (Major Advisor)
ABSTRACT
Agriculture is the backbone of Indian economy and about two third population is dependent on it. India is the largest producer and consumer of pulses in the world. India grows nearly 23 million hectare pulse crops and produces nearly 14.4 million tonnes pulse grains. Chickpea is the most important pulse crop of India, and occupies 7.1 million hectare with a production of 5.75 million tonnes, accounting for 30.9 per cent and 39.9 per cent of total pulse area and production respectively. Our country has predominately vegetarian population, thus pulses are main source of quality protein and essential amino acids. The yield of pulses in India is very poor around 550-625 kg per hectare against world average 900 kg per hectare. Rajasthan is a major gram producing state of the nation. In Rajasthan gram is cultivated in 1035194 hectare area with a production of about 76695 tonnes. Churu is the main gram producing district of the state. Keeping these facts in view the present investigation entitled “Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan” was undertaken with the following specific objectives : (i) To study the personal characteristics of selected respondents. (ii) To find out the knowledge level of farmers about gram cultivation practices. (iii) To find out the adoption level of farmers about gram cultivation practices. (iv) To identify the constraints being faced by the farmers in adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
* Post-graduate student, Department of Extension Education, S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner (Raj.) ** Associate Professor, Department of Extension Education, S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner, Jaipur (Raj.) The present study was conducted in Rajgarh and Taranagar tehsils of Churu district of Rajasthan. Five villages from Rajgarh and four villages from Taranagar were randomly selected. In other words, from each village 5 small, 5 marginal and 5 big farmers were selected for present study. Thus, total 135 respondents were included in the sample for study. Relevant information were collected with the help of interview schedule developed for this study through face to face contact method. Different statistical tests like mean per cent, mean per cent score, rank, standard deviation and analysis of variance („F‟ test) test were used in the data analysis. The overall study reports the following main findings. FINDINGS The main findings emanated out of the study are as under : 1. It was observed that 46.67 per cent respondents were from middle age group of 38 to 61 years, while 22.22 and 31.11 per cent farmers were in the age group of below 38 years and above 61 years respectively. While 52.60 per cent farmers were educated upto middle class. It was also found that majority of the gram growers (60.00 per cent) had agriculture as a main occupation. Three-fourth of the total respondents had passive participation in the various social organizations. The study further indicated that 53.33 per cent farmers had income from Rs. 24000-48000 per year with large family size. 2. It was observed that 54.81 per cent respondents possessed medium level of knowledge about improved gram cultivation practices. It was further revealed that the extent of knowledge about time of sowing of gram, harvesting, threshing and storage, soil and soil preparation and seed rate and recommended spacing was 88.46, 86.12, 85.60 and 81.59 MPS, respectively. While knowledge about seed treatment was very low having highest knowledge gap 71.10 per cent among the gram growers. 3. The findings revealed that 62.96 per cent gram growers had medium adoption level, whereas 13.33 and 23.70 per cent respondents were reported from the low and high adoption level. The adoption level of big farmers were higher than small and marginal farmers. It was further observed that maximum extent of adoption was reported in time of sowing practice (82.24 MPS). This was followed by the practices like seed rate and recommended spacing, harvesting, threshing and storage, soil and soil preparation practice, nipping and fertilizers application. The mean per cent score of these practices was 79.27, 78.85, 72.49, 67.59 and 54.28 MPS, respectively. Whereas higher adoption gap exists among the respondents about seed treatment (77.02 MPS), weed management (76.72 MPS), soil treatment (69.40 MPS) and plant protection measures (69.01 MPS). 4. The study indicated that soil treatment with chemicals, application of insecticides, weedicides and fungicides, operation and handling of plant protection equipments, selection of seeds, knowledge about various insect pests and diseases were expressed as most important areas of training by all the categories of gram growers. Whereas, field preparation, sowing methods and appropriate time and method of harvesting and threshing were less important training needs perceived by the respondents 5. It was found that high cost of inputs for gram cultivation, lack of knowledge about crop insurance and timely unavailability of technical advice were some of the important constraints expressed by the gram growers in the adoption of improved gram cultivation practices. It was further observed that there was non-significant difference in the constraints perceived by the different categories of farmers with regard to adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
1. Introduction
Our country has pre-dominantly vegetarian population. Thus, pulses are main source of quality protein and a rich source of energy, minerals and certain vitamins. They help in balancing the cereal dominated diet of low and middle income families by complementing the essential amino acids profile of cereal proteins. In addition to their nutritional values, pulse crops are endowed with unique property of maintaining and restoring soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, as well as improving the physical properties of soil by virtue of their deep root system. Pulses provide nutritious green fodder and feed to the livestock.
The yield of pluses in India is very poor at around 550 to 626 kg per ha. as against 1600 kg per ha in USA, 1140 kg per ha in China and 1300 kg per ha in U.S.S.R. and world average 900 kg per ha (Anonymous, 2005). Due to stagnant pulse production and increasing population pressure, availability of pulses has decreased from 56 gm per capita per day in 1968 to 30-35 gm per capita per day in 1998 against the minimum requirement of 80 gm per capita per day consumption recommended by the world health organization.
India grows nearly 23 million hectare pulse crops and produces nearly 14.4 million tonnes pulse grains. Chickpea is the most important pulse crop of India, and occupies 7.1 million hectare with a production of 5.75 million tonnes, accounting for 30.9 per cent and 39.9 per cent of total pulse area and production respectively.
In India, gram dominates with over 40 per cent share followed by Arhar (Cajanus cajan), 20 per cent of the total output of all pulses. India accounts for 73 per cent of the world production of gram grain (Anonymous, 2000). Rajasthan, Maharashtra, M.P., U.P., Haryana and Gujarat have a major share in the gram production.
Gram is an unusual versatile crop. This versatility is reflected in a wide range of gram products. The most important product comes from the seed and dominant among these products is dal made by dehulling the dry seed. The flour of dal known as “besan” is widely used in making “pakoras”, “chillas”, “kadhi”, “namkeens” and several snack foods all over the north India.
Gram ranks first in area and production among rabi pulse crops of India. It is the main source of protein and amino acids. For the predominantly vegetarian population especially for the poor socio-economic groups, pulses, in general chana dal in particular; are the only protein rich vegetable food. The nutritional composition of gram is shown in table-1.
Table 1. Nutritional composition of gram per 100 gm S.No. Nutrients Contents Whole Split (dal) 1. Moisture 9.8 9.9 2. Protein 17.1 20.8 3. Fat 5.3 2.7 4. Carbohydrate 60.9 59.8 5. Fibre 3.9 1.2 Source : Hand Book of Agriculture, 2005.
Gram grain is highly esteemed as food for human beings and feed for cattle. Its popularity lies in the fact that it is a legume and consequently possesses valuable properties as restorer of nitrogen to the soil. The roots also aerate the soil and sub-soil and the vegetative part add a lot of organic material to the soil in the form of fallen leaves.
Gram can be grown under varied agro-climatic conditions and its adaptability to soil is also remarkable. But the average yield of gram is very low as compared to the other countries. This has been basically due to the non-adoption of improved package of practices of gram cultivation by majority of the farmers. Generally, there is a time lag between origin of a technology and its adoption. Improved technology of gram cultivation is not fully adopted by the farmers and still it is grown traditionally. There is a need for the adoption of recommended cultivation technology of gram crop by the farmers, so that production and income of farmers can be raised.
The total area under gram cultivation is 1035194 hectares in 2004-05 in Rajasthan. The district-wise area, production and productivity of gram in Rajasthan are depicted in table-2. Several programmes to transfer the new agricultural technologies are in operation throughout the country. But the new technology has not yet reached the farmers; where it can be put into practice.
Table 2. Area, production and productivity of gram
(Area in Ha. Prod. in tonnes & Yield in Kg./Ha.) Region/Dist. 2003-04 2004-05 Area Prod. Yield Area Prod. Yield Ajmer 883 6479 7337 20970 15860 756
Dausa 17673 18421 1042 8880 9525 1073
Jaipur 56386 35476 629 60525 56924 941
Jhunjhunu 61021 43468 712 102226 97683 956
Sikar 61522 49703 808 66959 71468 1067
Jaipur Total 197485 153547 778 259560 251460 969
Alwar 41651 35999 864 19510 20357 1043
Bharatpur 16608 18597 1120 7515 8762 1166
Dholpur 4869 3081 633 3103 3421 1102
Karauli 43585 46656 1070 11865 10786 909
S. Madhopur 28622 28703 1003 6202 4057 654
Bharatpur Total 135335 133036 983 48195 47383 983
Baran 6666 8313 1247 3164 3358 1061
Bundi 9458 6748 713 2681 2911 1086
Jhalawar 21875 17590 804 19547 15007 768
Kota 5406 6638 1228 2166 2306 1065
Tonk 31738 17392 548 25050 17819 711 Kota Total 75143 56681 754 52608 41401 787
Barmer 951 602 633 16 12 750
Jaisalmer 9431 5968 633 11027 1009 92
Jalore 7288 4612 633 1 1 1000
Jodhpur 973 616 633 309 231 748
Nagaur 34913 35707 1023 24412 25564 1047
Pali 14233 10316 725 5103 1390 272
Sirohi 4638 2935 633 2180 1628 747
Jodhpur Total 72427 60756 839 43048 29835 693
Bikaner 94860 72260 762 99707 91045 913
Churu 110756 34218 309 281882 107659 382
Hanumangarh 232135 59228 255 76608 43752 571
Sri Ganganagar 96478 53973 559 58876 36337 617
Ganganagar Total 534229 219679 411 517073 278793 539
Bhilwara 11784 8056 684 38947 42658 1095
Chittorgarh 41031 33291 811 32205 34401 1068
Rajsamand 493 312 633 566 423 747
Bhilwara Total 53308 41659 781 71718 77482 1080 Banswara 14611 16456 1126 15070 15216 1010
Dungarpur 12455 12755 1024 14495 12330 851
Udaipur 9542 12612 1322 13427 13051 972
Udaipur Total 36608 41823 1142 42992 40597 944
State Total 1104535 707181 640 1035194 766951 741 Source : www.rajpanchayat.gov.in
The predominant reasons for the non-adoption of the technology by the farmers are mainly, the lack of technical know- how, lack of awareness and knowledge, regarding resource factors such as credit, storage, marketing and so on. Thus, there is urgent need to identify the factors affecting the adoption of gram cultivation technology.
The present investigation was therefore, planned to know the knowledge and adoption of gram cultivation practices by the farmers in the Churu district. The study will focus on the important areas of crop production in which farmers need training together with the major constraints that hinder the adoption of gram production technology among the farmers in the Churu District of Rajasthan.
With these points in view the present study entitled “Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan” formulated with following specific objectives :
(v) To study the personal characteristics of selected respondents. (vi) To find out the knowledge level of farmers about gram cultivation practices.
(vii) To find out the adoption level of farmers about gram cultivation practices.
(viii) To identify the constraints being faced by the farmers in adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
Scope and importance of the study
Providing balanced ration to the growing population of India which has crossed the figure of 100 million (2000) and may be more than double i.e. about 1375 million by the year 2031 compared to 686.3 million in 1981, is the basic problem of Indian agriculture. The task of providing balance diet to over increasing population is stupendous, especially with the limitation of land under cultivation, this has to be met by increasing the production per unit of land. Gram is one of the most important crops. It also enriches the soil fertility by its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen in the soil and successfully grown in unirrigated area.
Gram has a long history of cultivation as a subsistence crop in the arid and semi-arid areas of tropics and sub-tropics. The ability of gram to produce economic yields in soils characterized by moisture deficit makes it an important crop of dry land agriculture. Farmers grow it in various production systems and as mixed crop, an intercrop, and as backyard crop as well as. Since, the primary objective of gram cultivation has been to meet domestic requirement for food and fodder with limited market surplus of grain, there has been very little innovation in its improved cultivation practices on farmers fields. Since, the primary objective of the gram cultivation has been to meet domestic requirement for food and fodder with limited market surpluses of grain, there has been very little innovation in its improved cultivation practices of farmers field. This has resulted in yield remaining low, at about 850 kg/ha than developed countries like U.S.A., China, Russia etc. The total production of the crop is increasing mainly due to diffusion of improved technology but could not get satisfactory level according to demand of increasing population.
The increasement in gram production is only possible through improvement in knowledge and more adoption of improved gram cultivation among farmers. The present investigation would be a careful attempt to have a sharp focus on some of the important aspects related to gram cultivation.
The study of knowledge status of farmers will bring a clear picture of farmer‟s knowledge about improved gram cultivation practices. The findings about level of adoption will also highlight the utility of knowledge about improved gram cultivation technology.
Finally, the results of constraints as faced by the gram growers will be of great importance to the planners, policy makers, extension workers, researchers administrators, programme executors in developing the future strategies and TOT programmes for enhancement of gram production in the study area.
Limitation of the study
1. The present study was confined to only two tehsils i.e. Taranagar and Rajgarh of Churu district. 2. The size of sample for the study was not large as the researcher has used 135 respondents. Therefore, it may be limiting factor for the present investigation.
3. The study was limited to only one pulse crop i.e. gram in the study area.
4. All possible efforts had been made by the researcher to support the findings of the study with the help of suitable review of literature. But this has been limiting factor for him that he could not find the reviews related directly to this topic for dissertation.
5. The findings of the study are based on the face values of the responses. Hence, it is assumed that there would have been some biasness in recording the data by researcher. This would have happened because the respondents might have not given the exact responses desired to the questions of the interview schedule.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A brief account of the past work done, having a direct or an indirect bearing on the following aspects of the study is as follows : 1. Personal characteristics of the respondents.
2. Knowledge level of respondents about improved gram cultivation practices. 3. Adoption level of farmers about improved gram cultivation practices.
4. Constraints faced by the respondents in adoption of improved gram production practices/technologies
2.1 Personal characteristics of the respondents
Ram Krishna (1986) found that majority of the beneficiaries came under medium age group followed by young and old. Majority of the respondents were illiterate. Among literates non of them were having more than middle level education. Most of the beneficiaries were labourers, majority came under medium economic status group followed by high and low.
Thakrar (1986) reported that majority of the respondents (75.33 per cent) belonged to the middle age group followed by 16.67 per cent in old age group, while only 8.0 per cent of the respondents were in the young age group.
Jain (1987) stated that majority (60.83 per cent) of the sugarcane cultivator were the member of one organisation followed by 35.00 per cent members in more than one organisation, while 4.17 per cent respondents were participated as office bearers in village organisations.
Dhule (1986) reported that nearly half of the respondents (49.33 per cent) had medium organisational participation, while only 2.00 per cent respondents had high level of organisational participation.
Suthar (1989) reported that majority (88.00 per cent) of the respondents were dependent on farming only. Whereas, 12.00 per cent of the respondents were dependent on farming occupation and service. Trivedi (1989) found that the majority of respondents (58.00 per cent) were illiterate, followed by those educated upto primary level (36.00 per cent). The respondents educated upto SSC level and above were only 4 and 2 per cent, respectively.
Ingle et al. (1991) reported that 98.00 per cent respondents were educated upto primary level. 25.00 per cent were educated upto middle school, whereas 22.00 per cent respondents were educated upto high school and equal per cent (22.00 per cent) of respondents illiterates.
Bhople and Shinde (1993) found that on an average both the demonstrations and other farmers belonged to middle age group of 36 to 50 year and were educated upto primary school. They possessed land holding between 4.01 to 6.01 hectares and happened to be from middle category of socio-economic status.
Poonia (1995) found on the basis of occupation, education, land holding, social participation, type of house and farm powers that the respondents of present study were having middle socio-economic status.
Kumar (1997) revealed that most of the respondents were of middle age group of 33-52 years, educational status of the respondents were found to be almost similar in all the three categories. Majority of respondents were found to be marginal with medium socio-economic status.
2.2 Knowledge of respondents about improved gram cultivation practices
Intodia (1988) in a study on tribal farmers found that about 73.28, 77.00 and 93.33 per cent farmers did not have knowledge about improved varieties of maize, wheat and barley, respectively. In case of gram, only 5 per cent farmers has knowledge about improved seed, while more than 90 per cent farmers were unaware about plant protection measures, seed treatment and grain storage. Farmers possessed little knowledge about nitrogenous fertilizer that too only of urea (i.e. 30 per cent), while in case of phosphoric fertilizer 96 per cent farmers were unaware.
Godara (1989) observed that 60 per cent of the farmers had knowledge score ranging from 26 to 50 per cent, followed by 28 per cent who score 51 to 75 per cent. Only 4 per cent of the farmers scored 25 per cent or less scores, no one farmer had knowledge more than 75 per cent about improved mustard production technology.
Bareth (1991) revealed in his study that the majority of the gram growers as well as urd growers had medium knowledge level regarding improved pulse production practice, followed by high (around 20 per cent) and low (around 10 per cent) knowledge level.
Choudhary (1991) revealed that the farmers had moderate knowledge about the recommended production technology of gram.
Godara and De (1992) found in their study that farmers in general had moderate knowledge and the VEWs in general had good knowledge about improved mustard production technology.
Goyal and Verma (1992) found that the farmer‟s knowledge in general on improved varieties, insect pests and disease control was „low‟, while they had much better knowledge on deep tillage, sowing time, temperature, seed rate, use of Rhizobium culture, row to row spacing, fertilizer application and irrigation components of the gram production technology. Chand (1993) revealed that 77.58 per cent of trained and 22.42 per cent of untrained farmers were having high knowledge about improved practices of mustard cultivation.
Singh (1994) revealed that the respondents of all the districts had more than 50 per cent basic knowledge on the simple items viz., varieties, irrigation, harvesting and storage of rice.
Shriram (1995) reported that high knowledge level in the educated category of respondents than to other categories or mustard grower i.e. illiterate and literate about protection knowledge in mustard crop
Singh (1996) found that the average knowledge score of the trained respondents was found to be substantially higher than the untrained respondents and overall knowledge gap between trained and untrained respondents was more than 25.00 per cent with respect to package or practice of mustard crop.
Dangi et al. (1998) reported that more than a half of the respondents (68.84%) had high level of knowledge about the gram production technology. Comparatively less per cent of the gram growers were observed in the low level of knowledge group.
Sharma et al. (1998) observed that almost 50 per cent of the respondents growing wheat and mustard had medium knowledge about pest, disease, insecticides and pesticides etc. Cash crop growers had more knowledge of plant protection measures than the gram crop growers. Jat (1999) was found in practices for summer groundnut that half of the respondents were in low knowledge levels and one third of the respondents were in medium knowledge level followed by only few (15 per cent) of the respondents in high knowledge level.
Kubde et al. (1999) revealed that cent per cent respondents were about the improved variety, time of sowing the harvesting of soybean crop and 98.67, 93.33 and 82.00 per cent of respondents had knowledge about the practices of like plant protection measures, insect and disease control, seed rate and spacing, respectively.
Singh (1999) reported that big farmers possessed high extent of knowledge about pigeonpea cultivation, whereas, small farmers possessed least knowledge about time of sowing, spacing weed management and harvesting practices.
Singh and Singh (2000) reported that the farmers possessed average knowledge about improved wheat cultivation practices.
Barar (2001) revealed that respondents had highest knowledge in the practices like field preparation (85.21 MPS) and irrigation management (83.10 MPS) followed by time of sowing (73.94 MPS), seed rate and recommended spacing (73.06 MPS). Least knowledge was observed in the practice of harvesting and storage (42.71 MPS).
Kumar (2001) observed maximum knowledge of adopted and non-adopted village respondents in harvesting and threshing and storage practices with MPS 82.66 and 74.60, respectively, while physiological practices have least knowledge level in both kind of respondent. It was also found that the significant difference between adopted and non-adopted villages respondents regarding mustard production technology.
Meena (2001) found that knowledge was higher in case if beneficiary farmers in most of all the practices of groundnut cultivation. Further, it was observed that knowledge gap was higher in non-beneficiary farmers than the beneficiary farmers in all the major groundnut cultivation practices.
Subhash (2001) found that 2/3 of the respondents had medium knowledge about recommended production technology as groundnut.
Chandawat (2002) reported that 71.88 per cent of beneficiaries and 39.47 per cent of non-beneficiaries had their present status of knowledge as high with regard to improved cultivation practices of wheat production technology.
Maru (2002) reported that majority (61.66%) of respondents of progressive villages had medium knowledge level regarding improved practices of bajra cultivation followed by high (36.67%) and low (1.67%) knowledge level.
Bhati and Sharma (2003) found a significant difference between the big and small and marginal farmers as far as their knowledge about improved production technology of mustard was concerned. Whereas, their was non significant difference between the small and marginal farmer‟s knowledge about recommended mustard production technology.
Sharma et al. (2005) concluded that majority of the beneficiary (64.70%) and non-beneficiary (74.50%) farmers were found to have medium level of knowledge about recommended mustard production technology. It may also be concluded that there was positive impact of FLDs conducted by NRCRM on gain in knowledge about mustard production technology among beneficiary farmers.
2.3 Adoption status of farmers about improved gram cultivation practices
Rao (1968) found that only 28 per cent of the farmers preferred to adopt the complete practices of rice and rest of them preferred to adopt four practices namely viz., recommended seed rate, recommended spacing, timely and adequate fertilizer application and weedicides.
Singh (1968) reported that 43.33 per cent farmers used the treated seed and the rest 56.67 per cent did not adopt this technique in HYVs of wheat.
Jha and Shaktawat (1972) found that the level of adoption of hybrid bajra seed among farmers was 100 per cent, but the adoption of nitrogenous, phosphetic and potassic fertilizers were 95.23, 90.85 per cent and 73.87 per cent, respectively.
Goyal (1985) found that majority of the farmers were growing local varieties only 15 per cent farmers were using high yielding varieties of the cole crops.
GANGWAR AND YADAV (1986) FOUND THAT OUT OF 240 GRAM GROWERS, 91 PER CENT WERE USING HYV SEED AND ONLY 4 PER CENT FARMERS INOCULATED THE SEED WITH RHIZOBIUM CULTURE. THEY ALSO REPORTED THAT FARMERS USED ONLY 1.5 KG NITROGEN AND 3.75 KG PHOSPHORUS PER HECTARE AGAINST THE RECOMMENDED DOSE OF 15 KG NITROGEN AND 40 KG PHOSPHORUS PER HECTARE AND NONE OF THE FARMERS ADOPTED SEED TREATMENT.
SHEKHAWAT (1987) FOUND THAT PURE GRAM GROWERS USED THE AVERAGE SEED RATE OF 49.03 KG/HA AGAINST THE RECOMMENDED SEED RATE 70.75 KG/HA. HE ALSO REPORTED THAT IN GENERAL THE MANURE AND FERTILIZERS USED IN GRAM WERE NOT ADEQUATE. THE RECOMMENDED DOSES OF FERTILIZERS FOR IRRIGATED GRAM WERE 20 KG NITROGEN AND 40-60 KG PHOSPHORUS PER HECTARE AND FOR UN-IRRIGATED GRAM, THESE WERE 10 KG NITROGEN AND 20 KG PHOSPHORUS PER HECTARE. AGAINST THIS THE USE OF PLANT PROTECTION MEASURES IN GRAM CROP WAS VERY LESS THOUGH THERE WAS SEVERE ATTACK OF DISEASE AND PESTS.
Pant (1988) revealed that low production of improved varieties on large scale was mainly because of non-availability of seeds, inadequate quantities of fertilizers.
NEKELA (1989) REVEALED THAT IN GENERAL, 65 PER CENT FARMERS OF UDAIPUR DISTRICT EXHIBITED ADOPTION GAP OF MORE THAN 82.5 PER CENT ABOUT IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY OF KHARIF PULSES SUCH AS URD, MOONG AND MOTH BEAN.
Nainawat (1990) stated that the extent of adoption varies from 0 to 100 per cent in practices like improved varieties and manure and fertilizer application. The extent of adoption in respect of spacing and irrigation potential ranged from 26 to 100 per cent. The extent of adoption in case of soil treatment, inter-cultural operations and plant protection measures (use of insecticides and pesticides) were observed from 0 to 75 per cent.
Bareth (1991) found that 69.72 per cent gram growers in the medium adoption group and 17.19 per cent respondents in the high adoption group, while only 13.54 per cent were in the group of poor adopters. In case of weed, there were 60.42, 20.31 and 19.27 per cent adopters in the medium, high and low categories, respectively.
Sharma (1991) found that most of the farmers of the region did not know about improved varieties and cultivation practices. Further, it was also observed that farmers were least aware of the plant protection measures in the cumin crop cultivation.
Sharma (1991) found that the rose growers of Pushkar Valley had a poor knowledge of manures and fertilizers application. Whereas, they have good knowledge of pruning practices, planting and irrigation scheduling. The knowledge of farmers about selection of suitable varieties and improved practices of propagation was found to be cent per cent in the study area.
Dangi and Intodia (1992) reported that the contact and follower farmers under T & V system have shown a significant gap in the adoption of improved practices of wheat and cotton cultivation.
Chand (1993) found that 60 per cent trained and 40 per cent untrained farmers were in the category as high adoption level regarding improved practices of mustard cultivation. Shivran and Dalal (1994) revealed that the mean adoption level was hardly about 20 per cent which was very low. It was lowest (1 per cent) in case of improved seed, while the maximum was about agronomic practices (36.25 per cent). The adoption level of plant nutrition and plant protection practices was also less then 15 per cent. About 90 per cent of the farmers had low level of adoption, while there was not even a single respondent having high adoption score.
Chouhan (1995) found that adoption of plant protection measures, HYVs, harvesting, storage and seed treatment was low while adequate adoption was reported in seed rate, irrigation schedule recommended spacing in mustard production technology.
Dolli et al. (1995) stated that there was varying degree of adoption of recommended practices. Majority of the farmers had not adopted complex practice namely Rhizobium treatment, application of fertilizers and plant protection measures in the pluses crop.
Singh (1996) found that the trained group of mustard growing respondents obtained an adoption score of 33.65 while untrained respondents obtained as average score of 19.70 out of attainable maximum score 50.00.
Reddy and Rao (1998) concluded that the most of the farmers were in average knowledge and adoption group. This indicates a need for paying more emphasis on training of farmers in farm technology and showing the effectiveness of farm technology trough demonstration. Bhati (1999) concluded that about 60 per cent technological gap was found in recommended mustard production technology as per response of the farmers of all categories (i.e. small, marginal and big farmers) combine.
Choudhary (1999) found that 70.00 per cent mothbean growers were in the medium adoption group and 16.67 per cent respondents were in the low adoption. While, only 13.37 per cent were in the group of high adopters.
Singh (2000) found that beneficiary farmers (74.50%) and non- beneficiary farmers (68.62%) were found to have medium extent of adoption of mustard production technology.
SOLANKI (2001) INVESTIGATED IN A STUDY CONDUCTED ON FARM WOMEN THAT THE OVERALL MEAN PERCENTAGE SCORE IN CASE OF GRAM FOR BENEFICIARIES WAS 38.96 AS COMPARED TO ONLY 13.85 IN CASE OF NON BENEFICIARIES, THUS INDICATING AN OVERALL ADOPTION GAP OF 25.11 PER CENT BETWEEN BOTH THE CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS. THE BENEFICIARIES WERE GOOD ADOPTERS OF PLANT PROTECTION MEASURE AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH MEAN PER CENT SCORE OF 60.0 AND 56.0, RESPECTIVELY. IN REST OF THE COMPONENTS, THE BENEFICIARIES HAD POOR ADOPTION, HOWEVER IT WAS MORE THAN THE NON-BENEFICIARIES. AS REGARDS MUSTARD PRODUCTION, MAJORITY OF THE BENEFICIARIES (67.03 PER CENT) WERE IN THE CATEGORY OF VERY GOOD ADOPTION. COMPONENT WISE ADOPTION REVEALED THAT THE BENEFICIARIES WERE GOOD ADOPTERS OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICES RELATED TO IMPROVED SEED, SEED RATE AND SEED TREATMENT AND PLANT PROTECTION MEASURES WITH MPS OF 58.80, 62.00, 54.00 AND 60.00 RESPECTIVELY. WHEREAS THEY WERE FOUND TO BE POOR ADOPTERS OF THE PRACTICES RELATED TO MANURE AND FERTILIZER.
Sharma and Sharma (2003) found that overall technological gap in the recommended gram production technology was 82.4 per cent. Further, they revealed that technological gap was maximum in seed rate (92.2 per cent) followed by the plant protection measures (84.7 per cent) and nitrogenous fertilizers (83.3 per cent). Nearly 82 per cent and 79 per cent technological gap was found in adoption of seed treatment and phosphatic fertilizer in gram production. The technological gap in the use of improved variety seeds was 75 per cent.
Kirar et al. (2005) found that the productivity and income gain under FLD over traditional practices or soybean cultivation, created greater awareness and motivated the other farmers to adopt appropriate production technology of soybean.
2.4 Constraints faced by the respondents in adoption of improved gram production
Reddy (1962) expressed that difficulty and non-avaibility of improved seeds was one of the important factors for low adoption by farmers.
Krishannaveer (1988) found that lack of irrigation facilities, high cost of fertilizers, lack of knowledge of doses, method and time of fertilizers application, were the main constraints responsible for technological gap in the adoption of recommended chemical fertilizers in wheat and bajra cultivation. Verma et al. (1988) found that the major constraints associated with adoption of package of practices of summer moong technology were lack of irrigation facility during summer followed by unavailability of canal water and no knowledge about seed treatment with Rhizobium culture.
Nakela (1989) reported that lack of knowledge and technical guidance, high cost of inputs, poor economic conditions of farmers and unavailability of pure seed in time were main constraints as perceived by the pulse growers of Udaipur district of Rajasthan.
Oberai and Moorti (1989) found the untimely supply of farm inputs was observed to be one of the major factor responsible for non-adoption of modern farm technology. It was reported by 65 per cent of simple farmers followed by the small and scattered holdings (reported by 62 old farmers), adequate irrigation not available (60 per cent), technical, know-how not available (54 per cent), scarcity of capital (52 per cent) lack of proper credit facility (40 per cent), knowledge about modern farm technology (25. per cent), high yielding variety crops, susceptible to attack, pest and disease (15 per cent).
Bareth (1991) reported that the farmers raising gram and urd crop in their field perceived more technological constraints in the adoption of soil treatment, improved seed plant protection measures.
Gupta et al. (1991) reported that the main constraints perceived by the farmers in adoption of best cropping pattern were lack of credit, lack of irrigation, lack of improved seeds, small operation holdings, and lack of labour etc. Lakhera and Punjabi (1991) concluded that most sever constraints faced by the farmers were higher cost of fertilizers, followed by lack of proper technical guidance and unavailability of credit.
Mundhava and Patel (1991) concluded that improved variety, seed and seed rate, spacing, chemical fertilizers, plant protection measures and thresher were major constraints reported by rainfed wheat cultivators.
Sharma (1991) in his study found that improved varieties, application of fertilizers plant protection measures, harvesting and storage of cumin were the important areas in which respondents needed training.
Ganesan et al. (1992) concluded that small rice growers needed appropriate and timely training in the major area of plant protection measure, manures and fertilizers application and seed and seed sowing.
Chand (1993) found that lack of knowledge and skill were two most important constraints in adoption of improved practices of mustard cultivation among the untrained farmers.
Farooqui et al. (1993) observed that unavailability of equipments and implements fields channels, timely unavailability of technical information, lack of money, high cost of inputs etc. were some of the major problems faced by the farmers in adoption of water management practices of wheat and summer groundnut crops.
Khan et al. (1993) reported a highest mean score of 2.88 for training in the area of plant protection measures against pest and diseases and improved varieties. The other training needs were which the farmers perceived as most essential respectively are use of fertilizer and manures, water management, storage, harvesting and drying of paddy. Sisodia (1993) found that in general more constraints perceived by the farmers of both the crops in adoption of improved cultivation practices, were ecological constraints, plant protection measures, soil treatment and chemical weed control. Whereas, farmers of these crops faced less problem in adoption of soil and field preparation. The study also revealed that groundnut growers were facing much ecological problems like long dry spell, erratic monsoon, more insect pest and disease due to continuous rainfall etc. Secondly they faced problems in plant protection, chemicals, uncertainly of crop success etc. whereas soil treatment is also among the major problem as they faced that chemical were costly and they do not want to take risk due to lack of assured irrigation facilities.
Singh (1994) reported that the major constraints perceived in adoption of modern practices of paddy cultivation were due to lack of knowledge, poor availability of resource and economic conditions and timely unavailability of irrigation water.
Chouhan (1995) reported more constraints as perceived by the mustard growers in the adoption of improved cultivation practices were ecological constraints, plant protection measures improved seed and chemical weed control.
Chouhan (1995) concluded that the major problem faced by the mungbean growers lack of knowledge about improved seeds, inadequate availability of improved seeds, lack of knowledge about plant protection measures, delayed occurrence of monsoon and high cost of fertilizer.
Dolli et al. (1995) reported that the major reason for non-adoption of complex practices in the pulse crops was involving high cost and other financial difficultly. Therefore, crop loan should be made available by the local cooperative societies. SUBHASH CHANDRA (1995) CARRIED OUT A STUDY ON MUNGBEAN IN CHIRAWA PANCHAYAT SAMITI OF JHUNJHUNU DISTRICT OF RAJASTHAN AND THREW LIGHT ON THE CONSTRAINTS IN ADOPTION OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IMPROVED SEED AND INADEQUATE AVAILABILITY OF IMPROVED SEED.
Gaur (1996) indicated that the major constraints in the adoption of recommended package of practices were high prices of weedicides, pesticides and fungicides and adulterated and substandard inputs and non-availability of inputs at village level.
Singh (1996) in his study on mustard crop, found that unavailability of improved seeds at the time of sowing was main constraints followed by unavailability of fertilizers at the peak season. Chundawat (1997) reported that farmers need training in the area of seed treatment and use of chemicals for cumin crop cultivation.
Gholva et al. (1997) observed that application of fertilizers plant protection measures, pruning and inter-culture operation of mulberry were the important areas in which respondents needed training.
Raut et al. (1997) concluded that training need in various areas furnished in order of priority were crop protection, irrigation, harvesting, land preparation, fertilizer application and storage which clearly indicated the relative importance and weightage assigned to the respective area. Wankhede and Dubey (1997) found that the area in which farmers required training were information on subsidy for agriculture development, high yielding varieties, plant protection measures, manures and fertilizers, improved package of practices of vegetable crops.
NARAYANASWAMY AND ESHWARAPPA (1998) FOUND THAT SEVERITY OF PEST, UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF RAINFALL, HIGH COST OF PLANT PROTECTION CHEMICALS, HIGH COST FERTILIZERS, NON-AVAILABILITY OF FERTILIZERS AND SEED WERE SOME OF THE MAJOR CONSTRAINS EXPRESSED BY RED GRAM CULTIVATORS.
Sharma et al. (1998) found in their study and concluded that the mustard growers needed the training in the area of manures and fertilizers, pest and disease control improved varieties, credit facilities and crop rotation with intercropping.
Anandhan and Vasant Kumar (1999) in their study on “Groundnut growers preference of training had concluded that training may be organized in the village for 42 days duration, which will help in participation of majority of farmers. Majority of farmers preferred training once in a year and participatory type training which will help the farmers to know the recent advances in groundnut cultivation. The training if imparted before the crop season would help the farmers to get the recommended technologies and use them in groundnut cultivation.
Jat (1999) revealed that technical, economic, infrastructure and lack of extension contact, unavailability of extension literature and low exposure of mass media were main constraints of adoption in improved technology. Singh (1999) revealed that lack of knowledge, high cost of inputs and lack of skills were the most important barriers in successful growing of improved practice of pigeonpea.
Rathore (2001) revealed that among all the constraints, marketing constraints were perceived with relatively high intensity by the mungbean growers of Nagaur district of Rajasthan.
Khan (2005) concluded that high cost of improved seed, unavailability of seed in time and lack of knowledge about improved seed, recommended seed rate, long dry spell and high cost of chemical for plant protection measures etc. were main constraints expressed by the majority of the respondents in adoption of new farm practices of groundnut and gram cultivation.
Sharma et al. (2005) concluded that high cost of quality seeds, non-availability of quality seeds, non-availability of assured irrigation, discontinuation of electric supply fluctuation in price of the produce etc. were the main major constraints reported by the majority of respondents in adoption of quality seeds of mustard and groundnut.
3. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
It is essential that the theoretical concept of study must be made clear before generalizing the new concept of the research study. After going through the past research findings related to the objectives of the present investigation knowledge of farmers, adoption level of farmers and constraints perceived by the farmers as presented in the preceding chapter, a basis for theoretical frame work of the present study was formulated. It is well understood that development of conceptual frame work makes research more meaningful. It also helps in developing sound scientific approach of the study. With this realization a separate chapter on „Theoretical orientation‟ has been included in the present thesis. This chapter has been presented to clarify the following concepts :
1. Conceptual frame work of the study
(a) Concept of knowledge
(b) Concept of adoption
2. Concept of constraints
3. Theoretical model of the study
4. Operationalization of terms and abbreviations used in the study
5. Derivation of empirical hypotheses
1. CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK OF THE STUDY
(a) Concept of knowledge
“Knowledge is of two kinds, we know as a subject over-selves, know where we confined information upon it” (Samuel Johnson). Wilkening (1953) said “Farmers decision to adopt a recommended practice may be considered as a process first, then discuss its advantages and disadvantages with other farmers or with agricultural experts and at last makes decision to adopt the practice and obtain specific information to carryout the practice. This period may occur over a period of few days, weeks or a period of years”.
Bloom et al. (1956) defined knowledge as “The behaviour and test situation which emphasized remembering either by recognition or recall ideas, material or phenomena.”
English and English (1958) defined knowledge as “The body of understood information possessed by an individual or by a culture”. He further explained knowledge as “That part of a person‟s information which is in accordance with established facts”.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) while describing the model of the innovation decision process considered “Knowledge as the function or a stage of the decision process when the individual is exposed to an innovation and gains some understanding of how it functions”.
(b) Concept of adoption
The adoption has been recognised as learning theory which was conceived by Dewey (1933) and Mead (1956). In learning theory, learning is defined as “relatively enduring change in response to stimulus”. Adoption is regarded as very similar to the learning process, as it also belongs to relatively enduring behavioural change in the individual, but the adoption as a process was not recognised in the early period. Wilkening (1953) rephrased the earlier version to adoption of an innovation as the process composed of learning, deciding and acting over a period of time. The adoption of a specific practice into the result of single decision to act but of a series of actions, thoughts and decisions. He considered this process as composed of four stages i.e. awareness, obtaining information, communication trial and adoption.
A committee of rural sociologists (North Central Rural Sociology Sub Committee, 1955) recommended the stages suggested by Wilkening (1953) with slight variations. The committee suggested five stages instead of four. These were awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption. Emery and Oeser (1958) viewed adoption of a farm practice as a “Consequence of communication”.
Ramsey et al. (1958) had a different approach to the concept. They conceptualized that adoption involves critical evaluation of practice by farmers and is of two types behavioural adoption and cognitive adoption. Behavioural adoption is observed by the number of practices actually put into practice. The cognitive adoption involves a complex of decisions and changes including obtaining knowledge, critically evaluating the practice in terms of the individual situation.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) termed adoption as innovation decision process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of innovation to a decision of adopt or reject to later confirmation of this decision. There are four functions in this process, i.e. knowledge, persuation, decision and confirmation.
It appears from the various studies on adoption that adoption is both a process involving some stages of decision making and a stage in the process where the farmers begin the full use of an innovation. 2. CONCEPT OF CONSTRAINTS
The simplest dictionary meaning of constraint are to compel, to force, to confine, to restrain, to violate, to straighten to contract, to distress, to limit, to press, restriction of liberty, affection, restricted to avoid or perform same action.
In behavioural research, there were difficulties in conceptualizing the constraints as variable because they did not tend themselves easily to abstractions. Such notions as adoption behaviour and acceptance of practices innovations suffered from vague and contradictory formulation to such an extent that there was little concerning the adoption and acceptance of such segments of technologies, their degrees, directionality and the problem of their measurement (Bhatangar, 1974). Constraints exists primarily in terms of how they are defined and conceived in organization (Bhople and Agarwal, 1987). Constraints are projections of collective sentiments rather than simple mirror of objective conditions (Bora, 1990).
According to some author, there exists interaction among the different constraints (Harshim, 1989). It is argued that many constraints exists simultaneously in several stages of development and patterns of progress from one stage to another depending upon time, place and other sets of conditions (Bhatnagar, 1974).
Bhople and Agarwal (1987) defined constraints as “The state or quality of sense being restricted to a given course of action or constraints are nothing but the problems that come in the way of adoption of technology”.
3. THEORETICAL MODEL OF THE STUDY
For the successful completion of present research work a theoretical model of the study has been developed on which the entire study is based (Fig. 1). The final conclusion of this theoretical model has been presented at the end of dissertation under chapter “Results and discussion” where the investigator has presented the information on knowledge and adoption of recommended production technology of gram cultivation by the farmers and the significant factors associated with them.
4. OPERATIONALISATION OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE STUDY
In order to give operational meaning and to facilitate clarity in expression the terms which have been most frequently used in this research report are explained below :
1. Adoption
Adoption is defined for the purpose of this study as a “stage of acceptance leading to the continue use of improved production technology of gram cultivation in future”.
2. Knowledge
Knowledge is a body of understood information about recommended production technology possessed by farmers with regard to gram cultivation.
3. Educational level
It is the level of literacy of gram growers who may be illiterate, literate or educated.
4. Social participation
It refers to the degree of participation or involvement of gram growers in formal organisation. 5. Gram growers (farmer)
Gram grower is the farmer who grows gram crop for commercial purposes (minimum land < 0.25 ha).
6. Size of land holding
It refers to total cultivable land in hectares which a gram grower (farmer) possess.
7. Constraints
It refers to the forcible restrictions in confinement of action. In this study constraints are operationalized as impediment or obstacles in the successful adoption of recommended improved production technology of gram cultivation.
8. Random sample
A random sample is one where every item of the universe has an equal opportunity of being selected in the sample. Thus neither the investigator nor the sampling unit can decide which item will be included in the sample and which are not.
9. Respondents
A person whose, response, feelings and opinion is used to fill the schedule by the investigator. It is the individual who supplies information for drawing conclusion about the study. 10. Independent variable
Independent variables are the conditions or characteristics that the researcher manipulates to ascertain their relationship to the observed phenomena. An independent variable is the presumed “Cause” of the dependent variable.
11. Dependent variable
The dependent variables are the conditions or characteristics that appear, disappear or change as the experimental manipulates the independent variables. The dependent variable is presumed “Effect” and is predicted from the independent one. In this study the adoption of the respondents is used as a dependent variable.
Socio-economic status
The position that an individual and family occupies with reference to the prevailing average standard of cultural possession and participation in group activities of community. In the study, it refers to the relative standard of the farmers in the village with reference to age, level of education, social participation, land holding, house, farm powers and type of family.
Knowledge gap
Knowledge gap refers to the difference in knowledge between the practices recommended by the extension agencies (Maximum score) and the knowledge that farmers had at the time of interview about the improved technology of gram cultivation.
Adoption gap It refers to the difference in adoption between the practices recommend (Maximum score) and adoption of improved practices that the farmers had at the time of interview about the improved technology of gram cultivation.
Factor
One of the element, circumstances or influences that contribute to produce a result on adoptions.
Technology
The activity or study using scientific knowledge or practical practices in industry, farming medicine business etc. or technology is a practical area of activity that requires scientific methods and knowledge.
Age
Refers to how many years old respondent is at the time of interview.
Caste
It refers social status and hereditary characters of the respondents in the village.
Occupation
It refers the profession practiced by the respondents.
Social participation
The farmers who participate in one or more social organisation as a member. Size of land holding
It is the number of hectare that a farmer possessed.
Education
It is level of literally formal education of the respondents.
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE SCRIPT
A.A.O. = Assistant Agriculture Officer A.E.O. = Agricultural Extension Officer B.D.O. = Block Development Officer d.f. = Degree of freedom et al. = (et alibi) and else where Ext. Edu. = Extension Education FYM = Farm Yard Manure
H0 = Null hypothesis
H1 = Alternative hypothesis ha = Hectare HE = High extent i.e. = That is Jr. = Journals kg = Kilogram LE = Low extent M.S. = Mean score ME = Medium extent M.P.S. = Mean per cent score mt = Metric tonnes N = Number of respondents NS = Non-significant Qtl = Quintal r = Correlation coefficient R.A.U. = Rajasthan Agricultural University S.D. = Standard deviation S.E. = Standard error S.No. = Serial Number t = tonnes Unpub. = Unpublished V.E.W. = Village extension worker Viz., = (Videlicet) namely
5. DERIVATION OF HYPOTHESES
According to George A. Lundberg “A hypothesis is a tentative generalization, the validity of which remains to be tested”. In its most elementary stage the hypothesis may be any hunch, guess and imaginative idea, which becomes the basis for our investigation.
Considering the importance of the factors selected in the study along with the reference to the objectives of the present investigation mentioned in chapter 1, the hypotheses framed for this investigation are as follows :
H0.1 There is no significant difference in the level of knowledge among big, small and marginal respondents regarding improved gram cultivation technology.
H0.2 There is no significant difference in the extent of adoption among big, small and marginal respondents regarding improved gram cultivation technology.
H0.3 There is no significant difference in constraints being faced by the various categories of farmers in adoption of improved practices of gram cultivation.
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In order to arrive at the specific outlined in the first chapter of this dissertation, specific approach and empirical measure were employed to accomplish the present study. This chapter describes in detail, methods and procedure used in the selection of locale and sample for research work. The detailed method has been described under the following heads :
1. Location of sample of study 2. Construction of schedule for data collection 3. Measurement of dependent variables 4. Method of data collection 5. Statistical analysis
3.1 LOCATION OF SAMPLE OF STUDY
3.1.1 Selection of district The present study was conducted in Churu district of Rajasthan (Fig. 1.). Churu district comprises six tehsils. The total geographical area of the district is 16830 sq kilometer which is about 4.92 per cent of total area of state. Out of which 517073 hectare is cultivated under gram crop. The production and productivity of gram crop is 278793 tonnes and 593 kg/ha respectively. Churu district was purposely selected for the study because of the following reasons : (i) Churu district has low productivity (< 3 q/ha). (ii) Churu district is one of the major gram growing district in the state.
(iii) Till today no systematic efforts have been made to identify the constraints responsible for low productivity in Churu district. (iv) Churu district has highest area and production of gram in Ganganagar region of Rajasthan. (v) One KVK is functioning in Churu.
(vi) The region has greater efficiency and potentiality for gram production due to the favourable soil and climatic conditions for gram cultivation as evident from yield levels in nearby district. 3.1.2 Selection of Tehsils : The Churu district comprises six tehsils namely Sardarsahar, Taranagar, Rajgarh, Churu, Ratangarh and Sujangarh. Gram is grown extensively in all the tehsils of Churu district of Rajasthan. For the selection of tehsils, two tehsils namely Taranagar and Rajgarh having maximum area and production were purposely selected. Table 3. Area and production wise distribution in tehsils of Churu district S. No. Name of tehsils Area (ha) Production (tonnes/year) 1. Sardarsahar 28508 13221 2. Taranagar 62230 25943 3. Rajgarh 60632 22547 4. Churu 43280 15777 5. Sujangarh 39720 13780 6. Ratangarh 47512 16391 Total 281882 107659 Source : Zinswari 2006 district headquarter
3.1.3 Selection of villages :
A list of all the gram producing villages of Taranagar and Rajgarh tehsil was prepared with the help of personal of revenue and agriculture Department and secondary information source from each identified tehsil. Out of this prepared list, five villages from Rajgarh and four villages from Taranagar were selected by simple random sampling. Thus, total nine villages were selected for the present investigation.
3.1.4 Selection of respondents : For selection of respondents, three lists i.e. one for marginal farmers, second for small farmers and third for big farmers were prepared from each selected village with the help of village patwari, VEW‟s and panchayat officials of respective village.
From each list, five respondents from each category of farmers were selected with the help of random sampling. In other words, from each village 5 big, 5 small and 5 marginal farmers were selected for the present study. Thus, the total sample included in the study was 135 farmers out of which 45 small, 45 medium and 45 large farmers from all the selected villages.
Villagewise selected respondents are given in Table 4 and Fig. 2. Table 4. Village wise distribution of selected respondents
District Villages Selection of respondents Tehsil Big Small Marginal Total farmers farmers farmers Churu (i) Rajgarh
(a) Manpura 5 5 5 15 (b) Bhamasi 5 5 5 15 (c) Bairasar Bara 5 5 5 15 (d) Hameerwas Bara 5 5 5 15 (e) Dokwa 5 5 5 15 (ii) Taranagar (a) Dheerwas 5 5 5 15
(b) Dabri 5 5 5 15 (c) Buchawas 5 5 5 15 (d) Bhaleri 5 5 5 15 Total 2 9 45 45 45 135
3.2 Construction of schedule for data collection I. Schedule for general information
To find out the general information the modified scale of Kumar (2004) was adopted (Table 5 and Part-I).
II. Knowledge test
To measure the knowledge of respondents, a knowledge test developed by Shriram Arya (1999) was adopted with slight modifications for the study (Part-II). Twelve major package of practices of gram production technology were included in knowledge test. Each selected practice was further divided into several questions to find out the existing knowledge of respondents about gram production technology. One score was assigned to each correct answer and a zero score to each incorrect answer. Therefore possible obtainable knowledge score a respondent could obtain was 74. The responses obtained from the respondents were counted and converted into mean per cent score. The knowledge index for each respondents was calculated by using following formula :
Knowledge score obtained Knowledge index = ------x 100 Possible maximum obtainable score
The knowledge gap was measured in terms of percentage by subtracting per cent mean of each practice from
maximum obtainable score. III. Adoption test This part of schedule was developed with a view to know the adoption of farmers about improved gram production technology. To measure extent of adoption a scale developed by Shriram Arya (1999) was adopted with slight modifications (Part-III). Twelve package of practices of gram production technology were included in the schedule. Some of the practices were further divided into sub-questions. The possible maximum score one could obtain was 105. Finally the adoption index was calculated by following formula : Total adoption score obtained by respondents Adoption index = ------x 100 Maximum obtainable score
The formula was applied for all practices, which helped in calculating adoption index. To find out the adoption gap in terms of percentage by subtracting mean per cent score of each practices from maximum obtainable score.
IV. Schedule for constraints
Constraints means impediments or barriers faced by the gram growers in getting higher production. A separate schedule was constructed to identify constraints faced by the farmers in adoption of gram production technology (Part-IV). To prepare this part of schedule a complete list of all the possible constraints was developed with the help of subject matter specialists, agriculture supervisors and reviewing the available literature. The initial list of constraints was discussed with the experts for their comments. Thus, 21 constraints were finally included in this part of schedule. To assess the constraints faced by the respondents, they were recorded on three point continuum viz., most important, important and least important by giving score 3, 2 and 1, respectively. 3. Measurement of variables
I. Measurement of independent variables
Age, caste, education, occupation, size of land holding, income level, social participation, family type and extension contact are independent variables. A developed schedule containing all these characteristics was used in this study. The details of these attributes with their respective measure are as under :
(a) Age
The number of years completed by the respondents at the time of interview was considered as his age in the present investigation. The respondents were classified into three age group on the basis of mean age of the farmers and standard deviation. These categories are as below :
1. Young : Below 38 years
2. Middle : 38-61 years
3. Older : Above 61 years
(b) Caste
According to caste, the farmers were categorised into four groups as given below :
1. Schedule caste
2. Schedule tribe 3. Other backward caste
4. Higher caste
(c) Education
In view of the educational level of the respondents, they were grouped into three categories, they are as under :
1. Illiterate : Can not read and write
2. Literate : Can read and write to middle level
3. Educated : Above middle class to higher education
(d) Occupation
According to the respondents profession they were classified into three groups viz. :
1. Agriculture : Those who were engaged in farm occupations
2. Agriculture & other subsidiary : Potter, barber, carpenter, dairy subsidiary occupation other subsidy with agriculture for their livelihood.
3. Agriculture business & service : Those who are engaged in agro farm business and service for their livelihood
(e) Size of land holding On the basis of land possessed by the respondents, they were classified into there categories viz.,
1. Marginal farmers : 1-2 hectare land
2. Small farmers : 2-4 hectare land
3. Big farmers : More than 4 hectare
(f) Income
On the basis of annual income of the family, the respondents were classified into three categories viz.
1. Low income : Upto Rs. 24,000 / year
2. Medium income : Rs. 24,000-48,000 / year
3. High income : Above Rs. 48,000 / year
(g) Social participation
According to their social participation, respondents were classified into two categories. These are given below :
1. Active participation: Member of one or more than one organization
2. Passive participation : Not member of any organization
(h) Type of family Respondents were grouped into two classes depending upon the composition of family type viz., nuclear and joint family.
1. Nuclear : Respondent who had wife and children in their dwelling
2. Joint : Respondents who were living jointly with other than wife and their children
(i) Size of family
Respondents were grouped into two groups on the basis of number of members in the family :
1. Small family : Respondents who had less than five members in the family
2. Large family : Respondents who had more than five members in the family
(j) Extension contact
Extension contact was measured by a respondents through how many extension personnel contacted regarding improved gram cultivation practices. The score was assigned according to the importance of the personnel
External personnel Score
1. VEWs 1
2. A.A.Os 2 3. A.Os 3
4. Project Officer 4
5. SMS from Research Station 5
From the categories of extension contact, mean and standard deviation were also calculated of the extension contact scale and formed three category which are as below :
1. High extension contact : Mean + S.D.
2. Medium extension contact : Difference between mean + S.D.
Mean – S.D.
3. Low extension contact : Mean – S.D.
II Measurement of dependent variables
Measurement of dependent variables is described as under :
(a) Measurement of knowledge
To know the extent of knowledge of gram growers, a knowledge test was developed for this study. Twelve major gram cultivation practices were included in the knowledge test. Each selected practice was further divided into several questions to find out the required knowledge. One score was assigned to each correct answer. Therefore, possible obtainable knowledge score one could obtain was 74.
The knowledge index for each respondent was calculated by using the following formula :
Knowledge score obtained Knowledge index (K.I) = ------x 100 Possible maximum obtainable score
The knowledge gap was measured in terms of percentage by subtracting per cent mean score of each practice from maximum obtained score. To find out the level of knowledge, overall score for each respondent were categorized into three groups on the basis of overall score by each respondent.
To distribute the respondents on the basis of existing knowledge level about gram production technology, three categories viz., low, medium and high level of knowledge were made by using mean score and standard deviation of the obtained knowledge scores by the respondents.
To find out the variation among big, small and marginal farmers regarding improved gram cultivation practices with respect to knowledge of farmers the Annova („F‟ test) was used.
(b) Measurement of adoption To measure the extent of adoption twelve major cultivation practices of gram were selected. Each major practice was further divided into sub practices and score assigned to each practice according to its importance in gram cultivation. The possible maximum obtained score one can obtain was 105. The adoption index for each respondent was calculated by using following formula :
Total adoption score obtained by respondents Adoption index =------x 100 Maximum obtainable score
The adoption gap in terms of percentage was calculated by subtracting mean per cent score of each practice from 105.
To get an overview of the respondents with respect to their level of adoption, they were grouped into three strata viz., low, medium and high adoption group. This stratification was based on the calculated mean value and standard deviation of the adoption scores obtained by the respondents.
To find out the difference among big, small and marginal farmers regarding adoption of improved cultivation practice „F‟ test was used.
(c) Measurement of constraints
To measure the constraints responsible for hindering the adoption of improved gram cultivation practices among farmers, a suitable schedule was developed by way of enlisting all possible constraints, which may come in the adoption of improved gram cultivation practices. There were 21 major constraints included in the schedule. To measure the degree of severity of constraints, the responses were recorded on a three point continuum viz., most important, important and less important, which were assigned 3, 2, 1 scores, respectively.
The mean scores were calculated for each constraints and each category of farmers were ranked accordingly. Then to find out the variables among big, small and marginal farmers regarding constraints faced by them in adoption of improved gram cultivation practices analysis test was used.
4. Method of data collection
Relevant data were collected from the selected respondents with the help of well constructed interview schedule. The personal interview technique was used for collection of data. The interview was conducted in Hindi and local dialect as and when required. The interview provides a situation where face to face discussion can be take place and the interviewer finds an opportunity to motivate and prompt the respondents to react, reestablish rapport with the respondents who in turn can feel free to give answers. The attention was given to the convenience of the respondent regarding clear understanding of the questions.
5. Statistical analysis of data
The following statistical treatments were used for interpretation of data.
(i) Percentage
Simple comparison was made on the basis of percentage. (ii) Mean score
It was obtained by total score of each practice divided by total number of respondents.
Total score of a practice Mean score = ------Total no. of respondents
(iii) Mean per cent score (MPS)
It was computed by multiplying total obtained score of the respondents by 100 and dividing by the maximum obtainable score under each practice. The formula is as under:
Total score obtained Mean Per cent Score (MPS) = ------x 100 Maximum obtainable score
(iv) Analysis of variance
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE WAS USED TO TEST THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE IN THE KNOWLEDGE AND ADOPTION OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES/GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS. THE FOLLOWING FORMULA WAS USED FOR CALCULATING THE „F‟ VALUE. MEAN SUM OF SQUARES "BETWEEN M.S.S. (BETWEEN F = GROUP” = GROUPS) MEAN SUM OF SQUARES "WITHIN M.S.S. (WITHIN GROUP” GROUPS)
IT CAN BE CALCULATED AS UNDER: (I) CORRECTION FACTOR (C.F.) 2 k ni C.F. = N i=1 j=1 G2 = ------n
(ii) Total sum of squares (T.S.S.)
2 k n i G 2 T.S.S. = x ij ------i=1 j=1 n Where k n i 2 x ij = Crude sum of square all observations i=1 j=1
(iii) Sum of squares between groups (G.S.S.)
k 2 2 X G G.S.S. = ------n ------i=1 i n
(iv) Sum of squares within groups (Error)
k ni k 2 2 xi E.S.S. = x ij - ni i=1 j=1 j=1
E.S.S. = T.S.S. – G.S.S.
(v) Degree of freedom
Between groups = k-1 (3-1) = 2 Within groups (Error) = n-k (270-3) = 267 Total = n-1 (270-1) = 269
(vi) Mean sum of squares Sum of squares M.S.S. = ------Respective degrees of freedom
G.S.S. M.S.S (Between groups) = ------k-1
E.S.S. M.S.S. (Within groups) = ------n-k
The level of significance at 5 and 1 per cent was used.
(v) Critical difference
When the result was significant, then critical difference (minimum for a significant difference) was calculated to see the actual difference between the difference categories of respondents.
(vi) Standard deviation Standard deviation was used for categorizing the respondents into different groups and to find out the variability of the dependent and independent variables involved in the study.
x2 (x)2 SD = ------ ------n n
Where,
S.D. = Standard deviation
x2 = Sum of squares of x observations
(x)2 = Square of sum of x observations
n = Size of sample
(vii) Rank
Ranks were awarded in the descending order according to the frequencies / mean per cent score. This was used to find out the priority of constraints faced by the respondents in adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
(viii) Alternative hypothesis
H1 There is significant difference in the level of knowledge among big, small and marginal respondents regarding improved gram cultivation technology.
H2 There is significant difference in the extent of adoption among big, small and marginal respondents regarding improved gram cultivation technology.
H3 There is significant difference in constraints being faced by the farmers in adoption of improved practices of gram cultivation.
Table 5. Measurement of variables
S.No. Variables Tools used for measurement A. Dependent variable 1. Knowledge level of respondents Knowledge scale developed about improved gram cultivation by Shriram Arya (1999) practices 2. Adoption level of farmers about Adoption scale developed by improved gram cultivation practices Shriram Arya (1999) 3. Constraints faced by the Schedule developed by respondents in adoption of Researcher himself improved gram cultivation practices B. Independent variables 1. Age Schedule developed by Kumar M. (2004) 2. Caste -----do-----
3. Education -----do----- 4. Occupation -----do-----
5. Size of land holding -----do-----
6. Income -----do-----
7. Social participation -----do-----
8. Type of family -----do-----
9. Size of family -----do-----
10. Extension contact -----do-----
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In view of the objectives of the study, necessary information was collected from the respondents and was analysed. The findings of the study have been presented in this chapter. The finding and interpretation of the results have been reported in following heads :
1. Personal characteristics of the respondents.
2. Knowledge of farmers regarding improved gram cultivation practices.
3. Adoption of improved gram cultivation practices among the farmers.
4. Constraints perceived by the respondents in adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
Part - I
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The data relating to personal characteristics of the respondents such as age, education, caste, occupation, income level, social participation, family type and size, extension contact are present in table 6.
Age
On the basis of age, the respondents were classified into three categories on the basis of mean and standard deviation. The data presented in table 6 reveal that out of the total respondents, majority (46.67 per cent) were from middle age group of 38 to 61 years, whereas 31.11 per cent farmers were from old age group (above 61 years) and only 26.67 per cent farmers were found in the young age group i.e. below 38 years. A close observation of the data further shows that 46.67 per cent big farmers, 26.67 per cent small farmers and 20.00 per cent marginal farmers were to be observed in old age group. While 31.11, 60.00 and 49.89 per cent big, small and marginal farmers respectively were in the age group of 38-61 years. In the category of young age group 22.22 per cent big farmers, 13.33 per cent small farmers and 31.11 per cent marginal farmers were reported in the study area. Further analysis of table shows that there was greater variation in the age of different categories of gram growers.
Education
To develop an understanding about the level of education of selected respondents, they were classified into three categories i.e. illiterate, literate and educated above middle class). Their frequencies were counted and converted into percentage for three categories of respondents. It is evident from the table that more than fifty per cent of the total respondents were in the literate group, while 28.89 per cent respondents were to be from illiterate group and only 18.51 per cent of total respondents were educated above middle class in the study area.
A further glance at the data in the table reveal that 33.33 per cent big, 28.89 per cent small and 24.44 per cent marginal farmers were illiterate. Only 15.56, 11.11 and 28.29 per cent big, small and marginal respectively were educated above middle and higher class. Majority of respondents from all the three categories were literate because of the literacy programme initiated by the government in the study area, so this result seems to be obvious (Table 6). Caste
A perusal of data incorporated in table 6 reveal that out of 135 selected respondents, 52.60 per cent farmers were from other backward caste (OBC) category, while 19.25 per cent were from higher caste and 16.30 per cent were from schedule caste (SC), only 11.85 per cent respondents were from the schedule tribe group. On further analysis of data it shows that more than 55.56 per cent big farmers and small farmers were from other backward caste category, whereas, minimum number of respondents from all the categories of farmers were schedule tribe in the area under study. The equal number (13.33 per cent) of big and small farmers were to be observed from schedule caste category. The representation of marginal farmers in this category was 22.22 per cent.
Occupation
Observation of table 6 shows that majority (60.00%) of selected respondents had to agriculture as a main occupation. Whereas, 22.22 per cent and 17.78 per cent respondents were found to be from service / business + agriculture and agriculture with caste occupation group respectively. It is very interesting to note that only one big farmer reported from the agriculture with caste occupation category. On the contrary the number of selected marginal respondents in the agriculture with caste occupation group was quite high (18 respondents). This may be due to the fact that caste like Barber, carpenter, potter, weaver etc. depend on the agriculture but they have small size of land holding. Further analysis of table shows that 75.56 per cent big, 62.22 per cent small and 42.22 per cent marginal farmers were only dependent on agriculture occupation for their livehood in the study area. Income level
With a view to classify the respondents on the basis of their income, three categories were formulated i.e. low, medium and high income group. It is evident from table 6 that 53.33 per cent of the total respondents were from medium income group (Rs. 24000-48000 per year). While 22.22 and 24.45 per cent respondents were to be observed in the low (< RS. 24000 per year) and high (above Rs. 48000 per year) income group respectively. The close observation of data further shows that 42.23 per cent big, 62.22 per cent small and 55.56 per cent marginal farmers were to be noted in the income group of Rs. 24000-48000 per year. It is interesting to note that same number of big and marginal farmers were from low and high income group, respectively. Further analysis of table clearly shows that big farmers were having more income than other category of farmers.
Social participation
The data presented in table 6 show that nearly three fourth of the total respondents were having passive participation in social organizations, while only 28.14 per cent respondents were in active social participation group. Further analysis for table clearly shows that 66.67, 71.11 and 77.78 per cent big, small and marginal farmers were to be reported in passive social participation group. Whereas, 33.33, 28.89, 22.22 per cent big, small and marginal farmers were actively participate in social organizations. Family type
Table 6 Indicates that majority (59.26%) of total respondents belonged to joint families and remaining 40.74 per cent respondents belonged to the family which are nuclear in their composition. A close observation of table further shows that 71.11, 60.00 and 46.67 per cent big, small and marginal farmers respectively were from joint family group. Whereas, rest 28.89 big farmers, 40.00 small farmers and 53.33 marginal farmers were reported to be from nuclear family. It is interesting to note that maximum number of big farmers followed the joint family concept, the reason behind may be that more human power is required for successful raising of agricultural crops.
Family size
The data presents in the table 6 vividly corroborate that 57.78 per cent total respondents were from large families containing (more than five members) and rest 42.22 per cent were from small families containing upto 5 members. Table further shows that 75.56 per cent big farmers, 57.78 per cent small farmers and 40.00 per cent marginal farmers belonged to large families, whereas 11 big farmers, 19 small farmers and 27 marginal farmers were reported to be large family size.
Extension contact
The data presented in table 6 Indicate that 37.03, 30.37 and 32.60 per cent of total respondents had low, high and medium level of extension contact, respectively. Further analysis of table shows that 33.33 per cent big farmers, 26.66 per cent, small farmers and 31.11 per cent marginal farmers possessed medium level of extension contact. The high level of extension contact were made by 48.89 per cent big farmers, 31.11 per cent small farmers and 17.78 per cent marginal farmers for receiving the agricultural information. Whereas 51.11 per cent marginal, 42.23 per cent small and only 17.78 per cent big farmers to be reported from low extension contact group.
Part - II
KNOWLEDGE OF FARMERS REGARDING IMPROVED GRAM CULTIVATION PRACTICES
This part of chapter deals with the existing status of knowledge of farmers about improved gram cultivation practices. Knowledge as a body of information possessed by an individual is one of the important components of behavioral aspect and plays an important role in the adoption of an innovation. On this ground it is imperative to examine the extent of knowledge of farmers about improved gram cultivation practices. Hence keeping this view, efforts have been made in this section to report the existing knowledge of gram grower respondents towards different aspects of gram production technology. The results have been presented under following heads :
1. Distribution of respondents on the basis of their existing knowledge about improved gram production technology
To distribute the respondents on the basis of their existing knowledge level about gram production technology, three categories viz., low, medium and high level of knowledge were made by using mean score and standard deviation of the obtained knowledge scores by the respondents. Table 7 Distribution of respondents on the basis of their existing knowledge level towards gram production technology
N = 135
S.No Level of Big farmers Small Marginal Total farmers farmers knowledge F % F % F % F % 1. Low (< 25.98) 3 6.67 6 13.33 12 26.67 21 15.55 2. Medium 25 55.55 26 57.78 23 51.11 74 54.81 (25.98-55.48) 3. High (> 55.48) 17 37.18 13 28.89 10 22.22 40 29.62 Total 45 100.00 45 100.00 45 100.00 135 100.00 X = 31.31 σ = 10.85
Table 7 and Fig. 3 depicts that out of 135 respondents, 54.81 per cent respondents had medium level of knowledge about improved gram cultivation practices. This was followed by 29.42 per cent farmers having high level of knowledge regarding gram production technology. Whereas, only 15.55 per cent respondents were observed in the low knowledge group. Perusal of table further reveals that 37.38, 28.89 and 29.62 per cent big, small and marginal farmers, respectively were in the high knowledge group. Likewise 55.55, 57.78 and 54.81 per cent big, small and marginal respondents had medium level of knowledge, respectively. Whereas only 6.67 per cent big farmers, 13.33 small farmers and 26.67 marginal farmers possessed poor or low order knowledge about improved gram cultivation practices in the study area. The knowledge level of big farmer was higher due to reason that this category of farmers possessed big size of land holding, more income level, active social participation, more cosmopolite in nature and more prone to change than small and marginal farmers. So that the results seems to be obvious in the study area.
The present findings are in accordance with the findings of Choudhary (1991), who revealed that the farmers had moderate knowledge about the recommended production technology of gram. Sharma et al. (1988) observed that almost 50 per cent of the respondents growing wheat and mustard had medium knowledge about pest, diseases, insecticides and pesticides etc. Cash crop growers had more knowledge of plant protection measures than the gram growers. The similar findings are also reported by Jat (1999), Singh (1999), Meena (2001) and Maru (2002).
2. Extent of knowledge and knowledge gap of respondents about improved gram production technology
Table 8 and Fig. 4 shows that gram growers possessed maximum knowledge about time of sowing for gram with MPS 88.46, having a knowledge gap of 11.54 per cent. Majority of the respondents were fully awared about the mid October to last week of October is the most appropriate time of sowing for gram in the study area. They were also acquainted with the advantages of timely sowing and disadvantages of late sowing of gram. This was followed by harvesting, threshing, storage practice in gram with extent of knowledge was 86.12 per cent among respondents. The knowledge about soil and soil preparation was 85.60 per cent. All the categories of respondents had more or less similar knowledge regarding soil and soil preparation because this is common and essential practice for cultivation of gram. The knowledge about seed rate and recommended spacing was placed on fourth rank with mean per cent score 81.59 and a knowledge gap of 18.41 per cent. Most of the respondents of three categories possessed knowledge about recommended seed rate 75-100 kg per hectare.
Majority of gram growers had optimum knowledge about appropriate time of harvesting, moisture content of seed for storage and name of common insect pest which harm the gram at the storage time but they possessed less knowledge regarding name of chemicals and quantity used to control the insect pest during storage. The knowledge in case of water management was 63.02 MPS, exhibiting a knowledge gap of 36.98 per cent among gram growers. Almost all the farmers had good knowledge about recommended number and stages of irrigation for gram crop, whereas gram growers possessed poor knowledge about name of chemical which is used for minimizing effect of moisture stress in arid area.
Table further indicates that the extent of knowledge regarding high yielding varieties, fertilizers application plant protection measures, weed management and soil treatment was 42.90, 68.11, 42.57, 31.78 and 34.99 MPS, respectively. The technological gap of these aspects was 57.10, 31.89, 57.43, 68.22 and 65.01 per cent respectively among the farmers. The knowledge about seed treatment was very low i.e. 28.90 MPS and having highest knowledge gap (71.10%) among all the improved gram cultivation practices in the study area.
The overall knowledge of big farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers about improved gram cultivation practices was 63.47 59.82 and 57.71 per cent respectively.
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that big farmers had more knowledge than small and marginal about almost all the major improved gram cultivation practices. Findings are supported by the findings of Godara (1989), who observed that 60 per cent of the farmers had knowledge score ranging from 26 to 50 per cent, followed by 28 per cent who score 51 to 75 per cent. Only 4 per cent of the farmers scored 25 per cent or less scores, no farmer had more than 75 per cent knowledge about improved mustard production technology. The findings are supported by Goyal and Verma (1992), who found that farmer‟s knowledge in general on improved varieties, insect pest and disease control was low, while they had better knowledge on deep tillage, sowing time, seed rate, use of Rhizobium culture, row to row spacing, fertilizer application and irrigation components of the gram production technology. The findings are also supported by the findings of Singh (1999), Singh and Singh (2000), Barar (2001) and Kumar (2001).
3. Comparison of knowledge between different categories of respondents regarding improved gram production technology
Analysis of variance („F‟ test) was applied to find out the significance of variation among all the three categories of farmers viz., marginal, small and big farmers. The results of ANOVA computed for this purpose are presented in table 9
Hypotheses
H0.1 There is no significant difference between big, small and marginal farmers regarding knowledge of improved gram cultivation practices.
H1 There is significant difference between big, small and marginal farmers regarding knowledge of improved gram cultivation practices. Table 9 Significant difference in knowledge between different categories of farmers with respect to improved gram cultivation practices
S.No. Source of variance d.f. S.S. M.S.S. „F‟ cal. 1. Between the category 2 1680.04 840.02 of farmers 4.01** 2. With in group 132 27650.36 209.47 Total 134 29330.40
** = Significant at 1 per cent level of significance
Table 9 reveals that the calculated „F‟ value 4.01, which is higher than the tabulated „F‟ value at 1 per cent level of significance and 2 degree of freedom. Thus, the alternate hypothesis (H1) entitled “there is significant difference between big, small and marginal farmers regarding knowledge of improved gram cultivation practices” was accepted and null hypothesis (H0.1) was rejected. It infers that there was significant difference between big, small and marginal farmers with regard to possession of knowledge about improved gram cultivation technology. It means that all categories of farmers possessed different levels of knowledge about improved aspects of gram cultivation. The findings are supported by the finding of Meena (2001) and Maru (2002).
Part - III
ADOPTION OF IMPROVED GRAM CULTIVATION PRACTICES AMONG THE FARMERS Need based and location specific, scientifically proved recommendations and their full use at the level of clientele system is vital for maximization of agricultural production. Still there exists a wide gap between the technology available at the research stations and its adoption at the farmers level. One of the reasons for this may be strong connection of farmers towards the traditional practices which they are following for the last several years.
Keeping this view in mind, an effort was made in this study to find out the extent of adoption of improved gram cultivation practices by the respondents, considering the importance of gram crop in the cropping system and economy of the farmers in the study area. The results have been presented under the following heads :
1. Distribution of respondents on the basis of their adoption about improved gram production technology
To get an overview of the respondents with respect to their level of adoption, they were grouped into three strata viz., low, medium and high adoption group. This stratification was based on the calculated mean value and standard deviation of the adoption scores obtained by the respondents.
Table 10 Distribution of respondents of gram growers on the basis of their existing adoption level towards gram production technology
N = 135 S.No Level of Big farmers Small Marginal Total adoption farmers farmers F % F % F % F % 1. Low (< 26.45) 4 8.89 5 11.11 9 20.00 18 13.33 2. Medium 27 60.00 30 66.67 28 62.22 85 62.96 (26.45-75.93) 3. High (>75.93) 14 31.11 10 22.22 8 17.78 32 23.70 Total 45 100.00 45 100.00 45 100.00 135 135.00 X = 51.19 σ = 24.74
The data in table 10 and fig. 5 reveal that 85 (62.96) of total gram producers were found to be from medium adoption level group, whereas 18 (13.33%) respondents were reported from the group of low adoption level and 32 (23.70%) respondents were in the high adoption level. While analyzing the case of big, small and marginal respondents regarding their level of adoption about improved gram production technology. It was reported that 14 (31.11%) big farmers were in the high adoption level and only 4 (8.89%) big farmers were in the low adoption level. While 27 (60.00%) big farmers were found in the medium adoption category. Likewise 66.67, 22.22 and 11.11 per cent small farmers possessed medium, high and low level of adoption about recommended gram production technology respectively. In case of marginal farmers category, it was observed that 20.00, 62.22 and only 17.78 per cent respondents had low, medium and high level of adoption respectively about gram production practices in the study area.
It is concluded that majority of small respondents fell under category of medium level of adoption about improved practice of gram cultivation whereas, majority of the marginal farmers under low level of adoption as compared to big and small farmers. The adoption level of big farmers were slightly higher than small farmers. It may be due to the reason that knowledge level of big farmers was comparatively higher than that of small and marginal farmers that might, has to be contributed for slightly higher level of adoption. Another reason behind such findings may be that the big farmers were more progressive in nature than small and marginal farmers. Thus, adoption is dependent on knowledge and social participation might have also played vital role towards higher adoption of big farmers.
The findings are the similar with the findings of Reddy and Rao (1998) reported that most of the farmers were in average knowledge and adoption group. This indicates a need for playing more emphasis on training of farmers in farm technology and showing the effectiveness of farm technology through demonstration.
2. Extent of adoption and adoption gap of respondents about improved gram production technology
To find out the extent of adoption and adoption gap among three categories of respondents i.e. big, small and marginal gram growers in the adoption of different improved gram cultivation practices, mean per cent score of each major practice was calculated and presented in table 11 and fig. 6.
The data in table 11 and fig. 6 indicate that maximum extent of adoption was reported in time of sowing practice. The mean per cent score of this practice was 82.24. This was followed by practices like, „seed rate and recommended spacing, harvesting, threshing and storage‟, soil and soil preparation, nipping, fertilizers application, water management, high yielding varieties, plant protection measures, soil treatment, weed management and seed treatment. The extent of adoption about these practices was 79.28, 78.85, 72.49, 67.59, 54.28, 50.33, 32.79, 30.99, 30.60, 23.28 and 22.98 MPS, respectively. Further analysis of table clearly shows that the adoption of practices like seed treatment, weed management, high yielding varieties, plant protection measures and soil treatment was very low among the marginal farmers. The extent of adoption about these practices was 17.33, 18.43, 24.63, 25.10 and 26.96 per cent respectively. The low adoption about these aspects may be due to poor socio-economic status of marginal farmers so they could not purchase costly fertilizers, high yielding varieties, and other chemicals. A close observation of the table further reveals that the adoption level was higher in big farmers than small and marginal farmers in all the major area of the gram production practices. It may be due to their high socio-economic status, so they availed, desirable facilities than small and marginal respondents.
It is summarized that maximum adoption gap exists among the respondents with reference to improved practices of gram viz., seed treatment, weed management, soil treatment and plant protection measures that amounted to be 77.02, 76.72, 69.40 and 69.01 per cent respectively. Whereas minimum gap in adoption of gram production technology was recorded in to practices among all the categories of farmers were in time of sowing, seed rate and recommended spacing and harvesting threshing and storage. The adoption gap of these practices was 17.76, 20.73 and 21.15 per cent, respectively.
The overall adoption of marginal, small and big farmers about improved gram cultivation practices were 46.57, 50.66 and 59.18 per cent respectively.
The findings are in the line of the findings of Dolli et al. (1998) who reported that there was varying degree of adoption of recommended practices. Majority of the farmers had not adopted complex practices, namely Rhizobium treatment, application of fertilizers and plant practices measures in the pulse crops. The findings are also similar with the findings of Singh (1999) who had reported that pigeon pea growers had poor knowledge and adoption regarding seed treatment, Rhizobium culture, plant protection measures, high yielding varieties and fertilizers application. Whereas, they had good adoption regarding time of sowing, plant to plant spacing, soil preparation and weed management.
Data based recommendation could be suggested that big, small and marginal farmers should be encouraged and motivated through best suitable extension approaches to increase adoption level of most important practices of gram production like, plant protection measures, water management, fertilizers application, high yielding varieties, seed treatment and soil treatment. This could help in bridging the existing huge adoption gap that will turn enable the farmers in boosting the gram production in the study area.
3. Comparison of adoption between different categories of respondents regarding improved gram production technology
Analysis of variance test was applied to find out the significance of variation among all the three categories of farmers viz., marginal, small and big farmers. The results of Anova computed for this purpose are presented in table 12.
Hypotheses
H0.2 There is no significant variation among big, small and marginal farmers regarding adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
H2 There is significant variation among big, small and marginal farmers regarding adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
Table 12 Analysis of variance of adoption score of respondents in different category of gram growers S.No. Source of variance d.f. S.S. M.S.S. „F‟ Value 1. Between the category 2 4547.61 2273.81 of farmers 3.86** 2. With in group 132 7717.20 588.77 Total 134 82264.81
** = Significant at 1 per cent level of significance
Data presented in table 12 show that the calculated “F” value (3.86) is higher than the tabulated “F” value at 1
per cent level of significance and 2 degree of freedom. So the result is statistically significant. Thus, Null hypothesis (H0.2) was
rejected and alternative hypothesis (H2) was accepted. It means that there was a significant variation among all the three categories of respondents with regard to adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
This variation among three categories may be due to the reason of the high knowledge, active social participation, higher socio-economic status, a risk bearing capacity, venturesomeness and innovativeness among the big farmers in comparison to small and marginal farmers.
The findings are similar with the findings of Kumar (2001) who reported that there was a significant difference between adopted and non-adopted village respondents and also significant difference within big, small and marginal farmers regarding adoption of improved mustard production technology. Part - V
CONSTRAINTS PERCEIVED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN ADOPTION OF IMPROVED GRAM CULTIVATION PRACTICES
The constraints under present investigation were considered as major impediments or barriers that restrict the farmers to adopt the improved gram cultivation practices at their fields. Thus, it was felt necessary to identify the major constraints faced by the respondents in adoption of gram production technology. Therefore, an effort was made to find out the priority of constraints perceived by the respondents in adoption of improved gram cultivation technology. For this mean score for each constraint was calculated and ranked accordingly. The results of the same have been presented in table 13 and fig. 7.
The data incorporated in the table 13 and fig. 7 show that “high cost of input for gram cultivation” was expressed as most important constraint by the gram growers with mean score 2.55 and ranked first by the respondents. The next important problem entitled “lack of knowledge about crop insurance and weed control through weedicide is technically a complex practice” was also faced by the respondents with weightage mean score 2.53. This was followed by the constraints like “irregular availability or electricity”, “lack of irrigation water, timely unavailability of technical advice for crop cultivation”, “credit on interest rate”, “supply of inferior quality of input by input dealer”, “problem at grazing animal”, “procurement price of product is not timely declared by Govt.” with mean score value of 2.52, 2.50, 2.47, 2.43, 2.38, 2.30 and 2.24, respectively. These constraints were ranked third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and nineth, respectively by the respondents in perception of constraints hierarchy.
Further analysis of table shows that “unavailability of improved seeds at the time of sowing”, “lack of knowledge about frost safe injury”, ”poor knowledge about plant protection measures” and “lack of knowledge about critical stages of gram cultivation” were also serious constraints faced by the gram growers in the adoption of improved gram production practices with 2.19, 2.13, 2.10 and 2.10 M.S. respectively. The less important constraints perceived by the respondents were “unavailability of sprayer and duster in the locale”, “unavailability of fertilizers at the peak season”, “unavailability of labour” and “cloudy weather at the time of pod formation”. The mean score of these aspects was 1.84, 1.74, 1.62 and 1.38 respectively. Whereas the problems “Lack of improved agricultural tools in the local market” was expressed at the lowest by the gram growers with 1.39 mean score in the study area.
It can be concluded that high cost of inputs for gram cultivation, lack of knowledge about crop insurance and timely unavailability of a technical advice for gram cultivation were most serious constraints perceived by the big, small and marginal farmers in adoption of improved gram production technology.
The present findings are in line with the findings of Bareth (1991), who reported that the farmers raising gram and urd crop in their field perceived more technological constraints in the adoption of soil treatment, improved seeds and plant protection measures. Madhava and Patel (1991) concluded that improved variety, seed and seed rate, spacing, chemical fertilizers, plant protection measures and thresher were major constraints reported by rainfed wheat cultivators. Gaur (1996) indicated that the major constraints in the adoption of recommended package of practices were high prices of weedicides, pesticides and fungicides and adulterated and substandard inputs and non-availability of inputs at village level. Singh (1999) also reported that lack of knowledge, high cost inputs and lack of skills were the most important barriers in successful growing of pigeon pea.
Significance of difference in the constraints perceived by the different categories of respondents
Analysis of variance test was applied to find out the significance of variation between three categories of farmers viz., marginal, small and big farmers with respect to constraints perceived by them in adoption of improved gram production technology. The results of ANOVA computed for this purpose are presented in table 14.
Hypotheses
H0.3 There is no significant variation in the constraints perceived by the different categories of farmers in the adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
H3 There is a significant variation in the constraints perceived by the different categories of farmers in the adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
Table 14 Comparison of constraints perceived by the different categories of respondents
S.No. Source of variance d.f. S.S. M.S.S. „F‟ Value 1. Between the category of 2 350.00 175.00 farmers 0.99 NS 2. With in group 132 141.05 141.05 Total 134 2047.21
NS = Non-significant
Table 14 reveals that the calculated “F” value 0.99, which is lower than tabulated “F” value at 5 per cent level of significance and 2 degree of freedom. Thus, the null hypothesis (H0.3) “there is no significant variation in the constraints perceived by the different categories of farmers in adoption of improved gram cultivation technology” was accepted and alternative hypothesis (H3) was rejected. It means that there was non-significant difference in constraints between big, small and marginal farmers in the study area. This reveals that gram growers of all categories perceived more or less similar constraints in adoption of improved gram cultivation practices. Table 13 Constraints perceived by the respondents in adoption of gram cultivation practices S.No Constraints Big farmers Small farmers Marginal farmers Total farmers
MS Rank MS Rank MS Rank MS Rank 1. Unavailability of improved seed at the time of 2.02 XI 2.18 X 2.38 VIII 2.19 X sowing 2. Unavailability of chemicals for seed treatment 1.89 XII 1.98 XV 2.04 XIII 1.97 XIV 3. Unavailability of fertilizers at the peak season 1.71 XV 1.67 XVIII 1.84 XVI 1.74 XVI 4. Lack of irrigation water 2.58 I 2.84 I 2.07 VII 2.50 IV 5. Unavailability of labour 1.73 XIV 1.60 XVIII 1.53 XV 1.62 XVII 6. Lack of improved agri. tools in the local market 1.36 XVI 1.42 XIX 1.40 XVII 1.39 XVIII 7. High cost of inputs for gram cultivation 2.24 VI 2.62 II 2.78 II 2.55 I 8. Unavailability of credit on marginal interest rate 2.18 VII 2.56 IV 2.55 V 2.43 VI 9. Procurement price of product is not timely 2.13 IX 2.24 IX 2.33 IX 2.24 IX declared by the govt. 10. Lack of knowledge about crop insurance 2.49 II 2.60 III 2.49 VI 2.53 II 11. Poor knowledge about plant protection 2.11 V 2.02 XIII 2.18 X 2.10 XII measures 12. Weed control through weedicides is technically 2.24 VI 2.38 VII 2.96 I 2.53 II complex practice 13. Timely unavailability of technical advice for crop 2.44 III 2.51 V 2.44 VII 2.47 V cultivation 14. Unavailability of suitable equipments for seed 1.84 XIII 2.11 XI 2.07 XII 2.01 XIII treatment 15. Irregular availability of electricity for irrigation 2.40 IV 2.49 VI 2.67 III 2.52 III 16. Unavailability of sprayer and duster in the 1.84 XIII 1.84 XVI 1.84 XIV 1.84 XV locale 17. Lack of knowledge about frost safe injury 2.16 VIII 2.11 XI 2.13 XI 2.13 XI 18. Cloudy weather at the time of pod formation 1.29 XVII 1.38 XX 1.47 XVI 1.38 XIX 19. Supply of inferior quality of inputs by the input 2.38 V 2.18 X 2.58 IV 2.38 VII dealers 20. Lack of knowledge about critical stages of gram 2.18 VII 2.07 VII 2.04 XIII 2.10 XII cultivation 21. Problem of grazing animals 2.24 VI 2.33 VII 2.33 IX 2.30 VIII M.S. = Mean score
Table 6 Profile of background information of the respondents
S.No. Big farmers Small farmers Marginal farmers Total farmers
F % F % F % F % 1. Age (a) Young (< 38 yrs) 10 22.22 6 13.33 14 31.11 30 22.22 (b) Middle (38 to 61 yrs) 14 31.11 27 60.00 22 49.89 63 46.67 (c) Old (above 61 yrs) 21 46.67 12 26.67 9 20.00 42 31.11 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 2. Education (a) Illiterate 15 33.33 13 28.89 11 24.44 39 28.89 (b) Literate 23 51.11 27 60.00 21 46.67 71 52.60 (c) Educated (above middle level) 7 15.56 5 11.11 13 28.89 25 18.51 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 3. Caste (a) Schedule caste 6 13.33 6 13.33 10 22.22 22 16.30 (b) Schedule tribe 5 11.11 4 8.89 7 15.56 16 11.85 (c) Other background caste 25 55.56 29 64.45 17 37.78 71 52.60 (d) Higher caste 9 20.00 6 13.33 11 24.44 26 19.25 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 4. Occupation (a) Agriculture 34 75.56 28 62.22 19 42.22 81 60.00 (b) Agriculture with caste occupation 2 4.44 7 15.56 15 33.34 24 17.78 (c) Agriculture+ Business/ service 9 20.00 10 22.22 11 24.44 30 22.22 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 5. Income level (a) Low (upto 24000 / yr) 2 4.44 11 24.44 17 37.78 30 22.22 (b) Medium (24000 to 48000 /yr) 19 42.23 28 62.22 25 55.56 72 53.33 (c) High (above 48000) 24 53.53 6 13.34 3 6.66 33 24.45 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 6. Social participation (a) Active participation 15 33.33 13 28.89 10 22.22 38 28.14 (b) Passive participation 30 66.67 32 71.11 35 77.78 97 71.86 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 7. Family type (a) Single 13 28.89 18 40.00 24 53.33 55 40.74 (b) Joint 32 71.11 27 60.00 21 46.67 80 59.26 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 8. Family size (a) Small family (upto 5 mem.) 11 24.44 19 42.22 27 60.00 57 42.22 (b) Large family (above 5 mem.) 34 75.56 26 57.78 18 40.00 78 57.78 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 9. Extension contact (a) Low contact 8 17.78 19 42.23 23 51.11 50 37.03 (b) Medium contact 15 33.33 12 26.66 14 31.11 41 30.37 (c) High conract 22 48.89 14 31.11 8 17.78 44 32.60 Total 45 100 45 100 45 100 135 100 P = Frequency, % = Per cent
Table 8 Extent of knowledge and knowledge gap of farmers regarding improved gram cultivation practice S. No Improved Big farmers Small farmers Marginal farmers Total farmers practices MPS Know-ledge MPS Know-ledge MPS Know-ledge MPS Know-ledge gap% gap% gap% gap% 1. High yielding varieties 48.35 51.65 41.38 58.62 38.98 61.02 42.90 57.10 2. Soil and soil preparation 84.79 10.21 85.14 14.86 81.86 18.14 85.60 14.40 3. Soil treatment 37.84 62.16 33.87 66.13 33.27 66.73 34.99 65.01
4. Seed treatment 31.47 68.53 27.84 72.16 27.39 72.61 28.90 71.10
5. Time of sowing 89.73 10.27 88.44 11.56 87.21 12.79 88.46 11.54
6. Seed rate and recommended 85.50 14.50 82.85 17.15 76.43 23.57 81.59 18.41 spacing 7. Fertilizers application 69.61 30.39 68.11 31.89 66.41 33.39 68.11 31.89 8. Water management 67.12 32.88 62.10 37.9 59.85 40.15 63.02 36.98 9. Nipping 73.75 26.25 68.92 31.08 67.15 32.85 69.94 30.06
10. Weed management 35.41 64.59 30.27 69.73 29.67 70.33 31.78 68.22 11. Plant protection measures 44.08 55.92 42.25 57.75 41.38 58.62 42.57 57.43 12. Harvesting, threshing and 88.95 11.05 86.64 13.96 82.76 17.24 86.12 13.89 storage Overall 63.47 36.53 59.82 40.18 57.71 42.29 60.33 39.67 MPS = Mean per cent score
Table 11 Extent of adoption and adoption gap of respondents towards improved gram cultivation practice S. No Improved Big farmers Small farmers Marginal farmers Total farmers practices MPS Adop-tion MPS Adop-tion MPS Adop-tion MPS Adop-tion gap% gap% gap% gap% 1. High yielding varieties 45.50 54.50 28.23 71.77 24.63 75.37 32.79 67.21 2. Soil and soil preparation 80.95 19.05 71.68 28.32 64.85 35.15 72.49 27.51 3. Soil treatment 35.58 64.42 29.25 70.75 26.96 73.04 30.60 69.40
4. Seed treatment 28.66 71.34 22.94 77.06 17.33 82.67 22.98 77.02
5. Time of sowing 88.15 11.85 80.23 19.77 78.33 21.67 82.24 17.76
6. Seed rate and recommended 83.62 16.38 80.57 19.43 73.63 26.37 79.28 20.73 spacing 7. Fertilizers application 62.12 37.88 51.58 48.42 49.14 50.86 54.28 45.72 8. Water management 61.63 38.37 46.92 53.08 42.43 57.57 50.33 49.67 9. Nipping 70.62 29.38 68.11 31.89 64.04 35.96 67.59 32.41
10. Weed management 28.59 71.41 62.81 77.19 18.43 81.57 23.28 76.72 11. Plant protection measures 38.90 61.10 28.97 71.03 25.10 74.90 30.99 69.01 12. Harvesting, threshing and 85.88 14.12 76.66 23.34 74.01 25.99 78.85 21.15 storage Overall 59.18 40.82 50.66 49.34 46.57 53.43 52.14 47.86
MPS = Mean per cent score
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The inferences of the study so brought out are presented in the from of summary and conclusion in this chapter.
INTRODUCTION
India grows nearly 23 million hectare pulse crops and produces nearly 14.4 million tonnes pulse grains. Chickpea is the most important pulse crop of India, and occupies 7.1 million hectare with a production of 5.75 million tonnes, accounting for 30.9 per cent and 39.9 per cent of total pulse area and production respectively. Rajasthan, Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Gujarat have a major share in the gram production. Gram crop has now attracted the attention of the farmers due to production in its moisture deficit soil. Being a leguminous crop it also increase soil fertility its cultivation has been to gratified domestic requirement for food and fodder with limited surplus of grains. Gram crop can be grown as a commercial crop with a greater response system to inputs and agronomic management than in traditional production system. Gram is a versatile crop. The most important produce come from the seed and dominant among these product is Dal. The flour of dal is known as Besan is widely used in making Pakoras, Kadhi, Chillas, Namkeens and several Snacks food all over the north India.
In Rajasthan, it is cultivated in 1035194 hectares area with production about 766951 kg/hectare. It is cultivated in almost all the districts of Rajasthan. But northern Rajasthan has the main production area which includes the Sriganganagar, Hanumangarh, Churu, Bikaner, Jhunjhunu, Nagaur and Sikar districts.
The present investigation was therefore, planned to know the present status of gram production and to suggest the suitable future strategy for promotion of gram cultivation in the study area with the following objectives :
(i) To study the personal characteristics of selected respondents.
(ii) To find out the knowledge level of farmers about improved gram cultivation practices.
(iii) To find out the adoption level of farmers about improved gram cultivation practices.
(iv) To identify the constraints being faced by the farmers in adoption of improved practices of gram cultivation.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(A) Location of study and sampling procedure The present study was conducted in Churu district of Rajasthan. The Churu district was purposely selected for this study on account of major gram producing district of the state. For the selection of tehsil, two tehsils were selected purposely from the identified district. A complete list of all the gram producing villages of selected tehsils was prepared. Out of this prepared list, four villages from Rajgarh and five villages from Taranagar were identified by simple random procedure. Thus, total nine villages were selected for present study. For selection of respondents, three lists i.e. one for marginal farmers, second for small farmers and third for big farmers were prepared from each selected village. From each list, five respondents from each category of farmers were drawn randomly with the help simple random procedure. Thus, the total sample includes 135 farmers in the study, out of which 45 small, 45 marginal and 45 big farmers from all the selected villages.
(B) Construction of instruments
To measure various aspects of the research study, a comprehensive developed interview schedule was adopted by the researcher which appears in the appendix. The constructed interview schedule contained four parts :
Part -I : This part of the interview schedule dealt with the general information of the respondents viz., age, education, income, family size and family type, extension contact etc.
Part - II : This part of interview schedule dealt with the extent of knowledge of improved practices of gram cultivation.
Part - III : The third part dealt with adoption of improved practices of gram cultivation by the farmers. Part - IV : The fourth part of schedule was specially designed to find out the constraints faced by the gram growers in the adoption of improved cultivation practices of gram.
(C) Data collection and statistical analysis
Face to face interview technique was employed for the collection of data from the respondents. In order to reach at appropriate conclusions the suitable statistical measures like mean score, mean per cent score, percentage, standard deviation and analysis of variance („F‟ test) test were used. The level of significance used for acceptance or rejection of hypothesis were 0.05 and 0.01.
MAJOR FINDINGS
On the basis of results, the findings are summarized as follows :
1. The study revealed that 46.67 per cent respondents were from middle age group of 38 to 61 years. While 22.22 and 31.11 per cent farmers were in the age group of below 38 years and above 61 years respectively.
2. It was found that 52.60 per cent farmers were literate upto middle class, while 18.51 per cent respondents were educated above middle level and remaining 28.89 per cent were illiterate farmers.
3. The study clearly showed that majority (52.60) of the respondents were from other backward caste group followed by higher caste. The 11.85 per cent of respondents were to be noted from schedule tribe caste category. 4. It was observed that 60.00 per cent gram growers had agriculture as a main occupation. Whereas 22.22 per cent farmers were found to be from agriculture with business/service occupation group and only 17.78 per cent farmers having agriculture with caste occupation.
5. The study indicated that 53.33 per cent farmers possessed income level from Rs 24000-48000 per year. Whereas, 24.45 per cent farmers were found in the high income group of Rs 48000 per annuum and rest 22.22 per cent farmers were to be noted from low income group of below Rs 24000 per year in the study area.
6. It was found that nearly three-fourth of the total respondents had passive participation while one fourth of the total farmers had active involvement in the various social organizations.
7. It was evident from the study that 59.26 per cent respondents belonged to joint families and remaining 40.74 per cent farmers had family which are nuclear in composition.
8. The study showed that 57.78 per cent respondents had large family size (more than 5 members) whereas, 42.22 per cent respondents had small family size.
9. It was found that 54.81 per cent respondents possessed medium level of knowledge about improved gram cultivation practices. Whereas, 15.55 and 29.62 per cent farmers had low and high level of knowledge about improved gram cultivation technology. It was further revealed that big farmers had more knowledge level than small and marginal farmers. 10. The study revealed that the extent of knowledge about time of sowing of gram, harvesting, threshing and storage practice, soil and soil preparation, seed rate and recommended spacing was 88.46, 86.12, 85.60 and 81.59 respectively. While the knowledge about seed treatment practice was very low having highest knowledge gap 71.10 per cent among the gram growers. It was further observed that big gram growers possessed slightly more extent of knowledge about almost all the practices than small and marginal farmers in the study area.
11. It was also found that there was significant variation in possession of knowledge between big, small and marginal farmers with regard to improved gram cultivation practices.
12. The findings revealed that 62.96 per cent gram growers had medium adoption level, whereas, 13.33 and 23.70 per cent respondents were reported from the low and high adoption level. The adoption level of big farmers were higher than small and marginal farmers.
13. It was observed that the maximum extent of adoption was reported in time of sowing practice (82.24 MPS). This was followed by the practices like seed rate and recommended spacing, harvesting, threshing and storage, soil and soil preparation practice, nipping and fertilizer application. The mean per cent score of these practices was 79.27, 78.85, 72.49, 67.59 and 54.28, respectively. Whereas higher adoption gap exists among the respondents about seed treatment (77.02 MPS), weed management (76.72 MPS), soil treatment (69.40 MPS) and plant protection measures (69.01 MPS). 14. It was observed that there was a significant variation among all the three categories of respondents with regard to adoption of improved gram cultivation practices.
15. The study revealed that the high cost of inputs for gram cultivation, lack of knowledge about crop insurance and weed control through weedicide were some of the important constraints expressed by the gram growers in the adoption of improved gram cultivation practices. It was further observed that there was non-significant difference in the constraints perceived by the different categories of farmers with regard to adoption of improved gram cultivation technology.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of findings the following recommendations are made to improve the productivity of the gram in the study area :
1. High cost of inputs for gram cultivation was faced as one of the most important constraint by the gram growers in the study area. It is suggested that government should make available all the inputs required for gram cultivation on nominal price through village cooperative society.
2. To bridge the wide knowledge and adoption gap which are indicated through research results. It is recommended that state agriculture department, state agriculture universities and other extension agencies may jointly make whole hearted and untiring efforts for conducting various extension programmes like trainings, demonstration, field days, kisan melas, field tours etc. so that this gap can be minimized in the study area. Suggestions for the future study
1. Similar study should be conducted in all the major gram growing districts of Rajasthan. So that a clear picture about gram can be seen and government may make their policies for improving the gram production in the state.
2. Similar study may be conducted on all the pulse crops of rabi and kharif seasons.
3. The area of research can be extended further and sufficiently large sample could be studied to ensure valid and generalized conclusions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anandan, T. and Vasanth Kumar, J. (1999). “Groundnut growers preference for training”. Agriculture Extension Review, March-April, p. 14.
Barar, K.S. (2001). Problems and prospects of cotton cultivation in Sriganganagar district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, MPUAT, Udaipur, Campus - Udaipur.
Bareth, L.S. (1991). “Technological constraints in adoption of improved pulse production technique in agro-climatic zone II A and B of Rajasthan”. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur. Bhati, D.S. (1999). Technological gap in the recommended production technology and constraints in mustard cultivation in Bharatpur district of Rajasthan. Ph.D. Thesis, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Campus : Jobner.
Bhati, D.S. and Sharma, S.K. (2003). Knowledge level of different categories of farmers about improved mustard production technology. Indian Research Journal Extension Education 3 (1) : 90-93.
Bhople, R.S. and Shinde, P.S. (1993). Comparative analysis of adoption behaviour of demonstrations and other farmers. Rural India 56 (5) : 96.
Chand, S. (1993). An impact study in relation to adoption of improved practices of the farmers in Bharatpur district (Raj.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, RAU, Bikaner, Campus : Udaipur.
Chandawat, M.S. (1997). “Knowledge and adoption of improved practices of cumin production technology in the Jalore district of Rajasthan”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Chandawat, M.S. (2002). “A study on effectiveness of training programmes of improved cultivation practices of maize and wheat crops organized by KVK for tribal farmers of southern Rajasthan”. Ph.D. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), MPUAT, Udaipur, Campus-Udaipur.
Choudhary, M.R. (1991). A study of factors affecting adoption of recommended production technology of gram in Panchayat Samiti Sambhar Lake of district Jaipur (Raj.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus : Jobner. Choudhary, M.V. (1999). A study of knowledge and adoption of improved cultivation practices of mothbean in Bikaner district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus : Jobner.
Chouhan, M.S. (1995). A study on adoption of improved cultivation practices of mustard crop in Pali district of Western Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, RAU, Bikaner, Campus : Udaipur.
Dangi, K.L. and Intodia, S.L. (1992). Adoption behaviour of contract and follower farmers under T and V system in Indira Gandhi Canal Project area of Rajasthan. Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education 2 (1) : 50-55.
Dhule, P.S. (1986). “A study on the adoption of recommended wheat technology in Hisar district of Haryana State”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Gujarat Agricultural University, Anand.
Dolli, S.S., Sundaraswamy, B. and Shinde, P.S. (1995). “Adoption pattern and constraints in cultivation of pulse crop in Karnataka”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 14 : 105-110.
Farooqui, H.F., Khan, S.M. and Mahajan, B.S. (1993). “Constraints faced by the farmers in adoption of recommended water management practices of wheat and summer groundnut crop”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 13 : 120- 122.
Ganesan, P.; Annamallal, R. and Sundram, S. Soma (1992). “Training needs of small farmers”. Indian Journal of Extension Education 28 (384) : 110-115.
Gangwar, A.C. and Yadav, A. (1986). “Economic analysis of pulse (gram) in Haryana state”. Research Bulletin No. 17, Department of Agriculture Economics, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. Gaur, A.K. (1999). “Impact of vocational training programmes organized by KVKs on farmers on western Rajasthan”. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur.
Gaur, H.K. (1996). “Adoption and constraints in pearlmillet production technology in Jaipur district of Rajasthan”. M.Sc. (Ag.), Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Gholva , M.A.; Chola, R.R. and Solankel, D.A. (1997). “Training needs of Sericultruist”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 11 : 196.
Godara, D.P. (1989). “A comparative study knowledge level of farmers and village extension workers in relation to improved oilseed (mustard) practices in Jaipur district of Rajasthan”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner.
Godara, D.R. and De, D. (1992). A comparative study on knowledge level of farmers and VEW in relation to recommended practices of mustard in Jaipur district of Rajasthan. Parsakika Rajasthan Journal of Education 2 : 39-44.
Goyal, S.C. and Verma, H.K. (1992). “Farmer‟s knowledge on gram production technology” Prasarika, Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education 2 (2) : 72-77.
Goyal, V.P. (1985). Factors affecting adoption and non-adoption of cole crops in Ajmer district of Rajasthan (India), M.Sc. (Ag) Thesis (Unpublished), Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Campus-Jobner.
Gupta, D.D.; Chakraborty, S. and Gajraj, C.K. (1991). “Need for better land use for maximizing crop production”. A case study: Abstract from International Conference on Extension Strategy for minimizing risk in rainfed agriculture, organized by Indian Society of Extension Education in collaboration with international fund for Agriculture development in ICAR from 6-9 April, 1991-96.
Ingle, P.O., Patel, N.R. and Kubde, N.R. (1991). Comprehensive watershed development programme - An evaluation. Yojna 35 (5) : 1-15.
Intodia, S.L. (1988). Problems of tribals in southern Rajasthan”. (A case study), pp. 44, Department of Extension Education, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur.
Jain, M.K. (1987). “A study on the extension of adoption of recommended sugarcane cultivation technology in Rohtak district of Haryana state. M.Sc. Thesis, Gujarat Agriculture University, Anand.
Jat, Sitaram (1999). “A study on technological in the recommended practices of summer groundnut production in Chittorgarh (Rajasthan). M.Sc. (Ag) Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Jha, P.N. and Shaktawat, G.S. (1972). Adoption behaviour of farmers towards hybrid bajra cultivation. Indian Journal of Extension Education 8 (1&2) : 24-31.
Khan, A.K., Singh, G.P. and Choudhary, A.N. (1993). “Training needs of naga farmers in terraced rice cultivation in Kohima district”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 12 : 381-382.
Khan, P.M. and Chauhan, J. (2005). Adoption of pattern of farmers towards new farm technology. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 5 (1) : 1-3. Kirar, B.S.; Mahajan, S.K.; Nashine, R.; Awasthi, H.K. and Shukla, R.K. (2005). Impact of technological practices on the productivity of soybean in FLD. Indian Research Extension Education 5 (1) : 15-17.
Krishanaverr (1988). “A study on factors affecting technological gap in adoption of chemical fertilizers (NPK) with special reference to cultivation of wheat and bajra crop. M.Sc. (Ag.), Thesis (Unpublished), S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner.
Kubde, V.R.; Tekale, V.S. and Bhople, R.S. (1999). “Knowledge and adoption of soybean production technology of farmers”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 18 : 185-188.
Kumar, M. (2004). Status and future strategy of gram (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivation in Jhunjhunu district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.
Kumar, S. (1997). Adoption of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) production technology by the farmers of Jhadol panchayat samiti in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (unpublished) Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus Udaipur.
Kumar, S. (2001). Impact of National Research Centre on rapeseed mustard on adoption of improved production technology by the farmers of Bharatpur district of Rajasthan”. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), MPUAT, Udaipur, Campus-Udaipur.
Lakhera, J.P. and Punjabi, N.K. (1991). “Constraints of fertilizers use”. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 28 (3&4) : 114- 115. Maru, S.K. (2002). “Knowledge and communication behaviour of farmers about bajra production technology in Bikaner district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.
Meena, R. (2001). “Role of Krishi Vigyan Kendra in adoption of improved production practices of groundnut by the farmers of Bikaner district of Rajasthan”. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.
Mundhava, A.B. and Patel, H.L. (1991). “Constraints in adoption of rainfed wheat technology in Bhuj area of Gujarat state”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 10 (1) : 23-29.
Nainawat, R.K. (1990). “Factors affecting adoption of improved technologies of ber plantation in Jaipur district of Rajasthan”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Jobner.
Nakela, N.S. (1989). “Kharif pulse technology accessibility to farmers in tribal and non-tribal area of Udaipur district of Rajasthan”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Narayanaswamy, K. and Eshwappa, G. (1998). “Impact of Frontline Demonstrations”. Indian Journal of Extension Education 34 (1-2) : 14-15.
Nekela, N.S. (1989). “Kharif pulse technology accessibility to farmers in tribal and non-tribal areas of Udaipur district of Rajasthan”. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.
Nikam, T.R., Bhagat, R. and Rahad, B.G. 1992. “Training needs of tribal farmers”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 11 : 291-294. Oberai, R.C. and Moorti, T.V. 1989. “Adoption of modern technology by the farmers of Goddi tribes”. Indian Journal of Extension Education 25 (4) : 121-125.
Pant, D.C. 1988. “An economic analysis of production and marketing of moth”. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner.
Poonia, P.P. (1995). Adoption of improved practices of ginger crop by the farmers in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (unpublished) Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus Udaipur.
Ram Krishan (1986). “Impact of nutritional employment programme in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), APAU, Agriculture College, Baptala.
Rao. R.N. (1968). “A study of preferential adoption of package of practices for high yielding varieties of rice in Andhra Pradesh”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Division of Agricultural Extension, IARI, New Delhi.
Rathore, N.S. (2001). “A study on adoption of improved cultivation practices of mungbean (Vigna radiata) among the farmers of Nagaur district of Rajasthan”. Unpub. M.Sc. Thesis, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.
Raut, R.S., Rirban, A.J. and Kulkarni, S.Y. (1997). “Training needs and expectation of farm youth in cultivation of dryland horticultural crops”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 14 : 53-57.
Reddy, M.S.K.N. College of agriculture, Jobner (1962). “A study of adoption of agricultural practices as a function of some socio-economic factors and sources of information. M.Sc. (Ag.), IARI, New Delhi. Reddy, P.R. and Rao, V.S. (1998). “Assessing knowledge, attitude and adoption of farmers about improved practices in agriculture. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 17 : 285-287.
Sharma, A.; Sharma, A.K. and Chauhan, J. (2005). Constraints in adoption of quality seeds”. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 5 (1) : 66-68.
Sharma, H.K. (1991). “Growth rates, inputs use and profitability of cumin in Jalore district of Rajasthan”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Sharma, R.P.; Sharma, N.K. and Dantare, M.P. (1998). “Training needs of mustard growers”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 16: 173-176.
Sharma, S. (1991). “A study on knowledge and adoption of improved cultivation practices of rose by the farmers of Pushkar Valley in Ajmer district of Rajasthan”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Sharma, S.K. and Sharma, Ramakant (2003). “Adoption of improved technology of wheat cultivation”. Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education, 11 : 93-96.
Shekhawat, R.S. (1987). “Economics of gram production in Ganganagar district of Rajasthan”. Rajasthan Agriculture
University, Bikaner. Shivram, D.K. and Dalal, R.S. (1994). “Adoption of gram production technology in Haryana”. Maharastra Journal of Extension
Education 13: 105-108.
Shri Ram (1995). A study on the adoption of plant protection technology by the farmers to safe-guard the yield of mustard in
Mavli Panchayat Samitti of Udaipur district. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus :
Udaipur.
Shriram Arya (1999). Impact of Mahi Bajaj Sagar Irrigation Project Banswara on adoption of improved technology of wheat
cultivation in tribal area of Rajasthan. Ph.D. Thesis, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology,
Udaipur.
Singh, A.K. (1996). Impact of Krishi Vigyan Kendra in adoption of mustard production technology among the farmers of
Nadbai Panchayat Samitti of Bharatpur district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University,
Bikaner, Campus : Jobner.
Singh, A.N. (1968). “A study of farmers response towards high yielding varieties”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis (Unpublished), Bikaner
Agriculture College, Sabour. Singh, H. (1999). “A study of knowledge and adoption of improved cultivation practice of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) by the
farmers at Bagidora tehsil in Banswara district”. M.Sc. (Ag.), Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner,
Campus-Udaipur.
Singh, K. and Singh P. (2000). Farmers knowledge of wheat production technology in Eastern Rajasthan. Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education 8 & 9 : 71-74.
Singh, N. (1994). “Impact of KVK on adoption of modern practices of paddy cultivation in Banswara district”. M.Sc. (Ag.), Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Singh, N. (2000). Impact of FLD on gain in knowledge about mustard production technology among farmers of Bharatpur district. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan College Agriculture, Udaipur.
Sisodia, S.S. (1993). “A study on the adoption improved oil seed production technology and its constraints faced by the farmers of sub-humid southern plain of Rajasthan”. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus-Udaipur.
Solanki, D. (2001). “Impact of central sector scheme women in Agriculture on Empowerment of farm women of Udaipur district of Rajasthan”. Unpub. Ph.D. (Ag.) Thesis, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur. Subash, Chandra (1995). “Knowledge and adoption of improved cultivation practices of mungbean (Vigna radiata) by the farmers of Chirawa panchayat samiti of Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.
Subhash, C. (2001). Factors affecting adoption of recommended production technology of groundnut in Sambhar Lake Panchayat Samiti of Jaipur district of Rajasthan. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Campus : Jobner.
Sutar, M.P. (1989). “A study on the adoption of recommended mustard cultivation technology by the farmers of board and ptlad Taluka of Kheda district of Gujarat state”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Gujarat Agricultural University, Anand.
Thakrar, D.M. (1986). “A study on the adoption of recommended summer groundnut technology by the farmers of Anand Taluka of Kheda district of Gujarat state”. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Gujarat Agricultural University, Anand.
Trivedi, Y.S. (1989). “Motivational and pattern of the farm beneficiaries and utilization of facilities under the integrated rural development programme in Junagarh division of Gujarat state” M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Gujarat Agricultural University, Junagarh.
Verma, R.P.; Lal, J. and Alam, M. (1988). “Adoption of Summer moong technology lab to land programme”. Indian Journal of Extension Education 24 (24) : 384.
Wankhede and Dubey, M.C. (1997). Agricultural training needs of tribal farmers”. Maharastra Journal of Extension Education 16 : 332-334.
Fig. 2. Multistage sampling procedure
Selected district (purposively) CHURU
Selected tehsil (purposively) Rajgarh Taranagar
Selected village (randomly) Manpu Bha Bhairasar Hameerwas Dokw Dheer Dab Buchaw Bhale
ra msi Bara Bara a was ri as ri Selected respondents 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (randomly)
M S B M S B M S B M S B M S B M S B M S B M S B M S B
M = Marginal farmers S = Small farmers 135 B = Big farmers INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan Sample No. …… Date:…….. PART- I A. General Information : 1. Name of respondent. :…………………………………… 2. Father‟s name :…………………………………… 3. Age :…………………………………….. 4. Village :…………………………………… 5. Gram Panchayat : ……...……………………………… 6. Panchayat Samiti : ……………………………………... 7. District : ……………………………………. 8. Income of family Rs. ………………..per annum B. Socio-economic status: (modified scale developed by G. Trivedi, 1963) 1. Caste Score (i) S.C. 1 (ii) S.T. 2 (iii) OBC 3 (iv) General 4 2. Occupation (i) Labour 1 (ii) Traditional occupation 2 (iii) Agriculture 3 (iv) Business 4 3. Education (i) Illiterate 1 (ii) Can read only 2 (iii) Can read and write 3 (iv) Primary 4 (v) Middle 5 (vi) High school 6 (vii) Graduate and above 7 4. Social participation (i) Member of one organization 1 (ii) Member of more than one organisation 2 (iii) Office holder 3 (iv) Public leader/M.P./M.L.A/Representative 4 5. Land (i) Landless 1 (ii) Less than 1 hectare 2 (iii) 1-2 hectare 3 (iv) 2- 4 hectare 4 (v) More than 4 ha 8 6. Mechanical power (i) Bullock cart 2 (ii) Tube well/well 4 (iii) Cycle / rickshaw 1 (iv) Jeep/car 10 (v) Motor cycle / scooter 5 (vi) Truck/bus 10 (vii) Cane crusher 4 (viii) Tractor 10 (ix) Persion wheel 2 (x) Oil engine 4 (xi) Gobar gas plant 5 (xii) Electric motor 5 (xiii) Chaff cutter 3 7. Farm implements (i) Desi plough 1 (ii) Mould board plough 2 (iii) Disc harrow 3 (iv) Cultivator 3 (v) Puddler 3 (vi) Harrow 3 (vii) Thresher 3 (viii) Winnower 4 (ix) Duster 3 (x) Sprayer 3 (xi) Seed drill 10 (Tractor drawn) 5 (xii) Bullock drawn 8. Material possession (Non term) (i) Chair 1 (ii) Table 2 (iii) Sofa set 4 (iv) Wooden almirah 4 (v) Radio /Transistor 4 (vi) Iron box 3 (vii) Steel almirah 5 (viii) Electric fan 4 (ix) Watch 4 (x) Stove (oil) 2 (xi) Gas connection 5 (xii) Tape recorder 6 (xiii) Television 7 (xiv) Refrigerator 8 (xv) Sewing machine 5 (xvi) Telephone/mobile 4 (xvii) VCR 4 (xviii) C.D. player 4 (xix) Washing machine 7 9. House (i) Own house 1 (ii) Hut without walls 2 (iii) Kuchcha thatched 3 (iv) Kuchcha tiled 5 (v) Pucca thatched 4 (vi) Pucca tiled 6 (vii) Pucca with concrete 7 (viii) Mansion 8
10. Farm power (i) Drought animals (1-2) 1 (eg. bullock, camel) (ii) 3-4 draught animals 2 (iii) 5-6 draught animals 3 (iv) More than 8 drought animals 4 11. Family Type - Single 1 Size - upto 5 members 1 Type- Joint 2 - Above 5 members 2 12. Extension contact (i) VEWs 1 (ii) A.A.Os 2 (iii) A.Os 3 (iii) Project officer 4 (iv) SMSs from Research Station 6 PART – II
KNOWLEDGE TEST
A. High yielding varieties 1. Please mention the name of high yielding varieties of gram recommended for your areas 6 (i) RSG-2 (ii) RSG-44 (iii) Dohad yellow (iv) RSG-888 (v) CSJD-884 (vi) Any other 2. Please mention the duration and average yield of following varieties 10 S.No. Varieties Duration (days) Average yield (q/ha) i. C-235 140-160 10-20 ii. H-208 130-150 15-20 iii. RSG-2 130-135 15-20 iv. RSG-44 145-150 20-25 v. Dohad yellow 90-105 15-20 3. What are the advantages of HYVs of gram 5 (i) Short maturation period (ii) More yield (iii) More resistant to diseases and pests (iv) Give good response to fertilizers (v) Better adaptability to soil and weather B. Soil and soil preparation 5 (i) Which soil is best for gram cultivation? Clay / loam (ii) How much quantity of FYM/ha is added in the soil? 10-15 tonnes (iii) How many ploughing should be done with desi plough ? One ploughing (iv) How many ploughing should be done with desi plough? 2-3 ploughing (v) Dose of nutrients N P S Zn or any other for eg. Mn, Mo. C. Soil treatment 3 (i) What are the common soil born insect pest of gram:termite and cutworm (ii) Please tell the name of chemicals and quantity which can be used for killing soil born insect pest (a) Termite : (b) Cutworm : D. Seed treatment 9 (i) Do you know about Rhizobium culture? Yes/ No (ii) For what purpose Rhizobium culture is used? To develop root nodules (iii) Do you think that seed treatment is necessary in the crop ? Yes/ No (iv) If yes, please tell me the name and quantity of chemicals which can be used for the treatment of gram seed : 6 Name of chemicals Quantity 1. Carbendazim 2 g / kg seed 2. Thiram 2.5 g / kg seed E. Time of sowing 3 (i) What is the appropriate time of sowing for gram in your area ? (Mid October to last week of October) (ii) What are the disadvantages of late sowing ? (Less production due to attack of insects and diseases) (iii) What are the advantages of timely sowing ? (More yield and less diseases and pest attack) F. Seed rate and recommended spacing 3 (i) What is the recommended seed rate for gram/ha? 75-100 kg per hectare (ii) What is the recommended PXP and RXR distance for gram crop? 8-10 cm and 0.30 cm (iii) What is recommended depth at which seed should be sown in this area ? 8-10 cm G. Fertilizer application 7 (i) Please tell me the names of chemical fertilizers which should be used in gram crop? Single super phosphate and DAP (ii) Please tell me the recommended dose of nitrogen for gram crop/ha? 15 kg per hectare (iii) Please mention the time and method of application of nitrogen fertilize in gram crop? Time – At the time of sowing Method – Basal placement (iv) Please mention the recommended dose of phosphorus for gram crop per unit area ? 50-60 kg per hectare (iv) Please mention the time and method of application of phosphorus ? Full dose at the time of sowing by placement method (vi) What should be the sowing depth of fertilizer during crop? 10-15 cm (vii) Any other micro-nutrients used in gram crop Boron
H. Water management 5 (i) How many irrigations are recommended for gram, if the irrigation facilities are available ? Two (ii) Please mention the stage of irrigation in gram crop ? (a) 40-45 days after sowing (b) 60-65 days (at the pod development) (iii) Name the chemical which is used for minimizing effect of moisture stress in arid area ? KCl (Potassium chloride) (iv) Name the method and quantity of using potassium chloride foliar ? Spray – 2 per cent I. Nipping 2 (i) What is the appropriate time for nipping in gram crop ? 30-40 days after sowing (ii) What are the advantages of nipping process ? (a) To stop the apical growth (b) To promote the lateral branching (c) Producing more flower J. Weed management 3 (i) What are the appropriate time for weeding in gram ? (a) 25-30 days after sowing (b) 60 days after sowing (ii) Do you know about weedicides used in gram crop ? Yes / No (iii) If yes, please name the weedicide which used for killing the weed in different stages of gram Stage Weedicide Quality (a) Pre sowing Pendimethalin 0.5-0.75 kg ha-1 (b) Post sowing Flucholoralin / Isoproturon 0.5-0.75 kg ha-1 K. Plant protection measures 8 (i) What are common insect pests of gram ? (a) Cutworm (b) Pod borer (ii) What is the interval for using 35 EC Endosulfan in gram crop ? 2 time – after 15 days interval at developing of pod (iii) What is the common diseases of gram ? (a) Wilt (b) Blight and rust (v) What chemical can be used for controlling these diseases ? 4 Disease Chemical Quantity Wilt Benlate and Thiram (1:1) 2 gm / kg at the time of sowing seed treatment Blight (Ascochyta) Mancozeb 0.2 % or 2 gm per hectare dissolved sulphur 0.25
L. HARVESTING, THRESHING AND STORAGE 5
(i) What should be appropriate time of harvesting? Morning time- When 75 per cent pods convert into yellow (ii) What should be the optimum moisture content of seed for storage ? 8 % (iii) What facilities should be used to storage the gram seed ? (a) Kothi (b) Gunny bag (iv) Name the common insect pest harm the gram at the storage time ? Pulse beetle (v) Name the chemical and quantity used to store the gram seed ? (a) Aluminium phosphide – 3.5 kg per 100 m3 (b) Methyl bromide - 0.3 gm per tonne Note: Each correct answer carry one mark and wrong answer give 0 mark PART – III
ADOPTION TEST
1. Use of high yielding varieties 24 (i) C-235 (ii) H-208 (iii) RSG-2 (iv) RSG-44 (v) Dohad yellow (vi) Any other 2. Soil and field preparation 8 (i) Addition of 10-15 tonnes FYM/ha before one month of sowing (ii) One ploughing with MB plough (iii) 2-3 ploughing with desi plough (iv) Addition of boron in gram crop 3. Soil treatment 5 (i) Application of 5 per cent BHC or 3 per cent Heptachlor for termite and cutworm (a) 20 kg - 4 (b) 25 kg - 5 (c) 30 kg - 4 (d) Other - 4. Seed treatment 6 (i) Use of Captan, Thiram or Carbofuran/Carbendazim 3 2.5 gm/kg seed (ii) Use of Rhizobia culture 3 packet for 1 ha seed 3 5. Time of sowing 6 (i) 1st week of October 3 (ii) 2nd week of October 6 (iii) 3rd week of October 5 (iv) 4th week of October 4 6. Seed rate and recommended spacing 8 (i) Recommended seed rate of gram kg/ha 4 (a) 60-70 kg 2 (b) 70-80 kg 3 (c) 80-100 kg 4 (d) 100-120 kg 3 (ii) Recommended plant to plant spacing 2 (a) 5 cm 1 (b) 10 cm 2 (c) 15 cm 1 7. Fertilizer application 10 (i) Application of nitrogen (A) Dose of nitrogen 2 (a) NIL 1 (b) 15 kg/ha 2 (c) 25 kg/ha 1 (ii) Time and method of nitrogen fertilizer application 2 Full dose at the time of sowing 2 1 1 /2 at time of sowing and /2 at time of first irrigation 1 (iii) Application of phosphorus 2 (B) Recommended dose of phosphorus/ha (a) 30-40 kg/ha 1 (b) 50-60 kg/ha 2 (c) More than 60 kg/ha 1 (iv) Time and method of application of phosphorus 2 (a) Full dose at sowing time by placement method (v) Application of sulphur and boron element 2 8. Water management 8 (i) One irrigation at 40-45 days after sowing 2 (ii) One irrigation at pod development stage of 60-65 days 2 after sowing (iii) Use for minimizing effect to moisture stress KCl 2 (iv) Use of water absorbing polymer-Jalshakti 2 2 kg/ha – furrow placement 9. Nipping 6 (i) When did you do nipping process after sowing (a) Before 30 days 4 (b) 30-40 days 6 (c) Above 40 days 4 10. Weed management 9 (i) Hand weeding at appropriate time 3 (ii) Weedicide used at pre-sowing stage 3 (iii) Weedicide used at post-sowing stage 3 11. Plant protection measures 10 (i) Use of 5 per cent BHC insecticides or 3 per cent Heptchor 2 for cutworm control (ii) Use of 35 EC Endosulfan 2 ml/litre 2 (2 litre per 100 litre) (iii) Mencozeb or dissolved sulphur @ 0.2 per cent spray 2 twice with in 15 days for blight control (iv) Captan used @ 10 kg per ha. to control rust 2 (v) Stay bar are made at friends bunds 2 12. Harvesting, threshing and storage 5 (1+2+1+1) (i) Harvesting the crop when 75 per cent pod turn 1 yellow and seed moisture 20 per cent (ii) Storage of seed when its moisture contain 2 should be about 8 per cent (iii) Use the pucca kothi for seed storage 1 (iv) Use the chemical to store the seed grain 1
PART – IV
CONSTRAINTS AS PERCEIVED BY GRAM GROWERS IN ADOPTION OF GRAM PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
S. Constraints Level of constraints No. Most Imp. Imp. Less Imp. (3) (2) (1) 1. Unavailability of improved seed at the time of sowing 2. Unavailability of chemicals for seed treatment 3. Unavailability of fertilizers at the peak season 4. Lack of irrigation water 5. Unavailability of labour 6. Lack of improved agricultural tools in the local market 7. High cost of inputs for gram cultivation 8. Unavailability of credit at normal interest rate 9. Procurement price (MSP) of product is not timely declared by the Government 10. Lack of knowledge about crop insurance 11. Poor knowledge about plant protection measures 12. Weed control through weedicides is technically complex practice 13. Timely unavailability of technical advice for crop cultivation 14. Unavailability of suitable equipment for seed treatment 15. Irregular availability of electricity
16 Unavailability of sprayer and duster in the locale 17. Lack of knowledge about protection against frost
18. Cloudy weather at the time of pod formation
19. Supply of inferior quality of input by the local dealers
20. Lack of knowledge about critical stages of gram cultivation
21. Problem of grazing animals Covering letter sent to the experts
Extn./S.K.N./2008.
From : Dr. Sangram Singh No. .. Assoc. Professor Dated: …..…/2008 Deptt. of Extension Education S.K.N. College of Agriculture Jobner (Jaipur) Rajasthan
To, ------Dear Sir/Madam
One of my M.Sc. (Ag.) student Mr. Kailash Kalwaniya, has undertaken a research study entitled, “Status of Gram and Constraints in its Cultivation in Churu District of Rajasthan” for completion of M.Sc. (Ag.) degree in Department of Extension Education. We are trying to develop a comprehensive schedule for measuring following objectives of the said study. (i) To study personal characteristics of selected respondents. (ii) To find out the knowledge level of farmers about gram cultivation practices. (iii) To find out the adoption level of farmers about gram cultivation practices. (iv) To identify the constraints being faced by the farmers in adoption of improved gram cultivation practices. The statements in the schedule have been developed on the basis of relevant literature, reviewed, personal experience, discussions held with subject matter specialists and Extension personnels. In this context, we want to take advantage of your vast experience and knowledge. Kindly spare some time and go through the schedule very critically and feel free to comment upon / add / delete and or modify the statements, if necessary, so that the final schedule can be developed prior to undertake the study. Kindly mail the schedule to the under signed after your necessary comments in the self addressed stamped envelop attached with schedule.
Thanking you for kind co-operation.
Encl: As above
Your‟s faithfully
(Sangram Singh)