Progressive Research 8 (Special) : 848-853 (2013) Society for Sci. Dev. in Agric. and Tech.

RE SOURCE CON SER VA TION PRAC TICES IN EX IST ING CROP PING SYS TEMS OF DISTRICT

Vinod Prakash1, H.C. Singh2 and Rajesh Kumar3 1KVK, Etawah (CSAUA&T, ) 2Dr. B R Ambedkar Col lege of Agril. Engg. and Tech., Etawah 206001 3RSM PG Col lege, Dhampur, Bijnour [email protected], [email protected],

ABSTRACT The study was carried out with 150 farmers selected purposively from the 25 villages of the 8 blocks namely Jaswantnagar, , Basrehar, Takha, Bharthana, Mahewa, Barhpura and Chakarnagar. The data were collected by interview schedule/questionnaire method and analysed by appropriate statistical techniques used viz., percentage, mean etc. The majority of farmers (83.33%) had high perception to tree based farming system (for rain fed areas) followed by 80.00 per cent farmers had high perception to multiple cropping system (for irrigated areas). The majority of farmers (71.11%) had low perception to IPNM followed by 62.22 per cent farmers had low perception to IPM and most of farmers (40.91%) had low perception to soil and water conservation practices. In respect to technical constraints, lack of local manufacturing/repair for machinery/implements was ranked 1st (94.00%) followed by non-availability of high second generation quality machinery/implements ranked as 2nd (74.67%) and risk of increased problem with insect pests and diseases ranked as 3rd (66.67%) as perceived by the farmers. Regarding extension/TOT constraints, lack of technical assistant about RCT from extension workers was ranked 1st (88.00%) followed by non-availability of literature on RCT practices in agriculture ranked as 2nd (79.33%) and lack of coverage of RCT practices by mass media ranked as 3rd (77.33%) as perceived by the farmers. In respect to financial constraints, farmers lack resources to purchase second generation machinery/implements was ranked as 1st (94.00%) followed by high cost and generation machinery/implements ranked as 2nd (92.00%) and no credit available for purchasing these machinery/implements ranked as 3rd (83.33%) as perceived by the farmers. Regarding various aspects of RCTP tree based farming system (for rain fed areas) was got 1st rank (MS 2.78) followed by multiple cropping system (for irrigated areas) ranked as 2nd (MS 2.76) and IPNM ranked as 3rd (MS 2.61) as perceived by the farmers.

Key words : Crop ping sys tem, re source con serv ing tech nol ogy, ag ri cul ture, con straints. Green revolution required higher doses of fertilizer, fuel consumption and machinery use). (1) found that more irrigation water, increase use of plant protection through the adoption of conservation agriculture chemicals, increase use of diesel and electricity. It technology the reduction in cultivation cost (1500-2000 resulted in widespread problems of resource Rs/ha), saving in water and nutrients (20-30%), degradation and environmental problems and GHGs. reduction occurrence of weeds saving in pesticides For enhancing the productivity and sustainability of (20-25%), Increased yield (05%), protection of the rice wheat cropping system which affecting the environment by elimination of burning of straw (cattle natural resource conservation technology have been feed), facilitate recycling of residue and plant nutrients developed and are being promoted across the (back to soil), opportunities for sensible/profitable crops Indo-Genetic plain. The speedy development of rotations. agriculture is vital for the progress of country and to RESEARCH METHODOLOGY secure maximum crop production, the best use of the available land has to be made and the latest method of The study of carried out in of UP. The crop husbandry put into practice. There is an increase selection of district was done purposively. The three in the yield with zero-tillage technology over the stage sampling technique was applied for the selection conventional tillage and the savings made through less of blocks, villages and farmers. The all eight blocks Prakash et al., 849 namely, Jaswantnagar, Saifai, Basrehar, Takha, inorganic source of nutrients ranked as 2nd (MS 2.66) Bharthana, Mahewa, Barhpura and Chakarnagar were and use of bio-fertilizer ranked as 3rd (MS 2.46). selected purposively for the study on the basis of the use Regarding usefulness of IPM as perceived by the of resource conserving technology practices in farmers were use of botanicals ranked as 1st (MS 2.60) agriculture in existing/rice-wheat cropping system. From followed by use of predators ranked as 2nd (MS 2.49) the list of villages only those villages from each block and microbial control ranked as 3rd (MS 2.46). In respect were selected purposively where RCT practices were in to usefulness of soil and water conservation practices as use and the number of tractor, tube- well, thresher and perceived by the farmers were crop rotation got rank 1st other machinery were more and use of resource (MS 2.76) followed by scheduling of irrigation to crop conserving technology in agriculture was found. Thus a rank 2nd (MS 2.56), conservation tillage rank 3rd (MS total of 25 villages was selected purposively. The 2.49), watershed management rank 4th (MS 2.46), selection of farmers formed third and final stage of mulching rank 5th (MS 2.40), agro forestry rank 6th (MS sampling process. In the selected villages, farmers 2.30), water use efficiency rank 7th (MS 2.06), use of having extensive use of resource conserving technology bio-fencing and residue management rank 8th (MS practices in existing/ rice-wheat cropping system was 2.O3), improved drainage rank 9th (MS 1.89) and selected purposively. Thus a total of 150 farmers were participatory irrigation management rank 10th (MS 1.86). selected purposively. The primary data were collected Farmers perception about usefulness of second from the head of farmer’s family in respect of objectives generation machinery/implements, use of multi-crop of the study by personal interview by the interview thresher was ranked as 1st (MS 2.76) followed by schedule method. The secondary data were collected rotavator ranked as 2nd (MS 2.69), zero-till seed cum from blocks and district head quarters, government ferti drill ranked as 3rd (MS2.30), laser land leveller and publication, books, journals and newspapers and the straw chopper cum incorporator ranked as 4th (MS 2.10), data were recorded on the schedule and questionnaires straw combine and baler ranked as 5th (MS 2.03) and prepared for the purpose. The data were analyzed with raised bed planter and stubble shaver ranked as 6th (MS the help of following statistical methods. 1.86). Regarding usefulness of energy saving resources st Percentage (%) = perceived by the farmers were solar energy ranked as 1 (MS 2.76) followed by wind energy ranked as 2nd (MS The frequency of a particular cell × 100 2.30), biomass energy ranked as 3rd (MS 2.10), hydro The total number of respondents energy ranked as 4th (MS 1.90) and tidal energy ranked Sx as 5th (MS 1.10) (Mean) X = N Table-2 reveals that in case of extent of farmers’ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION perception about various aspects of RCT in agriculture, the majority of farmers (80.00%) had high perception Table-1 reveals that usefulness aspect of RCTP in followed by 16.67 per cent of farmers had medium and agriculture as perceived by the farmers were tree based only 03.33 per cent farmers had low perception to farming system ranked as 1st with mean score 2.78, multiple cropping system (irrigated areas) regarding tree multiple cropping system ranked as 2ndwith mean score based farming system (for rain fed areas), majority of 2.76. The data concerning the usefulness of input use farmers (83.33%) had high perception followed by 12.00 efficiency technology as perceived by the farmers were per cent had medium and only 04.67per cent had low resistant crop varieties got rank 1stwith mean score 2.79 perception. With regards to input use efficiency nd followed by water use efficiency technology rank 2 with technology, most of the farmers (47.78%) had high mean score 2.26 and fertilizer use efficiency technology perception followed by 41.44 per cent farmers had rank 3rdwith mean score 2.19. Farmers perception medium and 05.56 per cent had high perception. regarding usefulness of IPNM, use of green manures Regarding IPNM, the majority of farmers (71.11%) had /inclusion of pulse crop in crop sequence was ranked low perception followed by 20.00 per cent had medium as1st (MS 2.70) followed by combined use organic and and only 08.89 per cent had high perception. In case of 850 Re source con ser va tion prac tices in ex ist ing crop ping sys tems of Etawah Dis trict

Table-1: Farmers’ perception about the use of RCTP in agriculture. (N=150)

Particulars Useful No. Somewhat Not Useful Wt. mean Rank S. N. (%) useful No. (%) No. (%) score 1 Multiple cropping system(for irrigated areas) 120 (80.00) 25 (16.67) 05 (03.33) 2.76 2nd 2 Tree based farming system (for rain fed areas) 125 (83.33) 18 (12) 07 (04.67) 2.78 1st 3 Input use efficiency technology 71.67 (47.78) 70.00 (47.00) 08.33 (05.56) 2.41 5th A Resistant crop varieties (to soil climatic and biotic 125 (83.33) 20 (13.33) 05 (03.33) 2.79 1st stresses) B Fertilizer use efficiency technology (use of fertigation 40 (26.67) 100 (67.67) 10(06.67) 2.19 2nd method) C Water use efficiency technology (use of micro-irrigation 50 (33.33.) 90 (60.00) 10 (06.67) 2.26 3rd system) 4 Integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) 106.67 (71.11) 30.00 (20.00) 13.33 (08.89) 2.61 3rd A Combined use of organic and inorganic sources of 110 (73.33) 30 (20) 10 (06.67) 2.66 3rd nutrients B Use of green manures/inclusion of pulse crops in crop 120 (80) 20 (13.33) 10 (06.67) 2.70 1st sequence C Use of bio-fertilizers 90 (60) 40 (26.67) 20 (13.33) 2.46 2nd 5 Integrated pest management(IPM) 93.33 (62.22) 41.67 (27.78) 15.00 (10.00) 2.52 4th A Microbial control 90 (60) 40 (26.67) 20 (13.33) 2.46 3rd B Use of botanicals 105 (70) 30 (20) 15 (10) 2.60 1st C Use of predators 85 (56.67) 55(36.67) 10 (06.67) 2.49 2nd 6 Soil and water conservation practices 61.36 (40.91) 67.73 (45.15) 20.91 (14.12) 2.27 6th A Watershed management 80 (53.33) 60 (40) 10 (6.67) 2.46 4th B Mulching 75 (50) 60 (40) 15 (10) 2.40 5th C Agro forestry (Plantation practices) 60 (40) 75 (50) 15 (10) 2.30 6th D Conservation tillage 95 (63.33) 35 (23.33) 20 (13.33) 2.49 3rd E Scheduling of irrigation to crops 105 (70) 25 (16.67) 20 (15.33) 2.56 2nd F Improved drainage(Vegetative barriers) 20 (13.33) 95 (63.33) 35 (23.33) 1.89 9th G Crop rotation 120 (80) 25 (16.67) 5 (03.33) 2.76 1st H Water use efficiency technology/system (Use of sprinkler 40 (26.67) 80 (53.33) 30 (20) 2.06 7th and drip irrigation system) I Participatory irrigation management (Water uses 20 (13.33) 90 (60) 40 (26.67) 1.86 10th association-WUA) J Use bio-fencing 25 (16.67) 105 (70) 20 (13.33) 2.03 8th K Residue management 35 (23.33) 95 (63.33) 20 (13.33) 2.03 8th 7 Use of second generation Machinery /Implements (to 53.33 (35.55) 72.78 (48.52) 23.89 (15.93) 2.23 7th save energy and increase use efficiency) A Zero till seed cum ferti-drill 75(50) 45 (30) 30 (20.00) 2.30 3rd B Rotavator 115 (76.67) 25 (16.67) 10 (6.67) 2.69 2nd C Laser land leveller 35 (23.33) 95 (63.33) 20 (13.33) 2.10 4th D Raised bed planter 25 (16.67) 80 (53.33) 45 (30) 1.86 6th E Stubble shaver 20 (13.33) 90 (60) 40 (26.67) 1.86 6th F Straw chopper cum incorporator 35 (23.33) 95 (63.33) 20 (13.33) 2.10 4th G Straw combine 30 (20) 95 (63.33) 25 (16.67) 2.03 5th H Straw baler 25 (16.67) 105 (70) 20 (13.33) 2.03 5th I Multi crop thresher 120 (80) 25 (16.67) 5 (3.33) 2.76 1st 8 Energy resources saving (Use of non-conventional 61 (40.67) 50 (33.33) 39 (26) 2.15 8th energy/renewable sources) A Solar energy 120 (80) 25 (16.67) 5 (3.33) 2.76 1st B Biomass energy 50 (33.33) 75 (50) 25 (16.67) 2.10 3rd C Wind energy 60 (40) 75 (50) 15 (10) 2.30 2nd D Hydro energy 75 (50) 60 (40) 15 (10) 1.90 4th E Tidal energy - 15 (10) 135 (90) 1.10 5th Prakash et al., 851

Table-2: Extent of farmers’ perception about RCTP in agriculture (N=150)

S. No. RCT Aspects Extent of farmers’ perception Low No. (%) Medium No. (%) High No. (%) 1 Multiple cropping system(irrigated areas) 005(03.33) 25.00(16.67) 120.00(80.00) 2 Tree based farming system ( rain fed areas) 07.00(04.67) 18.00(12.00) 125.00(83.33) 3 Input use efficiency technology 08.33(05.56) 70.00(47.00) 71.78(47.78) 4 Integrated plant nutrient management(IPNM) 106.67(71.11) 30.00(20.00) 13.33(08.89) 5 Integrated pest management(IPM) 93.33(62.22) 41.67(27.78) 15.00(10.00) 6 Soil and water conservation practices 61.36(40.91) 67.73(45.14) 20.91(14.12) 7 Use of second generation Machinery /Implements 53.33(35.55) 72.78(48.52) 23.89(15.93) (to save energy and increase use efficiency) 8 Energy resources saving (Use of non-conventional 61.00(40.67) 50.00(33.33) 39.00(26.00) energy/renewable sources)

Table-3: Constraints perceived by the farmers in use of RCTP in Agriculture.

S. No. Particulars/Indicators RCTPF(N=150) Rank N0 % 1. Technical constraints a. Non-availability of high quality second generation machinery/implements 112 74.67 2nd b. Lack of local manufacturing/ repair facility for machinery/implements 141 94.00 1st c. Standing stubbles/crop residues at time of planting 078 52.00 7th d. Dense population of weeds at the time of planting 075 50.00 8th e. Lack of appropriate soil moisture at time of planting 072 48.00 9th f. Risk of increased problem with insect pests and diseases 100 66.67 3rd g. Hardening of upper soil 087 58.00 5th h. Early harvesting of rice 066 44.00 10th i. Straw burning 063 42 11th j. Lack of good irrigation water for micro irrigation system 084 56.00 6th k. No significant difference in yield 98 65.33 4th l. Increased weed problem following adoption of RCT practices 57 38.00 12th m. No significant cost savings 31 20.67 13th n. Increased irrigation water requirement 55 38.00 12th Mean 80.07 53.38 3rd 2. Extension/ TOT constraints a. Lack of technical assistance about RCT from extension worker 132 88.00 1st b. Non-availability of extension literature on RCT practices 119 79.33 2nd c. Lack of coverage of RCT practices/ method by mass media 116 77.33 3rd Mean 122.33 81.33 2nd 3. Financial constraints a. High cost of second generation machinery/implements. 138 92.00 2nd b. Farmer lacks resources to purchase second generation machinery/implements. 141 94.00 1st c. No credit available for purchasing the high quality machinery/implements. 125 83.33 3rd d. No credit available for purchasing other inputs 119 79.33 4th Mean 130.75 87.17 1st

IPM, majority of farmers (62.22%) had low perception perception. Regarding use of second generation followed by 27.78 per cent had medium and only 10.00 machinery/implements, most of the farmers (48.52%) per cent had high perception. With regards to soil and had medium perception followed by 35.55 per cent had water conservation practices, most of the farmers low and 15.93 per cent had high perception. In case of (45.15%) had medium perception followed by 40.90 energy resources saving (use of non-conventional per cent had low and 14.12 per cent had high energy/renewable sources) most of the farmers 852 Re source con ser va tion prac tices in ex ist ing crop ping sys tems of Etawah Dis trict

Table-4: Ranking of various aspects of RCTP in agriculture. S.No. RCTP aspects Overall mean score Rank 1. Multiple cropping system(for irrigated areas) 2.76 2nd 2. Tree based farming system (for rain fed areas) 2.78 1st 3. Input use efficiency technology 2.41 5th 4. Integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) 2.61 3rd 5. Integrated pest management(IPM) 2.51 4ththth 6. Soil and water conservation practices 2.27 6th 7. Use of second generation Machinery /Implements (to save energy and 2.23 7th increase use efficiency) 8. Energy resources saving (Use of non-conventional energy/renewable 2.15 8th sources)

(40.67%) had low perception followed by 33.33 per farming system (for rain fed areas)’’ was ranked as 1st cent had medium and 26.00 per cent farmers had high with mean score 2.78 followed by multiple cropping perception. system (for irrigated areas ) ranked as 2nd with mean Table-3 reveals that lack of local manufacturing score 2.76,‘‘ integrated plant nutrient management rd /repair facility for implements/machinery was ranked as (IPNM)’’ ranked as 3 with mean score 2.61,‘‘ 1st (94.00%) technical constraint as perceived by the integrated pest management (IPM)’’ ranked as 4th with farmers followed by non availability of high quality mean score 2.52, input use efficiency technology th second generation machinery/implements ranked as ranked as 5 with mean score 2.41, ‘‘ soil and water th 2nd (64.67%), risk of increased problem with insect conservation practices’’ ranked as 6 with mean score pests and diseases ranked as 3rd (66.67%) and S.No. 2.27, ‘‘use of second generation machinery/ k, g, j, c, d, e, h, i, l, n and m were ranked as 4th, 5th, 6th, implements (to save energy and increase use th 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th, respectibly as efficiency)’’ ranked as 7 with mean score 2.23 and perceived by the farmers, in respect to extension/ TOT ‘‘energy resources saving (use of non-conventional th constraints, Lack of technical assistance about RCT energy/renewable sources)’’ ranked as 8 with mean from extension worker was ranked as 1st (88.00%) score 2.15. followed by non-availability of extension literature on Strategies to enhance the resource conserving RCT practices ranked as 2nd (79.33%) and lack of technology in agriculture : The following suitable coverage of RCT practices/ method by mass media strategies are suggested to enhance the use of RCTP ranked as 3rd (77.33%) as perceived by the farmers. in agriculture : Regarding financial constraints, farmer lacks • Need to evolve a scientifically land use system, a resources to purchase second generation machinery/ sound CA Policy and mission orient program. st implements was ranked as 1 (94.00%) followed by Because of the CA defers from soil type, rainfall, high cost of second generation machinery/implements climate and socio-economic condition. nd ranked as 2 (92.00%), no credit available for • Promotion of RCT through development and purchasing the high quality machinery/implements demonstration of zero till drill, strip till drill, roto-till rd ranked as 3 (83.33%) and no credit available for drill, till planting, raised bed planter, laser land th purchasing other inputs ranked as 4 (79.33%) as leveling, straw baler, straw combine etc. perceived by the farmers. The overall rank of various • To develop the programs and make the constraints as perceived by the farmers were ranked government policies for maintaining and st nd as 1 (mean score 87.17), 2 (mean score 81.33) and enhancing the integrity of natural resource to rd 3 (mean score 53.38) to financial constraints, TOT improve the productivity in different agro- constraints and technical constraints, respectively. ecological regions. Table-4 reveals that amongst eight identified • Promotion of Govt.-Watershed Development various aspect of RCTP in agriculture ,‘‘ the tree based Prakash et al., 853

Program to conserve water and reduce soil with insect pests and diseases ranked as 3rd (66.67%). erosion Regarding extension/TOT constraints, lack of technical • Need to diversification of agriculture-growing of assistant about RCT from extension workers was alternate crops with the adoption of value addition ranked 1st (88.00%). In respect to financial constraints, of different products. farmers lack resources to purchase second generation machinery/implements was ranked as 1st (94.00%) Future Research Needs followed by high cost and generation machinery/ Resource conservation technologies un doubly have implements ranked as 2nd (92.00%) and no credit proved a boon for the farmers especially in R-W available for purchasing these machinery/implements cropping system but we still find that farmers are fully or ranked as 3rd (83.33%) as perceived by the farmers. partially burning crop residue in the field as they find it quickest method of safe disposal without considering REFERENCES its ill effects on the nutrient loss and environmental 1. Tandon, S.K. (2009) Conservation Agriculture Policy- pollution. Why they do so is the matter of concern. We perspective and scope. Indian Council of Agricultural have to analyze the problem from the farmers’ point of Research, New Delhi (). view. RCT is a broad base issue and requires 2. Ernestein (2009). Adoption and impact of conservation agriculture based resource conserving technologies in multidisciplinary involvement of experts of different South Asia. In proceeding of the world congress on disciplines, NGO, Government and farmers. conservation agriculture, 4, February 2009. 3. RWC-CIMMYT, (2003) Addressing Resource CONCLUSION Conservation Issues in Rice-wheat System of South Asia: A Res Adducer Book. Rice-wheat consortium for The majority of farmers (83.33%) had high perception the Indo-Gangetic Plains International Maize and to tree based farming system (for rain fed areas) Wheat Improvement Centre. New Delhi, India, 305 p. followed by 80.00 per cent farmers had high perception 4. Singh M.P. and Kumar,V. (2004).Ripples of changes to multiple cropping system (for irrigated areas). In through zero–tillage technology for enhancement of productivity and conservation of resources: respect to technical constraints, lack of local Experiences of K.V.K. Bahraich (U.P.), India. manufacturing/repair for machinery/implements was 5. Surendra Kumar (2011) Disseminating Zero-Till ranked 1st (94.00%) followed by non-availability of high technology for rice-wheat cropping system. Agricultural second generation quality machinery/implements extension review. XXIII, (2): 30-31. ranked as 2nd (74.67%) and risk of increased problem