0 Views
P. BALA HUSSAIN REDDY*, P.V.K. SASIDHAR AND T.P.SASTRY
Programme Coordinator, KVK, ANGRAU, Kalikiri, Chittoor dt., A.P.
Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) is a district level innovative science based institution established by Indian Council of Agricul-tural Research (ICAR) for assessment and refinement of the technologies released by National Agricultural Research Systems and identifies technologies in terms of location specific sustainable land use systems. To generate the production data and feed-back information of the successful technologies, front line demonstrations are conducted by the KVKs. Through multifarious activities, KVK touches almost all the psychological aspects of an individual thereby directly affecting his decision to adopt a new technology. An attempt was made to study the adoption behaviour of respondents from adopted villages of RASS – Acharya Ranga Krishi Vigyan Kendra (RASS – ARKVK) with respect to the recommended Paddy production technologies in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. The research study was conducted in eight adopted villages of ARKVK in Chittoor district covering a sample size of 180 respondents. The adoption behaviour of the farmers was studied in terms of four types of behaviour viz., full adoption, partial adoption, discontinuation and non adoption and presented in the form of frequencies and percentages. Reasons expressed by the farmers for each type of behaviour for each and every technology was also presented and discussed. The results reveal that there was a positive trend in the adoption behaviour of the beneficiaries of RASS – ARKVK, thus strengthening the ideology of establishing the innovative institutions all over the country by ICAR.
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Adoption behaviour; Paddy production technologies; full adoption; partial adoption; discontinuation; non adoption.
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has created a network of 665 Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) in the Country (http://www.icar.org.in/en/krishi-vigyan-kendra.htm). Ever since their establishment, KVKs have played effective role of technology backstopping to extension personnel and in turn to farmers so as to enable them to augment their productivity and profitability (Kokate, 2010).The KVKs are playing the role of intermediary institutions to fine tune the research conducted, often under controlled conditions, before its adoption in farmer’s field.
RASS – Acharya Ranga Krishi Vigyan Kendra (ARKVK) has completed two decades in serving the farmers of Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh. Paddy, Groundnut and Sugarcane are the major crops cultivated in the district apart from horticultural crops like Tomato and Mango.An attempt was made to study the adoption behaviour of respondents from adopted villages of RASS (Rayalaseema Seva Samithi) – Acharya Ranga Krishi Vigyan Kendra (RASS – ARKVK) with respect to the
recommended Paddy production technologies in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh.
Wilkening (1950) stated that the farmer’s decision for adoption of improved farm practices may be considered as a process in which he (a) hears about the practice, (b) discusses its advantages and disadvantages with other farmers or with experts, (c) makes the decision to adopt the practice and obtains the specific information necessary to carry out the practice. This process may occur over a period of time. Degree of adoption of any item of package may be of complete or full, partial, non-adoption and discontinuation. A proper feedback from the farmers will certainly provide an insight to the scientists for further research or modification of the new farm technology. In the present study, adoption behaviour of farmers from adopted villages of ARKVK with respect to recommended production technologies of Paddy crop was examined.
RASS-Acharya Ranga Krishi Vigyan Kendra of Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh was purposively selected
for the study. Out of the 66mandals of Chittoor district, ARKVK has so far adopted villages of 20 mandals. Of these, five Mandals viz., Yerpedu, Chandragiri,
Ramachandrapuram, Narayanavanam and Karvetinagaram were selected randomly for the study. Of the 23 villages adopted by ARKVK in these five mandals, eight
villages were selected randomly for the study. About 180 respondents were selected from these five villages proportionately for the study.
The adoption behaviour of the farmers was studied using an interview schedule with respect to recommended package of practices of Paddy in terms of four types of behaviour viz., full adoption, partial adoption, discontinued and not adopted with the scores 3, 2, 1 and 0 respectively. The reasons associated with each type of behavior were extracted from the respondents and presented in the form of frequencies and percentages.
The adoption behavior of the respondents towards recommended package of practices was given in terms of Percentage in Table 1.
About 34.72 per cent respondents fully adopted recommended improved varieties of Paddy viz., NLR-34449, NDLR-8, NDLR-7, NLR 3041, while 11.39 per cent have partially adopted, 4.73 per cent have discontinued the usage of varieties and 49.17 per cent of the respondents have not at all adopted the recommended improved varieties.
The data presented in the Table 1 shows that farmers, by and large, had adopted recommended land preparation practices. This was reflected by 82.22 per cent full adoption followed by 15 per cent partial adoption, 2.5 per cent non-adoption and 0.28 per cent discontinuation. About 80 per cent of the respondents adopted recommended seed rate, 12.78 per cent have partially adopted, 2.78 per cent discontinued and 4.44 per cent have not adopted recommended seed rate in Paddy cultivation.
It was observed that 69.44 per cent of respondents fully adopted recommended seed treatment practices followed by 18.89 per cent not-adopted, 6.67 per cent partially adopted and 5per cent discontinued.
The extent of adoption with respect to planting methods viz., direct seeding method using drumseeder,
‘SRI’ method or using transplanter machine for transplanting was 44.44 per cent full adoption, 32.08 per cent non-adoption, 18.33 per cent partial adoption and 5.13 per cent discontinuation. About 44.44 per cent of the respondents fully adopted recommended method of planting, 18.33 per cent partially adopted, 5.13 per cent discontinued and 32.08 per cent have not adopted the recommended planting methods.
With respect to recommended spacing, 61.94 per cent have fully adopted, 16.95 per cent partially adopted, 6.11 per cent discontinued and 15.00 per cent have not adopted the practice.
About 51.67 per cent of respondents fully adopted recommended water management practices, 24.44 per cent partially adopted, 20 per cent not adopted and 3.89 per cent discontinued.
About 55.18 per cent of the respondents fully adopted the recommended weed management practices, 22.04 per cent have partially adopted, 3.89 per cent have discontinued and the rest 21.85 per cent have not all adopted the recommended weed management practices.
Regarding recommended fertilizer management practices in Paddy cultivation, more than half of the respondents i.e., 72.11 per cent adopted fully, followed by 17.67 per cent of partial adoption, 8.56 per cent non-adoption and 1.67 per cent discontinuation.
About 61.78 per cent of the respondents fully adopted the recommended pest management practices, 19.89 per cent have partially adopted, a negligible 2.00 per cent have discontinued and 16.33 per cent of the respondents have not adopted the recommended pest management practices.
Ample proportion of the respondents were found to have full adoption (87.00%) of recommended harvesting practices in Paddy followed by 11.87 per cent partial adoption and 1.13 per cent non-adoption was observed.
Reasons for different adoption behavior as expressed by the respondents
Various reasons expressed for different adoption behavior of the respondents is presented in Table 2.
Recommended varieties of paddy
The reasons expressed by the respondents for full adoption were ‘high yielding nature of the varieties’ followed by ‘suitability of the varieties for both kharif
and rabi seasons’, ‘resistance to blast disease’ and ‘non-lodging nature of the variety’. Partial adoption was due to ‘transplanting age of the seedlings is not done at right stage as per recommendation’. ‘Low market price’ and ‘cooking quality not so good’ were the reasons expressed by respondents for discontinuing the new varieties. The reasons for non-adoption were ‘not aware of the variety’, ‘non-availability of the variety’ and ‘marketing problem as traders pay less for this variety’.If the average price that farmers receive increases, this may have an effect on their production decisions in two ways (Tara, 2013). The first is a direct increase in supply as a response to an increase in the price received.The second effect of an increase in producer prices could come through the composition of crops that farmers choose to produce, as suggested by Jensen (2007).
Land preparation
It is evident that main reasons for full adoption were ‘soil borne pests will be exposed and killed’, ‘weeds can be uprooted’, ‘pest incidence can be reduced to some extent’ and ‘rodent problem reduction due to trimming of bunds’. The reason for partial adoption was ‘high cropping intensity and no gap between two crops to take up deep ploughing operation’. ‘Lack of sufficient rainfall for deep ploughing’ and ‘deep ploughing is a costly process’ were the reasons given for non-adoption behaviour. ‘Trimming
& plastering of bunds is not so effective in managing weeds’ was the reason given for dis-continuation of the land preparation practice.
More seed rate merely increases the cost of cultivation without any additional benefit’ was the reason expressed by respondents for full adoption of recommended seed rate. The reason for partial adoption was ‘more the seed rate, more will be the yield’. ‘Not aware of the recommended seed rate’ was the reason given for non-adoption and ‘’as a safety measure more seed rate is used’ was the reason for discontinuation of this recommended practice.
The main reasons for full adoption of this practice as expressed by respondents were ‘protects crop from diseases in early stages’, saves cost of pesticides for spraying on entire area’ and ‘optimum plant population is maintained’. Reason for partial adoption was ‘Dosage of
chemicals is not as per recommendation’. ‘Not aware of the practice’ and unaware of the chemicals for seed treatment’ are the reasons for non-adoption. “Not so useful’ was the reason expressed by respondents for discontinuation of the practice.
The reasons for full adoption of recommended planting methods are ‘Cost of cultivation is very much reduced’, ‘Labour problem is solved’, ‘Drumseeder is suitable to all especially small and marginal farmers’, ‘Net returns are more’, ‘Shallow planting helps in more tillering’, ‘Crop is matured earlier than that planted traditionally’, ‘Transplanter is suitable to big farmers who take up rice in large areas’ and ‘ Clipping of leaf tips reduces stem borer incidence in main field’. ‘Weedicides are not applied as per recommendation in drumseeder plot’, ‘Intermittent wetting and drying of field up to panicle initiation is not followed’, ‘ Seed treatment is not done’, ‘Conoweeder is not run between rows’ and ‘Shallow planting is not manageable due to manual transplanting’ were the reasons given for partial adoption.
‘Weed management is difficult in drumseeder sown plots’, ‘Not suitable for our soils’, ‘Difficult to operate transplanter in heavy soils’, ‘Raising of mat type nursery requires more skill and laborious’, ‘ No big difference in cost of traditional planting and transplanter’ and ‘ Cost of manual labour is high and clipping of tips is additional burden’ were the reasons expressed for discontinuation of the recommended practice. ‘ Direct seeding using drumseeder is not suitable for our soils’, ‘ Not aware of Paddy transplanter’ and ‘ Non availability of transplanter at farmer’s level’ were the reasons for non-adoption of the practice.
Machine transplanting requires skill in rising mat type nursery, riding the machine in the field farmers and its non-feasibility for small farms, most of the farmers have not opted for adopting this method. In case of ‘SRI” method of cultivation, farmers felt that they again need as much labour required for traditional transplanting method without much benefit in terms of net returns, many of the farmers are not continuing the practice. Majority of them felt that of all the options available, direct seeding using drumseeder is the best option which is technically and economically feasible even for small and marginal farmers.
Reasons for full adoption included ‘ Recommended number of hills per sq.m increases yield’, ‘Alleyways help in good aeration and sunlight to plants’, ‘Application of fertilizers and pesticides is easy’ and ‘ Monitoring of crop is easy’. ‘Unmanageable due to manual transplanting’ and ‘Heavy rains after drumseeder sowing disturbs spacing’ were the reasons for partial adoption. ‘I am practicing Drumseeder method and this method already has 20 cms row to row spacing’ and ‘labour shortage’ were the reasons for discontinuation of this practice. The reasons for non-adoption were ‘ More labour are required and costly process’ and ‘Not aware of alleyways making’.
Respondents articulated that ‘Tillering is increased with intermittent wetting of field’, ‘ Brown Plant Hopper damage is decreased’, ‘ Stem rot incidence is reduced’ and ‘ High yielding is possible’ as the reasons for full adoption of recommended water management practices.
‘ Power shortage’ and ‘ Power is supplied in midnight and hence irrigation is uncontrollable’ were the reasons for partial adoption. Reasons for discontinuation were ‘ Weeds are intensified’ and ‘ Soils are not supporting intermittent wetting’. ‘Paddy crop requires continuous water standing’, ‘ Intermittent wetting develops field cracking’, ‘ This practice is not practicable in the field’ and ‘ Unaware of the practice’ were the reasons for non-adoption of water management practices.
‘Pre-emergence weedicide reduces the intensity of weeds and hence saves cost of manual labour’, ‘Running conoweeder between rows uproots weeds and increases aeration to roots resulting in heavy tillering’, ‘Cost of weeding process is reduced due to weedicide application’ and ‘Prevention is better than cure is possible through pre-emergence weedicide application’ were the reasons given for full adoption. The reasons for partial adoption were ‘Weeedicide application is not done timely’, ‘ Dosage of weedicide is not as per the recommendation’, ‘Conoweeder is not run four times @ 10 days interval’, ‘No requirement of post emergence weedicide at that stage due to less weed intensity’ and ‘Use weedicides only whenever adequate manual labour are not available for weeding’. ‘Conoweeder operation is a drudgery process’ was the reason behind discontinuation of the practice. ‘Not
aware of weedicides’ and ‘Weedicides may damage the main crop’ were the reasons for non-adoption.
‘Green manuring increases the crop yields’, ‘Three split doses of nitrogen fertilizers is essential to get good yields’, ‘Zinc deficiency management increases the crop yield’, ‘Green manuring reduces the requirement of inorganic fertilizers’, ‘Blast and BPH are controlled very much by using recommended dose of fertilizers’, ‘Soil test based fertilization reduces the cost of cultivation’ ‘Urea is completely used by the crop if used by mixing with neem cake’ and ‘ Soil test based fertilization reduces environmental hazards’ were the reasons for full adoption of recommended fertilizer management practices. The reasons for partial adoption were ‘ Soil test based fertilizer doses are not sufficient for obtaining high yields’, ‘Top dressing of Urea is done along with Carbofuron / phorate
/ cartap hydrochloride granules’, ‘Three split doses of Nitrogen is not done as per the recommended doses’ and ‘Good quality neem cake is not available’. ‘Cost of neem cake is high’ was the reason behind discontinuation of the practice. The reasons for non-adoption were ‘Not aware of recommended dose of fertilizers’, ‘Not aware of Urea + neem cake application’, ‘Soil testing results are not delivered timely’ and ‘ Insufficient soil moisture for growing green manure crop’ were the reasons expressed by the respondents for non-adoption.
The reasons for full adoption of pest management practices given are ‘Carbofuron granule application in nursery before transplanting reduces the incidence of insect pests in main field’, ‘Cost of pest management in main field is reduced’, ‘Tricyclozole is effective in controlling blast disease when applied timely’, ‘Yield loss can be minimized by timely pest management practices’ and ‘Preparation of bait for rats is easy and effective’. ‘Tricyclozole is not applied at recommended doses’, ‘Dose of cartap hydrochloride granules is not as per recommendation’ and ‘Tricyclozole is applied only at severe infestation of blast at higher doses’ were the reasons for partial adoption. ‘Rodent problem is unmanageable even after practicing control measures’ was the reason for discontinuation behaviour. ‘Not raising nursery due to adoption of drumseeder method’, ‘False smut is not observed in our field’, ‘The variety used by us is resistant to blast disease’ and ‘It is better not to apply
any fungicides after panicle initiation’ were the reasons for non-adoption of recommended pest management practices.
The main reasons expressed by respondents for full adoption were ‘Fodder requirement for cattle’, ‘Reduces the incidence of pests on next crop’ and ‘Field preparation for next crop will be easy’. ‘Harvesting is done using combined harvester’ was the reason for partial adoption. The reason for discontinuation was ‘Shortage of labour’ and ‘It is difficult to do close harvesting when the crop is lodged’ was the reason for non-adoption.
According to Rogers (1962) adoption process is the mental process through which an individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final adoption. It has been observed in the study that numerous technology transfer programmes of KVK helped in reducing the wide gap between the scientific know -how and field level do-how, however there lies still a gap in adoption of the recommended technologies by the farmers. The non adoption of the technology by the farmers is either because the technology itself is not known to the farmers i.e., lack of communication, or the technology is not appropriate and farmer is not fully convinced by the technology. Sometimes if the known technology is appropriate but the farmers do not have enough resources to adopt it. Technology gap is the gap between the level of recommendation and the extent of adoption (against recommendations) (Venkatasubramanian et al., 2010).
Technology frequently responds differently to environment. Most small-scale limited resource farmers, however, are not able to apply inputs required to achieve maximum rice production similar to those in Research Centres. Generation and adoption of appropriate technology depends on an interdisciplinary team and approach organized into an interacting and cohesive group involving researchers, extension staff, farmers and other complementary services that affect the technology adoption (Orodho, 1990). The farming situation of the adopted villages of ARKVK varies and hence all the technologies may not fit well for all the farmers. Moreover, the adoption of technologies also varies due to technical and economic feasibility of the recommended technologies and specially the affordability of the farmers. For instance, the recommended latest high yielding varieties may not
be adopted by all the farmers due to non-availability of the seed to all the farmers, un affordability of the farmers to purchase high expensive inputs like seed etc. High cost of fertilizers hinders the full adoption of the application of recommended dose of fertilization. Sometimes even though the farmers are well aware of the recommended technologies and have financial ability, other factors may hamper the scope of full adoption viz., Paddy combine harvester is not suitable for Paddy fields with many small plots as it is difficult to operate the machine in small plots.
Innovative activities are, as expected, positively related to labour resources (which is highly correlated to farm size), market position (indicating whether a farm produces for a market that permits product differentiation), and a farmer’s access to information (where an indicator of the extent of his network is used as a proxy). Adoption behaviour shows some persistence in time: being an innovator (or a late adopter) in the past increases the probability of being an innovator (a late adopter) in the current period (Paul Diederen et al., 2002).
The role of a KVK ends up in evaluation of technologies and recommending the successful ones to extension agencies in the distribution to widely disseminating the technologies to the farming community. Hence the concerned line departments should follow the techniques suggested by Van den Ban and Hawkins (1988) for motivating / influencing the farmers behaviour in a social system. Exerting power and forcing the farmers to do something (Compulsion), exchanging goods or services between the two individuals / parties / Organizations (Exchange), advice given to choose solution to a problem (Advice), Openly influencing a farmer’s knowledge and attitude when farmers cannot solve their problems, influencing the farmers’ knowledge level and attitude without their being aware of it (Manipulation) are some of the techniques that may be used by the extension functionaries to improve the adoption levels of technologies by the farmers.
Extension workers working at the grass root level are required to be motivated through training, orientation and refresher courses, and by providing incentives like awards, appreciation letters, additional increments for their best performance, etc. A proper media-mix along with a sound information system like internet, fax, e-mail, computerized crop doctor expert system, audio and video conferencing etc (wherever possible) at the grass root level should also be provisioned (Chand et al., 2011).The
extension agencies should be geared up to organize multiple extension activities with the technical support of KVKs to develop confidence among the farmers to further improve the adoption status of the farmers. The network of extension agencies for example the Agricultural department has one Mandal Agrl. Officer, one Agrl. Extension Officer and 40-50 Adarsha rythus (model farmers). These Adarsha rythus facilitate at the village level for generating more awareness among the farmers on advanced crop planning, production, horticultural crops, micro-irrigation practices marketing issues, credit related issues etc. Since the KVKs after assessment of the technologies for their suitability, the successful ones should be popularized among the target people with the support of line department’s human resources for wider adoption. Need based capacity building programmes and location specific technologies which are technically and economically feasible enhance the adoption levels of the farmers.
The concerned stakeholders should pay relatively higher emphasis and care on those crucial factors, thus identified by this study through strenuous efforts while formulating different development strategies and programmes for farmers.