A STUDY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR OF ......CERTIFICATE LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDIX 1 INTRODUCTION 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Entrepreneur – Definitions 2.2

A STUDY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR OF COMMERCIAL SEED GROWERS OF DHARWAD DISTRICT

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

IN

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION

BY

ARCHANA K.N.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD – 580 005

JUNE, 2013

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DHARWAD (K. V. NATIKAR) JANUARY, 2013 MAJOR ADVISOR

Approved by :

Chairman : ____________________________ (K. V. NATIKAR)

Members : 1. __________________________ (S. B. PATIL)

2. __________________________ (S. V. HALAKATTI)

3. __________________________ (N. M. KERUR)

4. __________________________ (M. T. DODDAMANI)

CONTENTS

Sl. No. Particulars

CERTIFICATE

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDIX

1 INTRODUCTION

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Entrepreneur – Definitions

2.2 Concept of entrepreneurship

2.3 Socio-economic profile of commercial seed growers and other farmers

2.4 Entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers and other farmers

2.5 Source consultancy pattern of commercial seed growers

2.6 Constraints faced by the commercial seed growers

3 METHODOLOGY

4 RESULTS





5 DISCUSSION





6 SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title

1 Socio-economic characters of the respondents

2 Extension participation of the respondents

3 Economic motivation of the respondents

4 Distribution of respondents according to their overall entrepreneurial behavior

5 Distribution of respondents according to their entrepreneurial behavioural components.

5.1 Innovativeness of the respondents towards individual items

5.2 Achievement motivation of the respondents towards individual items

5.3 Decision making ability of the respondents towards individual items

5.4 Risk orientation of the respondents towards individual items

5.5 Leadership ability of the respondents towards individual items

5.6 Management orientation of the respondents towards individual items

6 Distribution of the respondents according to their source consultancy pattern

6.1 Source consultancy pattern of the respondents

7 Constraints faced by the respondents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

No. Title

1 Map showing the selected taluks of Dharwad district for the study

2 Socio-economic profile of commercial seed growers and other farmers

3 Overall entrepreneurial behavior of commercial seed growers and other farmers

4 Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

5 Source consultancy pattern

6 Constraints faced by the respondents

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No.

Title

I Interview schedule

INTRODUCTION

Seed is the basic and most critical input for sustainable agriculture. The response of all other inputs depends on quality of seed to a larger extent. It is estimated that the direct contribution of quality seed alone to the total production is about 15-20% depending upon the crop and it can be further raised up to 45% with efficient management of other inputs. The developments in the seed industry in India, particularly in the last 30 years, are very significant. A major re-structuring of the seed industry by Government of India through the National seed project phase-1 (1977-78), phase-2 (1978-79) and phase-3 (1990-91), was carried out, which strengthened the seed infrastructure that was most needed and relevant during those times. This could be termed as a first turning point in shaping of an organized seed industry. Introduction of new seed development policy (1988-89) was yet another significant milestone in the Indian seed industry.

The Indian seed programme largely adheres to the limited generations system for seed multiplication in a phased manner. The system recognizes three generations namely breeder, foundation and certified seeds which provides adequate safeguards for quality assurance in the seed multiplication chain to maintain the purity of the variety as it flows from the breeder to the farmer.

With recent technological development in agriculture, seed production has become more complex business and requires careful planning for successful operations. The seed production is systematically organized, carefully planned based on the best information available and aimed to achieve higher yields and best quality of seed out of their resources. It is the deliberate and conscious effort on the part of the seed grower to think about the seed programme in advance and adjust them according to new knowledge on technological development changes in physical and economic situation, price structures etc.

Stages of Seed Multiplication

The benefits of an improved variety are not released unless enough true seed has been produced for its commercial spread. The initial amount of pure seed which is limited in quantity is multiplied under various stages or classes or seed these are:

a. Nucleus seed b. Breeders seed c. Foundation seed d. Registered seed e. Certified seed

Nucleus seed:

It is the initial amount of pure seed of an improved variety available with plant breeder who has involved in it. The nucleus seed is cent per cent pure genetically as well as physically and is very limited in quantity.

Breeder’s seed

It is the seed obtained from the progeny of nucleus seed. It is directly supervised by a breeder concern with the crop. Its genetical and physical purity to be 100 per cent.

Foundation seed

It is a seed obtained from nucleus or breeder’s seed. It is produced on seed multiplication farm of a State Govt. or Agril. Universities. Foundation seed plots are jointly inspected by the SCA (Seed Certification Agency), but it is not as pure as the nucleus and breeder’s seeds are. The bags are sealed with white colored label for easy identification of the foundation seed.

Registered seed

It is raised from nucleus, breeders or foundations seeds. Registered seed growers are selected from progressive farmers. The maintenance of purity of seed from time to time is must. The purity is maintained through field inspections by seed certifying agencies and seed tests. The Registered seed bags are sealed with purple colored label.

Certified seed

It is progeny of registered or foundation seed. When the amount of seed registered seed is supposed to be inadequate to meet farmers agency. The certified seed bags are sealed with purple colored label.

Private seed industry

The private sector has started to play a significant role in the seed industry over the last few years. At the present, the number of companies engaged in seed production or seed trade is of the order of 400 or 500. However, the main focus of private seed companies has been on the high value low volume seeds and market for low value high volume seeds of cereals, pulses and oilseeds is still dominated by the public sector seed corporations. Private sector companies have a significant place mainly in the case of maize, sunflower and cotton. In the case of vegetable seeds and planting materials of horticultural crops, the private sector is the dominant player. However, the public sector seed corporations will continue to remain dominant in cereals, pulses and oilseeds.

In the significant advances that India made in agriculture in the last four decades, the role of the seed sector has been substantial. The expansion of seed industry has occurred in parallel with growth in agricultural productivity. Given the fact that sustained growth to cope with increasing demand would depend more and more on the pace of development and adoption of innovative technologies, the seed would continue to be a vital component for decades to come. The organized seed industry of the country is just forty years old, yet, its growth has been phenomenal. India is one of the few country where the seed sector is already reasonably advanced. The private seed industry is no more confined to just production and marketing of seed. It has as well acquired technological strength to cater to the varietal needs of tomorrow. There are about 150 organized seed companies in India today (several companies have Research & Development department recognized by Government of India and have produced and released a large number of varieties and hybrids in several crops). The contribution of private research in terms of value is steadily increasing.

The Indian seed industry is currently valued at Rs. 5,600 crores approximately 250 lakh quintal in volume. There are about 150-200 organized seed companies existing in India today (Tomar et al., 2011). Agriculture has many enterprises which have commercial applications – i.e., sericulture, apiary, livestock, fish culture, vermicompost, mushroom cultivation, horticulture and seed production. Seed production is an emerging enterprise which gives high returns per rupee investment.

National Seeds Corporation

National Seeds Corporation (NSC) is a company wholly owned by Government of India under the administrative control of Ministry of Agriculture. NSC was established in 1963 to undertake production of foundation and certified seeds. At present, it is undertaking production of certified seeds of nearly 600 varieties of 60 crops through its registered seed growers. There are about 8000 registered seed growers all over the country who are undertaking the seed production programmes in different agro-climatic conditions. The turnover of the Corporation for the year 2011-12 was Rs. 633.38 crores (http://www.indiaseeds.com/).

National Seeds Corporation plays a key role in the implementation of various schemes of the Government of India like integrated scheme for “Oil seeds, Pulses, Oil and Palm & Maize” (ISOPOM), “National Food Security Mission (NFSM)” and “National Horticulture Mission” (NHM). It also provides technical support to the seed producing agencies including State Seed Corporations by imparting training of personnel engaged in the production of seeds in that organization. NSC is the nodal agency for the implementation of the Central Sector Scheme to create infrastructure facilities for establishment of processing plants and storage godowns in different states in the private sectors. The seed bank maintained by the Corporation with the grant in aid of the Govt. of India holds larger quantity of seeds of different crops/varieties that are meant to meet the demand that arises during natural calamities like flood, drought etc. NSC also takes care to meet the demand for quality seed of the farmers in the interior parts of the country like North Eastern States & other hilly regions.

The Evolution of Entrepreneurship

The word “entrepreneur” is derived from the French verb “enterprendre”. It means “to undertake” or to do something.

The Frenchmen who organized and led military expeditions were referred to as “entrepreneurs”. Around 1700 A.D. the term entrepreneur was used for architects and contractor of public works. In many countries, the term entrepreneur is often associated with a person who starts his own new business. Business encompasses manufacturing, transport, trade and all other self employed vocation in the service sector. Entrepreneurship has been considered as the propensity of mind to take calculated risk with confidence to achieve predetermined business objectives.

There are many views and opinions on the concept of entrepreneurship forwarded by some of the world famous management gurus and economists as mentioned below which will help in understanding this concept

Oxford dictionary

“A person who sets up a business or businesses, taking on financial risks in the hope of profit”

International Encyclopedia

“An individual who bears the risk of operating a business in the face of uncertainty about the future conditions”

Drucker’s Views on Entrepreneur

“An entrepreneur is the one who always searches for change, responds to it and exploits it as an opportunity. Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which they exploit changes as an opportunity for a different business or different service”

Richard Cantillon

“A person who pays certain price for a product to resell it at an uncertain price thereby making decision about obtaining and using resources while assuming the risk of enterprise”

Adam Smith

“The entrepreneur as an individual who forms an organization for commercial purpose. He/She is proprietary capitalist, a supplier of capital and at the same time a manager who intervenes between the labor and the consumer.

“Entrepreneur is an employer, master, merchant but explicitly considered as a capitalist”.

Entrepreneur

Porchezhian (1991) defined farm entrepreneur as one who maintains one or more enterprises like poultry, dairy and sericulture apart from the main occupation of crop husbandry.

Entrepreneurship

Ganeshan (2001) stated that entrepreneurship is the capacity for innovation and caliber to introduce innovative techniques in the business operations.

Entrepreneurial behavior

The development of any nation depends primarily on the important role played by entrepreneurs. Hence, the part played by entrepreneurs is of vital importance in a developing country like India. Thus in all economic development activities more attention is being given to entrepreneurship development. An entrepreneur is primarily concerned with changes in the formula of production over which he has full control. Further, it is commonly believed that an entrepreneur is basically an intelligent person and has a definite ability to create something new to prove its worthiness.

The entrepreneurial behaviour is not necessarily doing new things but also doing things in a different way that already have been done. The entrepreneur is essentially an economic man, who strives to maximize his profits by adoption of innovations. However, entrepreneurs are not simply innovators, they are men with a will to act, to resume risk and to bring about changes through organization of human efforts (Dannof, 1949). Now, it is increasingly being felt that, the economic growth and development of the advanced countries are largely due to entrepreneurship quality among their community rather than to capital.

Further progress of farming profession in the country depends mainly on the entrepreneurial behaviour of farmers. Human development report says that globally the gap between the rich and the poor is widening every day. It is more pertinent to India where about 500 million people are dependent on agriculture. The world wide bibliography on entrepreneurial research prepared by East West centre Hawaii reports that, studies on behaviour of entrepreneurs in agriculture are very limited. As indicated by world development report there is no linkage between the goals of developmental policies and appropriate environmental protection. Both must be designed in combination to improve welfare of humans.

Importance of Entrepreneurship

The entrepreneurs are key persons of any country for promoting economic growth and technological change. The appearance of their activities, i.e., the development of entrepreneurship is directly related to the socio-economic development of the society in India, after independence and onwards, the government decided to pursue the path of state sponsored and planned economic development. This does not mean that individual or group enterprise and initiative did not have any role to play, but that these will be assisted, guided and regulated by the state in various ways, so that their activities can come to some results in the form of economic transformation along the lines considered appropriate and desirable by the state. The idea behind this was that the persons who have no financial resources or managerial background could be effective tools for widening the entrepreneurial base in the country. With this background, government introduced the comprehensive assistance programme for small-scale industries. Therefore, the good quality seed and the entrepreneurial characteristics play an important role in boosting the agricultural production.

In a heterogeneous and stratified society like India, it is not adequately realized that, the characteristics which distinguish entrepreneurship may not be only because of its different strata. Therefore, the entrepreneurial activity in a particular section of the population based on preset objective has to be considered. Presently, development of farmers producing seeds has become the primary concern in the area of seed production. In this regard, the role played by entrepreneurs also assumes greater importance. This necessitates conducting studies on the entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers. Hence, it was felt necessary to study the entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers with the following objectives.

Specific objectives

1. To study the socio-economic profile of commercial seed growers and other farmers

2. To assess the entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers and other farmers

3. To ascertain the source consultancy pattern of commercial seed growers

4. To identify the constraints faced by the commercial seed growers

Scope of the study

During 1970’s entrepreneurship was recognized as a vehicle for economic growth and industrial development and a potential solution to problems of underemployment and unemployment. However, in today’s changing scenario, skills in entrepreneurial development have transformed and have become important. Many entrepreneurial opportunities are emerging in various fields such as computers, electronics, medicine, agriculture, food technology, fashion designing etc. It also assumes greater significance in the field of seed production.

Entrepreneurship is the central force driving economic activity and prime catalyst in development. Hence, it forms an essential component in the development. The findings of this study may help the administrators and policy makers to know the entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers, the relationship between socio-economic characteristics with entrepreneurial behavior, constraints in taking commercial seed production and may help them to come out with the suitable policies and programmes. The study may also help in further investigations on entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers.

Limitation of the study

Due to limitation of time and other resources, the study was confined only to three taluks of dharwad district. Further, the expressed opinion of respondents with regard to the various issues of the study may not be totally free from personal bias and prejudice. Hence, the results of the study cannot be generalized beyond the limits of the study area.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The chapter consists of research findings drawn from review of literature relevant to the study. Acquaintances with earlier, pertinent studies have been felt necessary to develop good understanding of the present study and to formulate appropriate research methodology. Since, there were limited studies related to entrepreneurial behavior of commercial seed growers, an attempt is made to put together some of the closely related and available literature on research study. The information is presented under the following headings.

2.1 Entrepreneur – Definitions






2.1 Entrepreneur – definitions

Joshi and Kapur (1973) described farm entrepreneur as the person or a group of persons who organize and operate the business and is responsible for the results i.e., losses and gains from the business. He is pioneer in organizing and developing the farm.

Porchezhian (1991) defined farm entrepreneur as one who maintains one or more enterprises like poultry, dairy and sericulture apart from the main occupation of crop husbandry.

Chatterjee (1992) defined an entrepreneur as one who creates something new, undertakes risk, organizes production and handles the economic uncertainty. He termed entrepreneurship as the mission and entrepreneur as the missionary.

Harold (1994) stated that entrepreneurs take personal risks in initiating change, and they expect to be rewarded for it. They need some degree of freedom to pursue their ideas, which inturn requires that sufficient authority be delineated.

Sarmah and Singh (1994) stated that an entrepreneur is one who can transform raw materials into goods and services, who can effectively utilize physical and financial resources for creating wealth, income and employment, who can innovate new products, standardize or upgrade existing products for creating new markets and new customers.

Tyson et al. (1994) viewed entrepreneur as a person who either creates new combinations of production factors such as new methods of production, new products, new markets, finds new sources of supply and new organizational forms; or as a person who is willing to take risks; or a person who, by exploiting market opportunities, eliminates disequilibrium between aggregate supply and aggregate demand, or as one who owns and operates a business.

According to Desai (1995) an entrepreneur is one who can see possibilities in a given situation, where others see none and has the patience to work out the idea into scheme to which financial support can be provided. Balu (1998) stated that women entrepreneur is defined as an adult woman who creates, owns and runs an enterprise.

Ramana (1999) defined entrepreneurs as those people who work for themselves.

Thus, the entrepreneur is a person or a group of persons who take personal risk and see the possibilities in a given situation, transform raw materials into goods and services, organizes production and handles the economic uncertainty and finally expects reward for his work.


Anjaneyaswamy (1992) opined that entrepreneurship in essence lies in the shedding of inhibiting value system in vogue and imbibing of new values relevant to the emerging realities of the environment. Vijaya Lakshmi (1992) reported that entrepreneurship is the ability to co-ordinate and organize, manage and maintain and reap the best out of even the worst situations. Desai (1995) described entrepreneurship as the persons’ propensity to take calculated risks with confidence to achieve a pre-determined business or industrial objective.

According to Patel and Sanoria (1997) entrepreneurship is the propensity of mind to take calculated risks with confidence to achieve a pre-determined enterprise objective.

Ganeshan (2001) stated that entrepreneurship is the capacity for innovation and caliber to introduce innovative techniques in the business operations.

Bheemappa (2003) described entrepreneurship as the creative and innovative response to the environment, which can take place in variety of fields of social endeavour such as business, industry, agriculture, education, social work and it is the potent limiting factor in economic development.

Samwel (2003) viewed entrepreneurship as a function which seeks investment and production process by raising capital, arranging labour and raw materials, finding site, introducing new techniques and commodities and discovering new sources for the enterprise.

According to Suresh Reddy (2004) – entrepreneurship is a composite skill, the resultant of a mix of many qualities and traits – these include tangible factors as imagination, readiness to take risks, ability to bring together and put to use all factors of production viz., capital, labour, land, as also intangible factors such as the ability to mobilize scientific and technological advances.

Thus, entrepreneurship is composite of skills which results in ability to co-ordinate, capacity to innovative and caliber to introduce innovative techniques and finally to achieve predetermined goals, which leads to reap the final benefits.


2.3.1 Age

Ravishankar (1995) conducted a study on knowledge adoption and constraint analysis of potato farmers of Chikkamagalur district and revealed that, 51.00 per cent of the respondents belonged to middle age group followed by old (26.00%) and young (23.00%) age groups.

Vijay Kumar (2001) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of floriculture farmers in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh and reported that majority of the respondents (50.83%) belonged to middle age category followed by 30.84 per cent of young age category and 18.33 per cent old age category.

Prasad (2002) conducted a study on impact of on-farm extension demonstration in rice in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh and observed that majority of the beneficiaries of on farm extension demonstrations were middle aged (60.71%) followed by young age (35.70) and old age (3.58%) groups, respectively.

Bhagyalaxmi et al. (2003) in their study on profile of rural women micro entrepreneurs observed that, majority (66.67%) of the respondents belonged to middle age group followed by young age (22.22%) and old age (11.11%).

Sunil Kumar (2004) conducted a study on farmers knowledge and adoption of production and post-harvest technology in tomato crop of in Belgaum district and indicated that, majority (53.30%) of the tomato growers belonged to middle age group.

Suresh (2004) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of milk producers in chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh and observed that 64.58 per cent of respondents belonged to middle age group followed by old age group (17.92%) and young age group (17.50%).

Suresh kumar (2009) in his study on technological gap in adoption of the improved cultivation practices by the soybean growers reported that 62.00 per cent of respondents were found to be in middle age category, 30.00 per cent belonged to old age category and 8.00 per cent belonged to young age category. Kikon (2010) in her study on adoption gap in groundnut production in northern transition zone of Karnataka reported that majority (83.33%) of the demonstrator farmers were middle aged, Whereas 10.00 and 6.67 per cent of them belonged to old age and young age respectively.

2.3.2 Education

Chandrapaul (1998) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable growers in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh indicated that majority (43.30%) of the respondents were functionally literate while only few (7.50%) respondents had high school education.

Baswarajaiah (2001) in his study on impact of Edira watershed development programme on farm families in Mahaboobbnagar district of Andhra Pradesh reported that, education status among the farm families of was 70.00 per cent, primary school (11.67%), middle school (8.33%), high school (4.17%) and college education (4.17%).

Govindagowda and Anand (2001) in their study on profile of groundnut growers observed that majority (44.00%) of groundnut farmers were educated up to high school, followed by middle school (30.25%), pre university (15.00%), primary school (5.75%), illiterate (3.00%) and graduate (2.00%).

Vijay Kumar (2001) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of floriculture farmers in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh and observed that majority of the respondents (30.00%) educated up to pre university course, followed by high school (22.75%), middle school (18.25%), primary school (15.00%), illiterate (8.00%) and graduate(7.00%).

Moulasab (2004) in his study on knowledge and adoption of improved cultivation practices by mango growers in North Karnataka indicated that, nearly one fourth (23.00%) of the respondents were educated up to primary school, followed by up to college (PUC) (19.00%) and illiterate (18.33%), followed by education up to graduation level (9.16%). While only 4.16 per cent of them had education up to post-graduate level.

Chandrashekhar (2007) from his analysis of onion production and marketing behavior of the farmers in Gadag district of Karnataka revealed that, 43.33 per cent of the respondents had educated up to PUC, followed by 26.67 per cent upto high school, 13.33 per cent up to middle school, 7.50 per cent primary, 1.67 per cent illiterate and 0.83 per cent fall in graduate category.

Atul Basweshwar Patil, (2008), conducted a study on constraints analysis of grape exporting farmers of Maharashtra state reported that, 39 per cent of respondents had completed high school, followed by middle school (25.00%), PUC (21.00%) and very few of them i.e., nine per cent of respondents had education upto primary school and and five per cent illiterate and graduate (1.00%), respectively.

Madhu (2010) conducted a study on technological gap in turmeric production practices in Belgaum district reported that, 38.00 per cent educated up to middle school, 28.00 per cent of respondents upto PUC followed by 15.00 per cent having primary school education, 5.00 per cent illiterate and 4.00 per cent graduate respectively.

Sabi (2012) conducted a study on Knowledge and technological gap in wheat production reported that majority of the respondents had educated up to PUC (28.33%) while, 13.33 per cent educated up to high school. The other respondents were educated upto middle school (21.66%), primary school (17.52%), illiterate (14.16%) and graduate level (05.00%) respectively.

2.3.3 Land holding

Pandya (1996) in his study on entrepreneurial behaviour of sugarcane growers revealed that majority (64.00%) of sugarcane growers had medium land holding followed by 24 and 12 per cent of them were in the category of big and small holdings, respectively.

Suresh Kumar (1997) in his study on feasibility analysis of privatization of extension services for selected farm enterprises in Hyderabad indicated that majority of the respondents (60.00%) had land holding of above 10 acres whereas 40.00 per cent of respondents had below 10 acres of land holding. Suresh (2004) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of milk producers in chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh and observed that majority of the respondents (68.75%) were having semi medium size of land holding followed by medium (19.17%) and small (12.08%) size of land holding.

Patel (2005) conducted a study of peasantry modernization in integrated tribal development project area of dahod district of Gujarat revealed that slightly more than half of the respondents (52.00%) were found to have medium size of land holding (1.1 to 2.0 ha of land), followed by big (40.00%) size of land holding up to 1.0 ha. of land. Only 8.00 per cent of the respondents found in the category of semi medium size of land holding (2.0 ha of land).

Suresh Kumar (2009) carried out a study on technological gap in adoption of the improved cultivation practices by soybean growers found that, majority of the farmers (45.33%) belonged to medium land holding category, 22.67 per cent of them belonged to big land holding category, whereas 16.67 per cent of them were semi medium farmers, 10.66 per cent were small farmers and 4.67 per cent belonged to marginal land holding capacity.

Kikon (2010) in her study on adoption gap in groundnut production in northern transition zone of Karnataka reported that, majority (45.00%) of the demonstrator farmers belonged to semi-medium land holding and considerable percentage (26.00%) were medium followed by small farmers 12.00 per cent and 9.00 per cent big and 8.00 per cent of marginal farmers respectively.

Shilpashree (2011) conducted a study on a profilistic study on awardee farmers in North Karnataka reported that, 50.00 percent of the awardee farmers belonged to semi-medium farmers (5.01-10 acres). 35.00 per cent were belonged medium land holding category (10.00-25 acres), 10.00 per cent were to small land holding category (2.51-5.0 acres). 3.00 per cent of them were belonged to big land holding category (>25 acres) and only 2.00 per cent were marginal farmers (<2.50 acres).

Sabi (2012) conducted a study on knowledge and technological gap in wheat production revealed that, 35.83 per cent of farmers belonged medium land holding category (10–25.0 acres) while 23.33 per cent belonged to big land holding category (>25 acres). Whereas 22.50 per cent of them were semi-medium farmers (5.01–10.0 acres), 12.50 per cent of them belonged to small land holding category (2.51 – 5.0acres), and 5.84 per cent were marginal farmers (<2.5 acres).

2.3.4 Annual income

Manjula (1995) in her study on entrepreneurial behaviour of rural women in Rangareddy district of Andhra Pradesh reported that, majority (65.00%) of respondents were belonged to medium income group followed by high (21.67%) and low (13.33%) income group.

Vijay Kumar (2001) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of floriculture farmers in Rangareddy district of Andhra Pradesh and reported that, 45.84 per cent of respondents were under high income group followed by (27.50%) medium and (26.66%) low income groups.

Suresh (2004) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of milk producers in chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh and reported that, most of respondents belonged to low income group with 80.33 per cent followed by medium and high income groups i.e., 15.00 and 4.17 per cent, respectively.

Nagesha (2005) conducted a Study on entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable seed producing farmers of Haveri district. observed that majority of the respondents (70.00%) were in high income group followed by medium and low income group with 18.40 and 11.60 per cent, respectively.

Pandeti (2005) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of farmers in Raichur district of Karnataka. reported that that majority of the respondents (50.83%) were in high income group followed by semi-medium, medium and low income groups with 25.84 per cent, 12.50 per cent and 10.83 per cent, respectively.

Amol (2006) carried out a study on indigenous technical knowledge about rice cultivation and bovine health management practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra and found that, majority of the farmers (85.92%) were in high income category, followed by (4.23%) had medium income, whereas 9.86 per cent of the respondents fall in low annual income category.

Nagesh (2006) in his study on a Study on entrepreneurial behaviour of pomegranate growers in Bangalkot district found that that nearly three fourth of the respondents (73.33%) were in low income group followed by medium and high income groups with 18.33 and 8.33 per cent, respectively.

Sushma (2007), in her analysis of entrepreneurship development in Women through edp trainings indicated that 47.49 per cent of the trained women entrepreneurs were in high income group followed by 29.03 per cent and 23.48 per cent who were in medium and low income groups respectively.

2.3.5 Farming experience

Lakshminarayan (1997) conducted study on Adoption of sustainable sugarcane farming practices by farmers - an analysis. reported from a study conducted on sugarcane farmers in Mandya district that 34 per cent of the respondents had less sugarcane farming experience (up to 19.30 years) while 35.5 per cent and 32.5 per cent of them had more (above 32.40 years

Chandrakala (1999) in her study on Extent of knowledge, adoption and time utilization pattern of farm women labours in dairy management observed that 54.17 per cent of the respondents had high experience in dairy management whereas, 25.00 per cent of respondents had medium experience, followed by low experience (20.83%) in dairy management.

Natikar (2001) investigated on attitude of use of farm journal of subscriber farmers and their profile-A critical analysis, found that majority of the respondents had medium farming experience (48%), followed by high (45%) and low (7%) farming experience, respectively.

Thiranjanagowda (2005) carried out a study on cultivation and marketing pattern of selected flowers in Belgaum district of Karnataka and noticed that 40.62 per cent of the respondents had high farming experience, while 35.93 and 23.45 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium and low farming experience category, respectively.

Chaudhari (2006) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers found that majority of trained (81.00%) and only 11.00 per cent of untrained dairy farmers had low (up to 10 years) of experience in dairying. Whereas, 19.00 per cent of trained and 68.00 per cent of untrained dairy farmers had medium (11 to 20 years) experience in dairying, and near about one fourth of untrained dairy farmers (21.00%) had high (above 20 years) experience in dairying.

Lekshmi et al. (2006) in their study on yield gap analysis among rice growers in Northeast Zone of Tamil Nadu inferred that 30.00 per cent of the farmers fell under high category followed by 31.67 per cent in medium category and 38.33 per cent in low category of farming experience.

Raghavendra (2007) in his study on management practices of pineapple growers in Karnataka indicated that, the majority (70.00%) of the respondents belonged to medium farming experience. While, 17.50per cent of respondents had low experience and 12.50 per cent had high farming experience.

Sidram (2008) carried out a study on analysis of organic farming practices in pigeonpea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state and reported that, nearly one third farmers (30.83%) had medium experience in farming whereas majority (69.17%) had low experience.

Madhu (2010) carried out a study on technological gap in turmeric production practices in Belgaum district observed that majority of respondents (39.30%) had high level of experience followed by 34.28 and 26.42 per cent of medium and low level of experience respectively in turmeric production practices.

Shilpashree (2011), conducted a study on a profilistic study on awardee farmers in North Karnataka reported that, 52.50 per cent of the awardee farmers had high level of farming experience, followed by medium (47.50%) level of farming experience.

Sabi (2012) conducted a study on Knowledge and technological gap in wheat production revealed that that, majority 53.33 per cent of the respondents had high farming experience (10 to 20 years), while 41.67 per cent of the respondents had medium farming experience (more than 20 years) and 5.00 per cent of respondents had low farming experience.

2.3.6 Experience in seed production

Chandregowda (1996) revealed from a study conducted on farmers in major rice growing areas of Karnataka that the tank eco system farmers had least rice farming experience of 19 years. Rice farming experience was highest among rain fed low land and upland farmers with an average of 26 to 27 years.

Chandrashekara (1999) revealed from a study conducted on coffee growers in selected districts of Karnataka and Kerala state that 39.00 per cent of the farmers had medium experience in coffee cultivation while 31.5 and 29.5 per cent of them had high and low experience in coffee cultivation.

Baswarajaiah (2001) conducted a study on impact of Edira Watershed development programme on farm families in Mahaboobnagar district of Andhra Pradesh, indicated that 29.17 per cent of respondents had low farming experience followed by medium (45.00%) and high (25.83%).

Reddy Prasad (2003) in his study differential Innovation Decision and Attitude of Rice Growing Farmers towards Eco- Friendly Technologies in Andhra Pradesh found that majority of rice growing farmers (71.00%) fall under the category of low farming experience followed by medium (19.00%) and high (9.04%) categories.

Suresh Kumar (2009) in his study on technological gap in adoption of the improved cultivation practices by soybean growers revealed that majority (58.67%) of the respondents had low farming experience (10 to 20 years), while (30.66%) of the respondents had medium farming experience (more than 20 years) and 10.66 per cent of respondents had high farming experience.

Vimalraj (2010) in his study on best practices and competencies of award winning agripreneurs of Tamil Nadu reported that, 56.70 per cent of the awardee farmers had low farming experience (16 to 30 years ) while 23.3 per cent of them had medium (6 to 15 years) and high (above 30 years) farming experience respectively.

2.3.7 Extension participation

Yawalkar et al., (1991) reported that, 52.38 per cent of orange growers appeared in medium category, followed by 26.19 per cent and 21.43 per cent in low and high extension participation category, respectively.

Yogananda (1992) in his study observed that, majority of the big coconut growers (78.33%) did not participate in educational tours, whereas, 61.00 per cent of the small coconut growers did not participate in meetings, educational tours and farmers training programmes.

Srinivas Reddy (1995) in his study reported that, more than half (53.00%) of the mango growers had low extension participation, followed by medium (30.00%) and high (17.00%) level of extension participation.

Nomesh Kumar et al. (2000) in their study on entrepreneurial behaviour and socioeconomic characteristics of farmers who adopted sustainable agriculture in India observed a significant difference in the entrepreneurial behaviour of farmers having medium, high and low extension participation.

Patel et al. (2003) in their study on communication factors and entrepreneurial behaviour of sugarcane growers reported a positive association between extension participation of sugarcane growers with their entrepreneurial behaviour.

Venkataramulu (2003) indicated that, majority of the farmers (70.00%) participated in discussion with village extension workers, krishimela (62.50%) and some exhibitions on agriculture (61.67%).

Anitha (2004) reported that 17.50 per cent of the entrepreneurs had medium extension participation whereas, 44.20 per cent of them had high followed by low extension participation (38.30%).

Sunil Kumar (2004) in his study in Belgaum district of Karnataka state revealed that, nearly 23.00 per cent of respondents participated regularly in agricultural exhibition followed by 20.83 per cent in demonstrations. Majority of them never attended in activities like training (66.67%), educational tour (94.17%) and field visits (92.05%).

Nagesha (2005) observed that majority of the respondents (61.70%) belonged to low extension contact category whereas, 26.70 per cent and 11.60 per cent of respondents belonged to medium and high extension contact categories, respectively

Nagesh (2006) found that more than half of the respondents (54.16%) belonged to medium extension contact category whereas, 28.33 per cent and 17.50 per cent of respondents belonged to high and low extension contact categories, respectively.

Shanthamani (2007) conducted a study on critical analysis of MYRADA programme in Gulbarga district and reported that 44.00 per cent of the beneficiaries belonged to low level of extension contact followed by medium (33.3%) and high level (22.7%) respectively.

Shilpashree (2011) conducted a study on a profilistic study on awardee farmers in North Karnataka reported that, 52.50 per cent of the awardee farmers had medium extension contact, followed by high (32.50%) and low (15.00%), respectively. Jyoti (2012) in her study reported that, nearly half of the cotton growers (48.13%) belonged to ‘medium extension contact’ category, followed by ‘high’ (30.00%) and ‘low’ (21.88%) extension contact categories, respectively.

Sabi (2012) conducted a study on Knowledge and technological gap in wheat production reported that, 43.33 per cent of the farmers belonged to low extension contact category followed by medium (35.01%) and high (21.66%) extension contact category respectively.

2.3.8 Economic motivation

Saranva Kumar (1996) carried out a study on management of mango gardens by farmers in Krishnagiri taluk of Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu observed that, majority of the respondents (60.83%) had medium economic motivation. While, 16.67 per cent and 22.50 per cent of the respondents belonged to low and high level of economic motivation, respectively.

Hanchinal (1999) conducted a study on privatization of extension service, attitude and performance of farmers and extension personnel in Haveri district of Karnataka and observed that majority (43.75%) of the respondents had low level of economic motivation, while 34.17 and 22.08 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium and high economic motivation category, respectively.

Natikar (2001) investigated on attitude of use of farm journal of subscriber farmers and their profile-A critical analysis, found that, 39.3 percent of the respondents belonged to medium economic motivation category, followed by high (36.7%) and low (24%).

Chauhan and Patel (2003) in their study on entrepreneurial uniqueness of poultry entrepreneurs reported that slightly less than half (48.47%) of the poultry entrepreneurs had high level of economic motivation while 31.25 per cent and 20.00 per cent had medium and low level of economic motivation, respectively.

Deepak (2003) from his study on perception on beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries towards WYTEP program in Dharwad district reported that, majority 54.67 and 52 per cent of non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries of WYTEP belonged to medium economic motivation category, respectively.

Raghavendra (2005) conducted a study on cauliflower growers of Belgaum district of Karnataka and found that, more than half of the respondents (52.50%) had medium level of economic motivation. Whereas, 25.00 and 22.50 per cent of them belonged to high and low level economic motivation categories, respectively.

Govinda Gowda and Narayana Gowda (2006) revealed that, more number of the Thompson Seedless grape growers (47.00%) and little more than half of the Bangalore Blue grape growers (51.00%) of Bijapur and Bangalore Rural district possessed high level of economic motivation.

Chandrashekhar (2007) investigated an analysis of onion production and marketing behaviour of farmers of Gadag district of Karnataka and reported that, majority of respondents (65.00%) had high economic motivation, while 34.17 per cent had medium economic motivation and 0.83% had low economic motivation.

Suresh Kumar (2009) carried out a study on technological gap in adoption of the improved cultivation practices by soybean growers and indicated that, 52 per cent of the respondents belonged to high economic motivation category followed by medium (29.33%) and low (18.67%) economic motivation respectively.

Madhu (2010) conducted a study on technological gap in turmeric production practices in Belgaum district observed that majority, 68.00 per cent of the turmeric growers had lowlevel of economic motivation followed by 25.00 per cent medium and high (7.00%) respectively.

Shilpashree (2011), in her study reported that, 42.50 per cent of the non-awardee farmers belonged to low economic motivation category followed by medium (37.50%) and high (20.00%) respectively.

Sabi (2012) conducted a study on Knowledge and technological gap in wheat production reported that that 34.16 per cent of the respondents belonged to high economic motivation category followed by 33.34 per cent and 32.50 per cent belonged to medium and low economic motivation category respectively.

2.3.9 Farm resources

Saikrishna (1998) reported that majority of the respondents possessed the agricultural materials like sprayer (89.33%) and cart (76.00%). More than one-third of the respondents (38.61% and 36.67%) possessed leveller and puddler, respectively. Whereas, only 11.33 per cent of the respondents possessed tractor. In case of non-agricultural materials, it was found that majority (96.00%) of the respondents possessed cycle. Radio and television were possessed by 81.33 and 64.00 per cent of the respondents, respectively. More than one-fourth of the respondents (28.00%) possessed motor cycle, whereas only 1.33 per cent of the farmers possessed a car.

Ravindra (2012) in his study Farmers awareness of climate change and their adaptation. Farm resources were computed by considering the different resources like land, livestock, water, and material possession. Farm resources were found to be low among 52.00 per cent of farmers followed by high (40.00%) and medium (8.00%).

2.3.10 Cropping Intensity

Anonymous (1980) survey revealed that the increase in cropping intensity has been reported to be 165.00, 156.00 and 149.00 per cent for tractor owning, tractor using and bullock operated farms, respectively.

Patil and Sirohi (1987) concluded that as a consequence of mechanization,cropping intensity increased significantly. Furthermore, irrigation and mechanical power helped the farmers in raising the cropping intensity of their farms.

Anandaraja (1999) in a study farm mechanization in Tamil Nadu: Issues and prospects, found that majority (60.63%) of the respondent farms had medium level of cropping intensity, followed by nearly one-forth (23.12%) with high level and 16.25 per cent of the farmers with low cropping intensity.

Jyoti (2012), in her study on Farm mechanization expectations of cotton growers reported that majority (88.75%) of the cotton growers belonged to high cropping intensity category, only 11.25 per cent of the cotton growers belonged to low cropping intensity category

2.4 Entrepreneurial behavior of commercial seed growers and other farmers

Nomesh Kumar and Narayana Swamy (2000) defined entrepreneurial behaviour as a combination of seven components viz., innovativeness, decision making ability, achievement motivation, information seeking ability, risk taking ability, co-ordinating ability and leadership ability.

Narmatha et al. (2002) stated that innovativeness, achievement motivation and risk orientation were the most important components. And further, the component decision making, innovativeness, management orientation, economic motivation, level of aspiration and risk orientation were found to be crucial in influencing the entrepreneurial behaviour.

Rao and Dipak De (2003) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable growers in Varanasi which revealed that majority (60.00%) of the respondents had high entrepreneurial behaviour score, while 16.00 and 23.30 per cent respondents had medium and low entrepreneurial behaviour scores, respectively.

Subramanyeswari and Veeraraghava Reddy (2003) operationalized entrepreneurial behaviour as the changes in the knowledge, skill and attitude of women livestock farmers towards dairy enterprises.

Vijay Kumar et al. (2003) operationalized entrepreneurial behaviour as the cumulative outcome of information seeking behaviour, farm decision making, leadership ability, risk taking ability, innovativeness, achievement motivation and market orientation of respondent farmers.

In a study on vegetable seed producers farmers Nagesha (2005) found that majority (68.30%) of respondents belonged to medium entrepreneurial behaviour, whereas 17.50 per cent were in low entrepreneurial behaviour and 14.10 per cent of respondents were in high entrepreneurial behaviour category.

Chaudhari (2006) in his study, A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers found that nearly half of untrained dairy farmers (49.00%) had low entrepreneurial behaviour, followed by medium (40.00%), while meager per cent of untrained dairy farmers (11.00%) belonged to high entrepreneurial behaviour.

Nagesh (2006) in his study A Study on entrepreneurial behaviour of pomegranate growers in Bangalkot district of Karnataka reported that majority (70.83%) of the respondents belonged to high entrepreneurial behaviour category. Whereas, 18.33 per cent were in medium entrepreneurial behaviour category and only 10.84 per cent of the respondents were in low entrepreneurial behaviour category. Ravi (2007) in his study on entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics of SC and ST farmers of Gulbarga district reported that, 41.87 per cent of the respondents belonged to low entrepreneurial behavior category. Whereas 33.75 per cent of them belonged to medium entrepreneurial behavior categoryand rest of them (24.38%) belonged to high entrepreneurial behavior category

2.4.1 Components of entrepreneurial behavior

2.4.1.1 Innovativeness

Nandapurkar (1982) reported that innovativeness has taken second position in explaining the variance of the entrepreneurial behaviour of small farmers in Maharashtra.

Reddy (1997) revealed that majority (62.00%) of the entrepreneurs had high innovativeness whereas, 20.00 per cent of them had medium followed by low innovativeness (18.00%).

Vijaykumar (2001) indicated that 47.50 per cent of entrepreneurs were in low category followed by 31.66 per cent in medium category and 20.84 per cent in high category.

Bhagyalaxmi et al. (2003) observed that majority (69.44%) of the entrepreneurs had medium innovativeness followed by 15.56 and 15.00 per cent of respondents having high and low innovativeness, respectively.

Suresh (2004) indicated that the milk producers in his study area had low, medium and high innovativeness in the order of 55.00 per cent, 24.58 per cent and 20.42 per cent, respectively.

Nagesha (2005) observed that majority (63.30%) of the respondents had medium innovativeness and equal percentages (18.30%) of the respondents were under low and high innovativeness category.

Chaudhari (2006) reported that around half of trained (53.00%) and untrained (48.00%) dairy farmers had medium level of innovativeness whereas, 34.00 per cent of trained and only 11.00 per cent of untrained dairy farmers belonged to high innovativeness. It was interesting to note that only 13.00 per cent of trained and 41.00 per cent of untrained dairy farmers belonged to low innovativeness category.

Nagesh (2006) found that that majority (64.16%) of the respondents had high innovativeness. However, only 20.00 per cent of the respondents were under medium innovativeness category and 15.84 per cent of the respondents were in low innovativeness category.

Kolur (2007) in his study on rehabilitant farmers in Upper Krishna project area of Bagalkot district observed that majority of the respondents (56.25%) were found in low innovativeness category while 27.25 per cent and 16.25 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium and high innovativeness categories, respectively.

Atul Basweshwar Patil (2008) in his study on constraints analysis of exporting farmers of Maharashtra state reported that 67.00 per cent of the respondents fall under high innovativeness category, followed by medium (19.00%) and low innovativeness category (14.00%), respectively.

Vimalraj (2010) in his study on best practices and competencies of award winning agripreneurs of Tamil Nadu reported that, 16.7 per cent of the farmers belonged to high innovativeness category while, 46.70 and 36.70 per cent of them belonged to medium and low innovativeness category respectively.

Shilpashree (2011), in her study reported that 52.50 per cent of the non-awardee farmers were under low innovativeness category followed by medium (37.50%) and high (10.00%), category respectively.

2.4.1.2 Achievement motivation

Chandrapaul (1998) revealed that 52.50 per cent of the entrepreneurs had medium achievement motivation followed by more or less equal percentage of 22.50 per cent and 25.00 per cent of entrepreneurs in low and high achievement motivation categories, respectively.

Vijaykumar (2001) reported that 44.16 per cent of the respondents had medium achievement motivation followed by 28.34 per cent and 27.50 per cent of entrepreneurs in low and high achievement motivation, respectively.

Suresh (2004) indicated that 61.25 per cent of the dairy entrepreneurs had medium achievement motivation followed by 20.42 per cent had low level of achievement motivation and 18.33 per cent of the respondents had high level achievement motivation.

Nagesha (2005) observed that majority (71.70%) of the respondents had high achievement motivation followed by 15.00 per cent and 13.30 per cent of respondents having medium and low achievement motivation, respectively.

Chaudhari (2006) reported that more than half of trained (55.00%) and near about one third of untrained (31.00%) dairy farmers had high achievement motivation whereas, more than one third of trained (38.00%) and untrained (47.00%) dairy farmers belonged to medium achievement motivation category followed by low achievement motivation category (07.00 % and 22.00 %, respectively).

Nagesh (2006) reveled that more than three fourth (80.84%) of the respondents had medium achievement motivation followed by 11.66 per cent and 07.50 per cent of respondents having low and high achievement motivation, respectively.

Ravi (2007) conducted study on entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics of SC and ST farmers of Gulbarga district and reported that 30.00 per cent of the farmers belonged to high achievement motivation category followed by medium (32.50%) and low (37.50%) achievement motivation categories.

Sushma (2007) in her study on analysis of entrepreneurship development in women through EDP trainings reported that 35.39 per cent of the trained women entrepreneurs had low achievement motivation, where as 34.61 per cent and 30.0 per cent of them had medium and high level of achievement motivation, respectively.

Hage Manty (2011), in her study Access and use of ICT tools by extension personnel for transfer of technology in North Karnataka reported that 40.00 per cent of UASD extension personnel exhibited high achievement motivation followed by medium (35%) and low (20%) respectively.

Shilpashree (2011), in her study reported that 47.50 per cent of the non-awardee farmers belonged to low category of achievement motivation, followed by medium (42.50%) and high (10.00%), respectively.

2.4.1.3 Decision making ability

Chandrapaul (1998) concluded that majority of entrepreneurs (50.90%) had medium decision making ability followed by more (25.80%) and less (23.30%) decision making categories.

Vijaykumar (2001) indicated that majority (46.66%) of the entrepreneurs had medium decision-making, followed by low (27.50%) and high (25.84%) decision making categories, respectively.

Suresh (2004) observed that majority of milk producers (65.83%) had medium level of decision making ability followed by low and high with 21.67 per cent and 12.50 per cent decision making ability of them, respectively.

Nagesha (2005) observed that majority of the respondents (74.20%) belonged to intermediate decision making ability followed by 13.30 per cent and 12.50 per cent of respondents belonging to less rational and rational decision making ability, respectively.

Chaudhari (2006) reported that around half of the both trained (52.00%) and untrained (49.00%) dairy farmers had moderate decision making ability whereas, 31.00 per cent of trained and only 12.00 per cent of untrained dairy farmers belonged to good decision making ability while, 17.00 per cent of trained and 39.00 per cent of untrained dairy farmers belonged to poor decision making ability.

Nagesh (2006) reported that nearly half of the respondents (47.50%) had intermediate decision making ability followed by 25.84 per cent and 26.66 per cent of respondents belonged to rational and less rational decision making ability categories, respectively.

Ravi (2007) carried out a study on entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics of SC and ST farmers of Gulbarga district and reported that 38.75 per cent of the farmers had low farm decision making followed by medium farm decision making (33.12%) and 28.13 per cent of them belonged to more farm decision making ability category.

Sidram (2008) in his study on analysis of organic farming practices in Pigeon pea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state found that 46.67 per cent of the respondents belonged to low decision making ability category with mean score of 10.55 followed by 34.17 and 19.17 per cent of respondents belonged to medium and more decision making ability categories with mean scores of 7.46 and 5.69, respectively.

2.4.1.4 Risk orientation

Meeran and Jayaseelan (1999) carried out a study on socio-personal, socio-economic and socio-psychological profile of shrimp farmers and reported high risk orientation (72.00%) among shrimp farmers followed by medium (26.00%) and low (20.00%) risk orientation.

Subramanyam (2002) conducted a study on impact of agricultural market yard committee level training programmes in Hyderabad which revealed that 75.00 per cent of the trained farmers had medium risk preference followed by high (13.34%) and low (11.66%) levels of risk preference.

Bhagyalaxmi et al. (2003) in their study on profile of rural women microentrepreneurs revealed that majority of the respondents (70.56%) had low risk orientation followed by high (15.56%) and medium (13.33%) risk orientation categories.

Suresh (2004) conducted a study on entrepreneurial behaviour of milk producers in Andhra Pradesh and inferred that majority of respondents had high level of risk orientation followed by medium and low level at the rate of 62.02, 24.58 and 13.34 per cent, respectively.

Govinda Gowda and Narayana Gowda (2006) in their study on profile of Thompson seedless and Banglore blue grape growers revealed that, majority of both Thompson Seedless grape growers (82.00%) and Bangalore Blue grape growers (88.00%) possessed medium level of risk orientation.

Gotyal (2007) carried out a study on backward and forward linkages of grape production in Karnataka and observed that, around half of the grape growers belonged to medium risk orientation category, followed by risk (34.50%) and low risk (16.50%) orientation category.

Atul Basweshwar Patil (2008) in his study on constraints analysis of exporting farmers of Maharashtra state reported that, 77.00 per cent of the respondents belong to low risk orientation category, followed by high (12%) and medium risk orientation categories (11%), respectively.

Sidram (2008) conducted a study on analysis of organic farming practices in pigeon pea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state and noticed that majority of the respondents (46.67%) belonged to high level of risk orientation, while 29.17 and 24.17 per cent of respondents belonged to medium and high low orientation category, respectively.

Suresh Kumar (2009) carried out a study on technological gap in adoption of the improved cultivation practices by soybean growers witnessed that majority (58.67%) of respondents belonged to low level of risk orientation category, followed by high (20.00%) and medium (21.33%) level of risk orientation.

Jyoti (2012), in her study reported 42.50 per centof the cotton growers belonged to ‘high risk orientation’ category, followed by 38.75 per cent and 18.75 per cent belonged to ‘medium’ and ‘low risk orientation’ categories, respectively.

Sabi (2012) in her study reported that, 38.34 per cent of the farmers belonged to low risk orientation category, followed by high (34.16%) and medium (27.50%) risk orientation category respectively.

2.4.1.5 Leadership ability

Chandra Paul (1998) reported that 37.50 per cent of total respondents fell in low leadership ability category followed by medium (32.50%) and high (30.00%) leadership ability categories.

Vijay Kumar (2001) reported that 36.66, 32.60 and 30.84 per cent of total respondents fell under low, high and medium leadership ability categories, respectively.

Suresh (2004) reported that among the respondents, 67.92 per cent had high level of leadership ability, 16.25 per cent had medium and remaining 15.83 per cent had low level of leadership ability.

In a study conducted by Nagesha (2005) the majority (49.20%) of the respondents belonged to low level of leadership ability followed by 25.80 and 25.00 per cent of the respondents having high and medium level of leadership ability, respectively.

Ravi (2007) in his study reported that, 57.50 per cent of the respondents had high leadership ability, followed by low (25.00%) and medium (17.50%) leadership ability category respectively.

2.4.1.6 Management orientation

Hanumarangaiah (1996) reported that 52.66, 24.66 and 22.66 per cent of the paddy and sugarcane growers had medium, low and high management orientation respectively.

Lakshminarayan (1997) reported from a study conducted in Mandya district that large number of sustainable sugarcane farmers had high management orientation (36.00%) followed by low (34.50%) and medium (29.50%) management orientation.

Kumar (1998) conducted a study on knowledge, adoption and economic performanceof banana growers in Bangalore district of Karnataka and observed that 43.0 per cent of the banana growers had high management orientation followed by 30.0 and 27.0 per cent having medium and low management orientation, respectively.

Vijayakumar and Narayanagowda (1999) in their study on rose growers in Bangalore district of Karnataka state found that, majority (54.00%) of the respondents received management orientation score varying from 56 to 65 followed by 28.00 per cent of the respondents had management orientation score in between 46.00 to 55.00 and 14.00 per cent of the respondents had obtained the lowest management orientation score ranging between 36 to 45, while, only 4 per cent of the respondents were received highest management orientation score varying from 66.00 to 75.00.

Hanchinal (1999) conducted a study on privatization of extension service, attitude and performance of farmers and extension personnel in Haveri district of Karnataka and inferred that almost equal percentage of the respondents could be grouped as having low (34.58%), high (32.92%) and medium (32.50%) management orientation.

Chauhan and Patel (2003) in their study on entrepreneurial uniqueness of poultry entrepreneurs reported that majority (71.25%) of the poultry entrepreneurs had medium to high degree of management orientation.

Manjula (2003) in her study on analysis of behaviour of krishi prashasthi awardees and their influence on the neighbouring farmers reported that, two third (66.67%) of the awardee farmers belonged to the high management orientation category while about one fifth (22.22%) and about one tenth (11.11%) of them belonged to the medium and low management orientation category respectively.

In a study conducted by Nagesha (2005) majority (66.70%) of the respondents belonged to high category of management orientation followed by 19.20 per cent of the respondents having medium level management orientation and 14.2 per cent of respondents having low level management orientation.

Nagesh (2006) in his study reported that majority (62.50%) of the respondents belonged to low category of management orientation, followed by 21.66 per cent of respondents having high level management orientation and 15.84 per cent of respondents having medium level management orientation. Atul Basweshwar Patil (2008) in his study on constraints analysis of exporting farmers of Maharashtra state reported that, 53.00 per cent of the respondents belong to low management orientation category, followed by high (34.00%) and medium management orientation categories (13.00%), respectively.

Shilpashree (2011) in her study A profilistic study on awardee farmers in North Karnataka reported that more than half (60.00%) of the awardee farmers belonged to high management orientation category followed by medium (27.50%) and low (12.50%). Whereas, 55.00 per cent of non-awardee farmers belonged to low management orientation, followed by high (32.50%) and medium (12.50%), respectively.


Ramanna et al. (2000) in their study on motivation factors and constraints of hybrid sunflower seed growers revealed that 48.00 per cent of the hybrid sunflower growers had medium level of mass media exposure while 12.00 and 10.00 per cent of respondents had low and high level of mass media exposure, respectively. Dhamodaran and Vasant Kumar (2001) in their study on relationship between selected characteristics of registered sugarcane growers and their extent of adoption of improved sugarcane cultivation practices reported that 53.33 per cent of the respondents had medium level of mass media exposures, followed by 40.00 per cent of the respondents with high level of mass media exposure.

Vedamurty (2002) conducted a study on the management of areca gardens and marketing pattern preferred by arecanut farmers of Shimoga district in Karnataka reported that more number of arecanut growers (48.00%) belonged to medium mass media participation category. While, 37.00 per cent of them had high mass media participation and 27.33 per cent fall in low mass media participation category.

Shasidhara (2003) in his study on drip irrigation farmers in Shimoga and Davanagere districts of Karnataka and reported that, 41.11 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium level of mass media participation, followed by low (35.56%) and high level (23.33%) mass media participation.

Sunil Kumar (2004) in his study on farmers knowledge and adoption of production and post harvest technology in tomato crop of Belgaum district in Karnataka reported that, 59.17 per cent of respondents were occasionally listening agricultural programmes in radio, Whereas, 30.00 per cent of them viewed agricultural programmes in television occasionally. While, 70.83 and 85.00 per cent of the respondents never read the newspapers and farm magazines respectively.

Chaudhari (2006)A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers indicated that majority of trained (61.00%) dairy farmers had medium information seeking behaviour, followed by high (29.00%) and low (10.00%) information seeking behaviour. However, nearly half of untrained (49.00%) dairy farmers had low information seeking behaviour, followed by high (28.00%) and medium (23.00%) information seeking behaviour.

Govinda Gowda and Narayana Gowda (2006) in their study on profile of Thompson seedless and Banglore blue grape growers indicated that, majority of Thompson seedless growers (55.00%) belonged to medium mass media category, followed by 33.00 and 12.00 per cent of the respondents who belonged to high and low mass media categories respectively.

Gotyal (2007) carried out a study on backward and forward linkages of grape production in Karnataka observed that, more than half of the grape growers (51.00%) had low mass media participation, 39.00 per cent had high and only 10.00 per cent had medium level of mass media participation.

Hinge (2009) conducted a study entitled diffusion and adoption of wine grape production in Maharashtra and noticed that, majority of the respondents (83.75%) subscribed newspaper, 30.62 per cent subscribed farm magazines, 96.25 per cent possessed radio and 987.75 per cent possessed television.


Amudha and Veerabhadraiah (2000) reported that major problems experienced by farm women in poultry framing were lack of knowledge about improved practices and disease control measures, higher feed cost and low egg prices, lack of storage facilities for eggs, low egg consumption, lack of export facilities and their dependency on middle men to get poultry feed and marketing their eggs.

Meenakshi Chaudhary and Intodia (2000) identified the major constraints as perceived by cattle owners in adoption of dairy practices as breeding constraints – inadequate knowledge of breeding practices (45.00%), high cost of cross bred cattle and superior quality bulls (44.40%) and perception of artificial insemination as un natural method (37.00%) whereas, feeding constraints poor irrigation facilities for growing green fodder (48.10%) and high cost of concentrate (42.50%). Management constraints such as lack of knowledge in weaning new born calves (80.00%) health constraints – lack of knowledge about cattle diseases and their control (36.60%) lack of veterinary clinic and health care centers’ (29.60%) and high cost of veterinary medicines (24.80%) and miscellaneous constraints were lack of educational programmes on dairying (21.46%) and lack of trained rural youth in village (20.70%).

Waman and Patil (2000) conducted a study on onion growers in Nasik district of Maharashtra revealed that difficulty in identifying pests and disease (54.66%) and noncurable nature of onion diseases with pesticides (42.00%) were the major problems.

Kadam et al. (2001) their study reported that lack of information/guidance was reported by almost all the non-adopters in respect of each practice as reason for non-adoption. The second important reason for non-adoption of the recommended soil and water conservation practices was non-availability of inputs, material/labour etc. In case of many of the practices, difficulty in crop cultivation, difficulty in maintenance and lack of skill were the important reasons for non-adoption.

Seema and Indu (2001) listed major constraints experienced under sphere category as excessive burden of household work, lack of leisure time and insufficient money in hand, incomplete knowledge regarding loan schemes and procedures and lack of information on education and training under resources sphere, major constraints were inadequate amount advanced, difficulty in justifying claim and lack of collateral support, while the major support sphere system constraints were complicated loan procedures frequent visit of various officials in search of free gifts and inadequate incentives offered by the government.

Anujkumar et al. (2002) reported that majority of dairy farmers faced moderate constraints under different categories of constraints such as management (80.47%), followed by breeding (66.41%), health care (55.47%) and feeding constraints (53.12%).

Vijaylakshmi and Poonam Sharma (2002) reported that maximum number (23) (38.3%) of the respondents said that they had little knowledge about entrepreneurs for taking loan and they found difficulty in following the procedures and also reported that financial institutes don’t put much faith on them and sometimes see them with suspicion and other problems were lack of funds, high rate of interest, non-implementation of existing policies for financial assistance to women.

Aravindkumar and Vasanthakumar (2003) observed that the major constraints faced by small and marginal farmers in dairy farming were low price of milk (96.67% and 100.00%), followed by high cost of feeds and fodders (93.33% and 100.00%), non-availability of land for fodder cultivation (86.67% and 96.67%), less fat content in cross bred cow milk (70.00% and 96.67%), and non-availability of loans and lengthy procedure (66.67% and 83.33%), respectively.

Manoharan et al. (2003) observed that the major constraints faced by farmers in dairy farming were higher feed cost, low price for milk, high investment, infertility problem, low productivity, higher rate of calf mortality, frequently becoming sick, inadequate availability of grazing lands, costly veterinary treatment and aids.

Narendrareddy et al. (2003) reported that non-availability of good dairy animals, non-remunerative price for milk, high cost of concentrates and non availability of green fodder, high cost of dairy animals, irregular payment for milk by procuring agencies, low water profiles and lack of irrigation facilities and non-availability of good breeding bulls were the major constraints in dairy farming.

Sarah Kamala and Atchuta Raju (2003) listed problems faced by farm women, viz., non-availability of raw materials, inaccessibility of place of work, improper marketing facilities, lack of transportation facility, lack of knowledge and skills, lack of competition and inadequate training, lack of guidance, financial problems, complex loaning procedure, lack of recognition of women’s work, additional responsibilities at home and family, lack of family cooperation and lack of encouragement by the society.

Singh et al. (2004) reported that the major constraints in rural livestock farming were feeds and fodder shortage, poor animal productivity, poor breeding facilities, poor veterinary services, poor livestock extension service and poor credit and marketing facilities.

Nagesh (2006) in his study on pomegranate reported the constraints faced by pomegranate growers as lack of storage facility, high incidence of pest and diseases, non availability of skilled labour for pruning, expensiveness of pruning operations, costly chemicals and fertilizers and lack of processing units were the major constraints.

Chaudhari (2006) revealed that, cent per cent dairy farmers expressed the major constraints such as non remunerative price for milk and high cost of concentrate. The major economic constraints expressed by dairy farmers were: high cost of crossbred cow/improved buffalo (73.50%) followed by inadequate bank finance to purchase milch animals (58.00%), difficult loan procedure (43.00%), high investment (41.00%) and high cost of veterinary medicines (31.00%). In case of technical constraints, major constraints expressed by dairy farmers were lack of veterinary facilities in the village (46.00%), followed by highly expensive consultancy service of private practitioners (41.00%), lack of technical knowledge to manage the dairy enterprise (31.50%).Whereas, only 6.00 per cent of trained dairy farmers had expressed poor conception rate in dairy animals.

METHODOLOGY The study was conducted during 2012-13 in Dharwad district of Karnataka. In this chapter,

the general typology and description of the research methods and procedures adopted in the present investigation are explained under the following major heads.

3.1 Research design

3.2 Selection of district

3.3 Selection of taluks

3.4 Selection of villages

3.5 Selection of respondents

3.6 Brief description of the study area

3.7 Operationalization and measurement of variables

3.8 Data collection

3.9 Statistical tools used in the study

3.1 Research design

“Ex-post facto design” was employed in the present research study as the events have already occurred and design was considered appropriate.

3.2 Selection of district

The research was conducted in Dharwad district of Karnataka state. Dharwad district has been purposively selected for the study because of the availability of both the commercial seed growers and the other farmers and also as per the convenience and familiarity of the researcher with the study area.

3.3 Selection of taluks

In Dharwad district, Dharwad, Kundagol and Hubli taluks had maximum number of seed growers and hence selected purposively as locale of the study.

3.4 Selection of villages

The villages having maximum number of farmers involved in seed production were listed in descending order in consultation with Karnataka state seed certification agency. From the list, first three villages having maximum number of seed growers were selected from each taluka as listed below.

Sl. No. Taluk Village

1

Dharwad

a.Navalur

b.Mugad

c.Tadkod

2

Kundagol

a.Kundagol

b.Kamdolli

c.Hireharkuni

3

Hubli

a.Chabbi

b.Tarihal

c.Bidnal

Fig 1: Map showing the selected taluks of Dharwad district for the study

3.5 Selection of respondents

From each selected villages, 10 seed growers and 10 other farmers were selected by simple random sampling procedure. Thus, sample from each taluka was 60 making a total sample size of 180 respondents, from all the three talukas.

Terms used

Seed growers: Refers to farmers who are engaged in commercial seed production.

Other farmers: Refers to farmers who are not engaged in seed production.

3.6 Brief description of the study area

Location

Dharwad district is situated in Northern part of Karnataka state at 740 28’ North latitude and

140 31’ East longitude. The district comes under the Northern transitional zone. It is bounded by the

Belgaum in the North, Haveri in the South; from Northeast to Southeast bounded by Uttar Kannada district and Northwest to Southwest it is bounded by Gadag district.

Climate

The district has healthy and conducive climate. The monsoon varies from April-May to September-October with two peaks, one in July and other in September creating two cropping seasons. The temperature ranges from a maximum of 39

0C to minimum of 13

0C.

Soil

The types of soil ranges from shallow to black and medium red sandy loam.

Rainfall

The annual rainfall ranging from 539.7mm to 1037.2mm, which is fairly well distributed from April-May to September-October.

Irrigation facilities

Only 23.53 per cent of the total cultivable area is under irrigation in the district. The major irrigation sources are canals (62570 ha), borewells (22068 ha), tanks (113 ha), and other sources (11 ha).

Land utilization

The total geographical area of the district is 427329 ha and about 84.30 per cent area is under cultivation (360186 ha), 8.24 per cent area under forest (35235 ha), 0.83 per cent under grazing land (3571 ha), and about 51.5 per cent of the area is sown more than once (220341 ha).

Major crops

The principal crops of the district are soybean, cotton, jowar, potato, groundnut, paddy and vegetables in Kharif season. In Rabi season, major crops grown are wheat, rabi jowar and bengal gram.

3.7 Operationalization and measurement of variables

Keeping the objectives in view, following variables were selected.

3.7.1 Variables used for the study

Variables Measurement tool

I. Dependent variable

1.Entrepreneurial behavior

Components of Entrepreneurial behaviour

1.1 Innovativeness Scale developed by Moulik and Rao (1965) and as followed by Shilpashree (2011)

1.2 Achievement motivation Procedure as followed by Hagemanty (2011)

1.3 Decision making ability Scale developed by Supe (1969) as adopted by Nagesh (2006) with suitable modifications

1.4 Risk orientation Scale developed by Supe (1969) and as followed by Mangala (2008)

1.5 Leadership ability Scale developed by Nandapurkar (1980) as adopted by Nagesh (2006) with suitable modifications

1.6 Management orientation Scale developed by Samanta (1977) and as adopted by Shilpashree (2011) with suitable modifications

II. Independent variables

1. Age Scale developed by Chennegowda (1977) and as followed by Mangala (2008)

2. Education Scale developed by Trivedi (1963) and as followed by Sabi (2012)

3. Land holding Procedure as followed by Manjunath S Kolur (2007)

4. Annual income Structured scheduled was developed

5. Farming experience Procedure as followed by Vinay Kumar (2005)

6. Experience in seed production Procedure as followed by Shilpashree (2011)

7. Extension participation Procedure as followed by Atul basweshwar patil (2008) with slight modifications

8. Economic motivation Scale developed by Supe (1969) and as followed by Sabi (2012)

9. Farm resources Procedure as followed by Ravindra Jamadar (2012)

10. Cropping intensity Procedure followed by Jyoti N Goravi (2012)

3.7.2 Dependent variables

3.7.2.1 Entrepreneurial behaviour

The entrepreneurial behaviour includes the components like Innovativeness, Achievement motivation, Decision making ability, Risk orientation, Leadership ability and Management orientation were measured by using the following methods.

1. Innovativeness

Innovativeness was operationalised as the behaviour pattern of an respondent who had interest in and desire to seek changes in farming technologies and to introduce such changes in to his operations which were practical and feasible.

Innovativeness was measured by using Moulik and Rao’s (1965) forced choice method of self rating as followed by Shilpashree (2011). The scale consisted of 9 statements and responses were obtained as ‘most likely’ and ‘least likely’ for innovativeness scale. The score of 2 and 1 was assigned for these statements. Based on the total score, the respondents were classified into three categories by using mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.

Category Score

Low Less than (X-0.425 SD)

Medium Between (X+ 0.425 SD)

High More than (X+ 0.425 SD)

2. Achievement motivation

It was operationalized as the desire for excellence to attain a sense of personal accomplishment.

This variable was quantified by using the procedure followed by Hage manty (2011). The scale consists of six statements to be rated on a three point continuum namely, agree, undecided, disagree with the scores of 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The possible scores varied from 6 to 18. Based on the total score, the respondents were classified into three categories by using mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.

Category Score




3. Decision making ability

The decision making ability of a farmer is operationally defined as the degree of weighing the available alternatives in terms of their desirability and their likelihoods and choosing the most appropriate one for achieving maximum profit on his farming. The scale developed by Supe (1969), and as adopted by Nagesh (2006) with suitable modifications was used .

The scale consisted the weightages of 3, 2 and 1 were assigned to the three rationality levels namely ‘rational’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘less rational’, respectively.

Based on the total score obtained by respondents on decision making, they were grouped into following three categories, keeping the mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.

Category Score




4. Risk orientation

It referred to the degree to which the respondents oriented towards risk and uncertainty in adopting new ideas or technologies in farming. Risk orientation scale developed by Supe (1969) and as followed by Mangala (2008) and Shilpashree (2011) with some modifications was used to measure risk orientation.

The scale contains six statements, of which first and fifth statements were negative and all others were positive statements. In case of positive statement, a score of 3, 2 and 1 was assigned for ‘agree’, ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively. The scoring was reversed in case of negative statements. The scores were added to get the total score of the respondent. Minimum and maximum score one could get was 6 and 18, respectively. Based on total score, the respondents were grouped into three categories using mean and standard deviation.

Category Score




5. Leadership ability

Leadership ability was operationalized as the degree to which an individual initiates or motivates the action of others. Scale developed by Nandapurkar (1980) with suitable modifications and as followed by Nagesh (2006) was used to measure leadership ability.

In the present study, leadership ability was measured on a three point continuum namely, “always”, “sometimes” and “never” with scores i.e., 2, 1 and 0 respectively.

The total score was computed for each respondent by summing up the scores recorded. Based on the total scores obtained, the respondents were classified into following three categories, keeping the mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.

Category Score




6. Management orientation

It refers to the degree to which a farmer is oriented towards scientific farm management comprising of planning, production and marketing functions on his farm.

In order to know the farmers management orientation, the scale developed by Samanta (1997) and as followed by Shilpashree (2011) with slight modifications was used. The scale consists of total 15 statements, including six statements for planning, five for production and four for marketing aspects. The management orientation scale has got two responses for each statement as agree and disagree with a score of 2,1 respectively. Based on the total scores obtained, the respondents were classified into following three categories, keeping the mean and standard deviation as measure of check.

Category Score




3.7.3 Independent Variables

1. Age

It was quantified by considering the chronological age of an individual respondent at the time of investigation. Depending upon the age of the individual respondent were grouped into three categories by using the Scale developed by Chennegowda (1977) and as followed by Mangala (2008). The responses were expressed in terms of frequency and percentage.

Category Age (years)

Young Upto 35

Middle 36-50

Old Above 50

2. Education

It refers to number of years of formal education completed by the respondent. Education of the respondent was measured by using Trivedi’s (1963) scale with some modifications and as followed by Sabi (2012) was adopted. Based on the education level, the respondents were classified into seven categories.

Education Score

Illiterate 0

Primary school (1st- 4

th std) 1

Middle school ( 5th- 7

th std) 2

High school( 8th- 10

th std) 3

PUC 4

Graduate 5

Post graduate 6

3. Land holding

It refers to the number of acres of land possessed by the farmer. The criterion prescribed by the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 38 of 1966 (Part B),99,195-196 under section 2(a) 32 as one acre of irrigated or garden land was equivalent to three acres of dryland.

The criterion prescribed by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India vide circular No.280-12/16/19 RD-III (Vol- II) dated 15

th November 1991(Anon., 1992) and as followed by

Manjunath S Kolur (2007) was used and the respondents were grouped into five categories.

Category Land holding (in acres)

Marginal farmers Upto 2.50

Small farmers 2.51 – 5.00

Semi-medium farmers 5.01 – 10.00

Medium farmers 10.01 – 25.00

Big farmers Above 25.00

4. Annual income

Annual family income of the family of the respondent was determined by considering the total income of the family from all the sources during previous year and expressed in terms of rupees. Based on the total annual family income, the respondents were categorized into the following three groups using mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.

Category Score




The frequency and percentage were calculated for each category.

5. Farming Experience

This refers to total number of years of experience, possessed by an individual respondent involved in cultivation of crops. Further the respondents were classified into three categories by using the procedure as followed by Vinay kumar (2005), and Shilpashree (2011). Based on the total score the individuals were grouped into low, medium and high category of experience.

Category Farming Experience (in years)

Low < 10

Medium 10 to 20

High > 20

6. Experience in seed production

This refers to total number of years of experience, the respondent involved in producing seed. Further the respondents were classified into three categories by using the procedure as followed by Shilpashree (2011). Based on the total score, the individuals were grouped into low, medium and high category of experience.

Category Farming Experience (in years)

Low < 10

Medium 10 to 20

High > 20

7. Extension participation

It refers to the extent of participation of an individual farmer in different extension activities. The variable was quantified by using the procedure as followed by Atul Basweshwar Patil (2008). A list of extension activities was prepared and individual respondent was asked to indicate their extent of participation in each activity. The scoring procedure was used as follows.

Sl. No. Extension activity Regular Occasional Never

1 Training 3 2 1

2 Demonstrartion 3 2 1

3 Field days 3 2 1

4 Field visit 3 2 1

5 Group meetings 3 2 1

6 Agri. Exhibition 3 2 1

7 Krishi mela 3 2 1

8 Educational tours 3 2 1

Based on total score, respondents were grouped into low, medium and high categories by using mean and standard deviation as measure of check.

8. Economic motivation

Economic motivation was operationally defined as the degree to which a farmer was oriented towards profit maximization in farming and the relative value placed by the farmer on economic ends. The scale developed by Supe (1969) and as followed by Suresh Kumar (2009) and Sabi (2012) was used to quantify this variable. The scale consisted of six statements, of which one statement was negative. The responses were obtained on a three point continuum with scoring as follows.

Category A UD DA

Score for positive statements 3 2 1

Score for negative statements 1 2 3

The maximum score, an individual can obtain on this scale was 18 and minimum was six. Based on the total score, the respondents were grouped into three categories as follows.

Category Score

Low Less than (X – 0.425 SD)

Medium Between (X + 0.425 SD)

High More than (X + 0.425 SD)

9. Farm resources

Farm resources were operationalized as the type and extent of resource base of the farmers that support crop production system. The resources such as land, water, livestock, and farm equipments were considered to compute farm resources. The procedure followed by Ravindra Jamadar (2012) was used. The components and items score assigned are as follows:

Farm resources

Resource type Category Score

Land type Black 3

Red 2

Non-Arable 1

Water Irrigated 3 Rainfed 1

Livestock Draft animal 3

Buffaloes 3

Sheep and Goat 2

Poultry 2

Farm equipments Tractor 4

Bullock cart 2

Plough 1

Other equipments 1

Based on the total score obtained, the respondents were grouped into three categories as follows

Category Criteria

Low Less than < (Mean-0.425 SD)

Medium Between (Mean ±0.425 SD)

High More than > (Mean+0.425 SD)

10. Cropping intensity

Cropping intensity referred to the ratio between total and net-cropped area expressed in percentage. This index measures the effective utilization of land available for cultivation by the respondents. The formula suggested by the Indian Society of Agronomy (1987) and as followed by Jyoti (2012) was used to calculate the Cropping Intensity as given below.

Total cropped area in a year Cropping Intensity =

Net sown area x 100

3.7.4 Source consultancy pattern of commercial seed growers

It was operationally defined as the degree of frequency of contacts by a farmer with various information sources. This is the pattern by which, a farmer gets information either on his own seeking or as a consequences of being a part of a network. Nandapurkar (1980) measured this variable by putting simple questions and the procedure as followed by Chaudhari (2006) was being used with slight modifications. In the present study, the degree of frequency of contacts with information sources of farmer was classified on the basis of type of sources such as, formal, informal and media sources. The information seeking from formal, informal and media sources was measured on three point continuum viz., ‘regularly’, ‘occasionally’ and ‘never’ by assigning the scores of 2, 1, and 0, respectively. The total score was computed for each respondent by summing the scores recorded. Frequency and percentage were calculated. 3.7.5 Constraints faced by commercial seed growers

The constraints faced by the respondents in of the study area were elicited through open ended questions. Based on the responses obtained from an individual farmer, frequency and percentage were calculated for each of the constraints faced by them.

3.8 Data collection A structured interview schedule was used to collect the data from the respondents. The tentatively prepared schedule was employed in a non sample area to pretest the relevancy and practicability. Based on the experience gained, the schedule was modified wherever needed and finalized. The final schedule was used to elicit the information from the respondents by personal interview technique.

3.9 Statistical tools The following statistical tools were used to analyze the data.

Frequency

This measure was used to know the variable wise distribution pattern of respondent and to categorize the problems perceived by seed growers and other farmers in order of importance.

Percentage

This measure was used for simple comparisons.

Mean

The arithmetic mean is the sum of the scores divided by their number. This measure was used to categorize the dependent and independent variables into low, medium and high categories.

Standard deviation

This measure was used to categorize the dependent and independent variables into low, medium and high categories.

RESULTS The results of the present study are discussed in this chapter under the following sub

headings.






The results relating to socio-economic profile of commercial seed growers and other farmers have been presented in this part.

4.1.1 Age

It can be observed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that, 53.33 per cent of the seed growers belonged to the middle age group, followed by old age (34.45%) and young age (12.22%) respectively.

It can also be viewed from the table that, 62.22 per cent of the other farmers (not taking seed production) belonged to middle age group, followed by old age (21.11%) and young age (16.67%) respectively.

4.1.2 Education

With regard to level of education, it can be observed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers educated up to PUC, followed by high school (32.22%), middle school (12.22%), primary school (8.89%), illiterate (5.56%) and graduate (4.44%). Whereas, none of the seed growers found to be educated up to post graduate.

Further the table also depicts that, 31.11 per cent of the other farmers educated up to high school, followed by middle school (26.67%), PUC (20.00%), primary school (8.89%), illiterate (7.78%), graduate (5.55%), and none of the seed growers found to be post graduate.

4.1.3 Land holding

The distribution of respondents according to land holding as presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2 reveals that, 42.22 per cent of the seed growers belonged to medium land holding category (10.01-25.00 acres), 20.00 per cent belonged to big land holding category (>25.00 acres), 17.78 per cent belonged to semi-medium land holding category (5.01-10.00 acres), 11.11 per cent belonged to small land holding category (2.51-5.00 acres) and only 8.89 per cent (< 2.50 acres) of them were marginal farmers.

Further, the table also depicts that, 34.44 per cent of the other farmers belonged to semi-medium land holding category (5.01-10.00 acres), 30.00 per cent to medium land holding category (10.01-25.00 acres) while 16.67 per cent belonged to small land holding category (2.51-5.00 acres). Whereas 12.22 per cent belonged to big land holding category (< 25 acres) and only 6.67 per cent (< 2.50 acres) of them were marginal farmers.

4.1.4 Annual income

It can be observed from the Table1 and Fig. 2 that, 38.89 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high income category (>Rs.100841) followed by medium (37.78%) (Rs.44759.03-Rs.100841) and low (23.33%) (<Rs.44759.03) respectively. Whereas, 47.78 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low income category (<Rs.37460.24) followed by medium (41.11%) (Rs.37460.24-Rs.71073.10) and high (11.11%) (>Rs.71073.10) respectively.


The data presented in Table 1 and Fig.2 revealed that 56.67 per cent of the seed growers had high level of farming experience (>20yrs) followed by medium (33.33%) (10-20yrs) and low (10.00 %) (<10yrs) level of farming experience respectively.

In case of the other farmers 71.11 per cent of them had high level of farming experience (>20yrs) followed by medium (28.89%) (10-20yrs) level of farming experience.

Table 1: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

(n=180)

Seed growers

( w.r.t seeds)

(n1=90)

Other farmers

(w.r.t crops)

(n2=90) Sl. No.

Characteristics

Category

F % F %

Young (18-35 yrs) 11 12.22 15 16.67

Middle (36-50 yrs) 48 53.33 56 62.22 1 Age

Old (above 50 yrs) 31 34.45 19 21.11

Illiterate 5 5.56 7 7.78

Primary school (1st- 4

th

std) 8 8.89 8 8.89

Middle school ( 5th- 7

th

std) 11 12.22 24 26.67

High school ( 8th- 10

th

std) 29 32.22 28 31.11

PUC 33 36.67 18 20.00

Graduate 4 4.44 5 5.55

2 Education

Post graduate 0 00 0 00

Marginal farmers

(Up to 2.50 acres) 8 8.89 6 6.67

Small farmers

(2.51 – 5.00 acres) 10 11.11 15 16.67

Semi-medium farmers

(5.01 – 10.00 acres) 16 17.78 31 34.44

Medium farmers

(10.01 – 25.00 acres) 38 42.22 27 30.00

3

Land holding

Big farmers

(Above 25.00 acres) 18 20.00 11 12.22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Young (18-35 yrs) Middle (36-50 yrs) Old (above 50 yrs)

Characteristics

Seed growers Other farmres

Age

Fig. 2a: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Age

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Illiterate Primary school (1st- 4th

std)

Middle school (5th- 7th

std)

High school (8th- 10th

std)

PUC Graduate Post graduate

Characteristics


Educatio

nFig. 2b: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Education

Fig 2: Socio-economic profile of commercial seed growers and other farmers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e

Marginal farmers (Up to 2.50 acres) Small farmers (2.51 – 5.00 acres) Semi-medium farmers (5.01 –

10.00 acres)

Medium farmers (10.01 – 25.00

acres)

Big farmers (Above 25.00 acres)

Characteristics


Land holding

Fig. 2c: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Land holking

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Annual income

Fig. 2d: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Annual income

Fig 2: Contd……

Seed growers ( w.r.t seeds) (n1=90)

Other farmers (w.r.t crops) (n2=90)

Category F % Category F %

Low (< Rs.44759.03) 21 23.33 Low(<Rs.37460.24) 43 47.78

Medium(Rs. 44759.03-Rs.100841) 34 37.78 Medium(Rs. 37460.24-Rs.71073.10)

37 41.11

High(> Rs. 100841) 35 38.89 High(>Rs.71073.10) 10 11.11

4 Annual income

Mean=66066.67 SD=59956.88

Mean=54266.67 SD=39544.54

Low (<10 yrs) 9 10.00 Low(<10 yrs) 0 00

Medium(10-20yrs) 30 33.33 Medium(10-20yrs) 26 28.89

5 Farming experience

High(>20yrs) 51 56.67 High(>20yrs) 64 71.11

Low (<10 yrs) 70 77.78 Low(<10 yrs) 0 00

Medium(10-20yrs) 14 15.55 Medium(10-20yrs) 0 00

6 Experience in seed production

High(>20yrs) 6 6.67 High(>20yrs) 0 00

Low(<14.42) 23 25.56 Low(<13.23) 38 42.22

Medium(14.42-16.0) 36 40.00 Medium(13.23-15.14) 35 38.89

High(>16.0) 31 34.44 High(>15.14) 17 18.89

7 Extension participation

Mean=15.21 SD=1.86

Mean=4.21 SD=2.31

Low(<7.25) 28 31.11 Low(<8.39) 39 43.33

Medium(7.52-9.28) 29 32.22 Medium(8.39-9.60) 26 28.89

High(>9.28) 33 36.67 High(>9.60) 25 27.78

8 Economic motivation

Mean=8.40 SD=2.06

Mean=9.0 SD=1.41

Low (<17.31) 26 28.89 Low(<14.44) 38 42.22

Medium(17.31-21.93) 33 36.67 Medium(14.44 - 19.07) 32 35.56

9 Farm resources

High (>21.93) 31 34.44 High(>19.07) 20 22.22 Mean=15.12

SD=5.15 Mean=16.76

SD=5.44

Low(up to 100) 75 83.33 Low(up to 100) 10 11.11 10 Cropping intensity

High(above 100) 15 16.67 High(above 100) 80 88.89

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low (<10 yrs) Medium(10-20yrs) High(>20yrs)

Characteristics


Farming experiance

Fig. 2e: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Farming Experiance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low (<10 yrs) Medium(10-20yrs) High(>20yrs)

Characteristics


Experience in seed production

Fig. 2f: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Experience in seed production

Fig 2: Contd……

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Extension participation

Fig. 2g: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Extension participation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Economic motivation

Fig. 2h: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Economic motivation

Fig 2: Contd……

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Farm resources

Fig. 2i: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Farm resources

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low(up to 100) High(above 100)

Characteristics


Cropping intensity

Fig. 2j: Socio-economic characters of the respondents

Cropping intensity

Fig 2: Contd……

4.1.6 Experience in Seed production

It can be viewed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that 77.78 per cent of the seed growers belonged to low seed production experience followed by medium (15.55%) and high level (6.67%) respectively.


The data presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2 indicates that, 40.00 per cent of the seed growers belonged to medium extension participation category, followed by high (34.44 %) and low (25.56 %) extension participation categories respectively. Whereas, 42.22 per cent of the other farmers were from low extension participation category, followed by medium (38.89 %) and high (18.89 %) extension participation categories respectively.

The data presented in Table 2 indicates that, with respect to participation in extension activities 68.89 per cent of the seed growers and 30.00 per cent of other farmers occasionally attended training programmes, while, more than one fifth (22.22 %) of seed growers and 13.33 per cent of the other farmers attended training programmes regularly. Whereas 8.89 per cent of seed growers and 56.67 per cent of other farmers never attended training programmes .

The data in the table also reveals that, 64.45 per cent of the seed growers and 27.78 per cent of other farmers occasionally attended demonstrations, while exactly one fifth (20.00%) of the seed growers and 6.67 per cent of other farmers regularly attended demonstrations. Whereas 15.55 per cent of seed growers and 65.55 per cent of the other farmers never attended demonstrations.

The data indicates that, 48.89 per cent of the seed growers and 8.89 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in field days, while 33.33 per cent of the seed growers and 32.22 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in field days. Whereas 17.78 per cent of the seed growers and 58.89 per cent of the other farmers never participated in field days.

It can also be observed that, more than half (53.33%) of the seed growers and 8.89 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in field visits, while 38.89 per cent of the seed growers and 28.89 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in field visits. Whereas 7.78 per cent of the seed growers and 62.22 per cent of the other farmers never participated in field visits.

The data in the table also indicates that, 62.22 per cent of the seed growers and 4.44 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in group meetings, while 33.34 per cent of the seed growers and little more than one fifth (21.11%) of other farmers occasionally participated in group meetings. Whereas 4.44 per cent of the seed growers and 74.45 per cent of the other farmers never participated in group meetings.

The data in the table also reveals that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers and 16.67 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in Agril. Exhibition, while 28.89 per cent of the seed growers and little more than one fourth (25.55%) of the other farmers occasionally participated in Agril. Exhibition. Whereas 4.44 per cent the seed growers and 57.78 per cent of the other farmers never participated in Agril. Exhibition.

The data in the table also depicts that, majority (91.11%) of the seed growers and 68.89 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in krishimela, while 8.89 per cent of the seed growers and 28.89 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in krishimela and 2.22 per cent of the other farmers never participated in krishimela.

The data in the table also reveals that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers and exactly half (50.00%) of the other farmers occasionally participated in educational tours, while 17.77 per cent of the seed farmers and 6.67 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in educational tours. Whereas 15.56 per cent of the seed growers and 43.33 per cent of the other farmers never participated in educational tours.


The data furnished in Table 1 and Fig. 2 reveals that, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high economic motivation category followed by medium (32.22%) and low (31.11%) respectively. Whereas, 43.33 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low economic motivation category followed by medium (28.89%) and high (27.78%) respectively.

Table 2: Extension participation of the respondents (n=180)



Regular Occasional Never Regular Occasional Never Sl. No.

Extension activity

F % F % F % F % F % F %

1 Training 20 22.22 62 68.89 8 8.89 12 13.33 27 30.00 51 56.67

2 Demonstration 18 20.00 58 64.45 14 15.55 6 6.67 25 27.78 59 65.55

3 Field days 44 48.89 30 33.33 16 17.78 8 8.89 29 32.22 53 58.89

4 Field visits 48 53.33 35 38.89 7 7.78 8 8.89 26 28.89 56 62.22

5 Group meetings 56 62.22 30 33.34 4 4.44 4 4.44 19 21.11 67 74.45

6 Agril. Exhibition 60 66.67 26 28.89 4 4.44 15 16.67 23 25.55 52 57.78

7 Krishimela 82 91.11 8 8.89 0 00 62 68.89 26 28.89 2 2.22

8 Educational tour 16 17.77 60 66.67 14 15.56 6 6.67 45 50.00 39 43.33

Table 3: Economic motivation of the respondents

(n=180) Seed growers ( w.r.t seeds)

(n1=90) Other farmers (w.r.t crops)

(n2=90)

Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided Disagree

Sl No.

Statements

F % F % F % F % F % F %

1 A farmer/seed grower should work towards more yield and economic profit.

80 88.90 6 6.66 4 4.44 63 70.00 27 30.00 0 00

2 The most successful farmer/seed grower is the one who makes the most profit.

44 48.90 30 33.30 16 17.80 41 45.55 43 47.78 6 6.67

3 A farmer/seed grower should always try any new farming idea which may earn him more money.

55 61.10 18 20.00 17 18.90 40 44.44 46 51.11 4 4.44

4 A farmer/seed grower should grow more cash crops to increase monetary profit in comparison to growing of food crops for home consumption.

57 63.33 19 21.11 14 15.56 48 53.33 34 37.78 8 8.89

5 It is difficult for farmer’s/seed grower’s children to make good start unless he provides them with economic assistance.

52

57.78

26

28.89

12

13.33

54

60.00

31

34.44

5

5.56

6 A farmer/seed grower must earn his living but most important things in life cannot be defined in economic terms.

53 58.89 17 18.89 20 22.22 52 57.78 33 36.67 5 5.55

The data presented in table 3 indicates the economic motivation with respect to individual statements reveals that, 88.90 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should work towards more yield and economic profit’ followed by ‘undecided’ (6.66%) and ‘disagree’ (4.44%) respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicates that, 70.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (30.00%) .

It can be observed from the table that, 48.90 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘The most successful farmer is one who makes the most profit’ followed by ‘undecided’ (33.30%) and ‘disagree’ (17.80%), respectively. Whereas, 47.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘undecided’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (45.55%) and ‘disagree’ (6.67%) respectively.

The data presented in table also indicated that, 61.10 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should always try new any farming idea which may earn him more money’ followed by ‘undecided’ (20.00%) and ‘disagree’ (18.90%) respectively. Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘undecided’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (44.44%) and ‘disagree’ (4.44%) respectively.

It can be observed from the table that, 63.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should grow cash crops to increase monetary profit in comparison to growing of food crops for home consumption’ followed by ‘undecided’ (21.11%) and ‘disagree’ (15.56%), respectively. Whereas, 53.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (37.78%) and ‘disagree’ (8.89 %) respectively.

The data in table also reveals that, 57.78 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is difficult for the farmer’s children to make good start unless he provides them with economic assistance’ followed by ‘undecided’ (28.89%) and ‘disagree’ (13.33%), respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicate that, 60.00 per cent of other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (34.44%) and ‘disagree’ (5.56%) respectively. The data also depicts that, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer must earn his living but the most important things in life cannot be defined in terms of economic terms’ followed by ‘disagree’ (22.22%) and ‘undecided’ (18.89%), respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicate that, 57.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (36.67%) and ‘disagree’ (5.55%) respectively.


Farm resources were computed by considering the different resources like land, livestock, water, and material possession. Table 1 and Fig. 2 indicates that, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers possessed medium farm resources, followed by and high (34.44%) and low (28.89%) respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicate that, 42.22 per cent of the other farmers possessed low farm resources followed by medium (35.56%) and high (22.22%) respectively.


It can be observed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that, 83.33 per cent of the seed growers and 11.11 per cent of other farmers belonged to low cropping intensity category and 16.67 per cent of the seed growers and 88.89 per cent of other farmers belonged to high cropping intensity category.


The results with respect to the overall entrepreneurial behaviour of the selected seed growers and other farmers of Dharwad district are presented in Table 4.

Overall entrepreneurial behaviour

It is clear from the Table 4 and Fig. 3 that, little less than half (48.89%) of the seed growers belonged to high entrepreneurial behaviour category followed by medium (36.67%) and low (14.44%) respectively. Whereas, 40.00 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low entrepreneurial behaviour category followed by medium (32.22%) and high (27.78%) respectively.

4.2.1 Innovativeness

From the Table 5 and Fig. 4, it can be observed that, 40.00 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high innovativeness category followed by medium (36.67%) and low (23.33%) category respectively. Whereas 44.44% of the other farmers fall under low innovativeness category followed by almost equal per cent 28.89 and 26.67% of them belonged to medium and high innovativeness category respectively.

Table 4: Distribution of respondents according to their overall entrepreneurial behaviour (n=180)

Seed growers ( w.r.t seeds)

(n1=90)

Other farmers (w.r.t crops)

(n2=90)

F % F %

Low(<82.70) 13 14.44 Low(<74.84) 36 40.00

Medium(82.70-88.92) 33 36.67 Medium(74.84-82.14) 29 32.22

High(>88.92) 44 48.89 High(>82.14) 25 27.78

1. Entrepreneurial behavior

Mean=85.81

SD=7.31

Mean=78.49

SD=8.56

Table 5: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components (n=180)

Seed growers ( w.r.t seeds) (n1=90) Other farmers (w.r.t crops) (n2=90) Sl No.

Components Categories F % F %

Low 21 23.33 40 44.44

Medium 33 36.67 26 28.89

High 36 40.00 24 26.67

1 Innovativeness

Mean=17.22 SD=3.17

Mean=18.16 SD=3.09

Low 28 31.11 32 35.56

Medium 35 38.89 31 34.44

High 37 41.11 27 30.00

2 Achievement motivation

Mean=10.66 SD=2.13

Mean=9.68 SD=2.14

Less Rational 23 25.55 45 50.00

Intermediate 42 46.67 25 27.78

Rational 25 27.78 20 22.22

3 Decision making ability

Mean=8.59 SD=1.75

Mean=8.36 SD=1.64

Low 24 26.67 38 42.22

Medium 27 30.00 22 24.45

High 39 43.33 30 33.33

4 Risk orientation

Mean=6.33 SD=1.41

Mean=5.77 SD=1.75

Low 25 27.78 37 41.11

Medium 24 26.67 26 28.89

High 41 45.55 27 30.00

5 Leadership ability

Mean=4.50 SD=1.53

Mean=4.44 SD=1.85

Low 24 26.67 32 35.56

Medium 26 28.89 28 31.11

High 40 44.44 30 33.33

6 Management orientation

Mean=38.51 SD=4.64

Mean=32.09 SD=6.43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Fig. 3: Distribution of respondents according to their overall entrepreneurial behaviour

Characteristics

Fig. 3: Distribution of respondents according to their overall entrepreneurial behaviour

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Innovativeness

Fig. 4a: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

Innovativeness

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Achievement motivation

Fig. 4b: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

Achievement motivation

Fig. 4b: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e

Less Rational Intermediate Rational

Characteristics


Fig. 4c: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

Decision making ability

Decision making ability

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Fig. 4d: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

Risk orientation

Risk orientation

Fig. 4d: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

Fig 4: Contd……

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e

Low Medium High

Characteristics


8

Fig. 4e: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

Leadership ability

Leadership ability

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Perc

en

tag

e

Low Medium ( High

Characteristics


Fig. 4f: Distribution of respondents according to their Entrepreneurial behavioural components

Management orientation

Management orientation

Fig 4: Contd……

Table 5.1: Innovativeness of the respondents towards individual items

(n=180)


(n1=90)


(n2=90)

Most like Least like Most like Least like

Sl.

No.

Statements

F % F % F % F %

1.a. I try to keep myself up to date with information on new farm/seed production practices but that does not mean that I try out all new methods on my farm

62 68.89 28 31.11 41 45.56 49 54.44

b. I feel restless till I try out a new farm/seed production practices, that I have heard about

53 58.89 37 41.11 19 21.11 71 78.89

c. They talk of many new farm/seed production practices, these days but who knows whether they are better than the old ones

13 14.44 77 85.56 26 28.89 64 71.11

2.a. From time to time I have heard of several new farm/seed production practices and I have tried out most of them in the last few years

46 51.11 44 48.89 20 22.22 70 77.78

b. Usually I wait to see that what results my neighbors obtain before I try out the new farm/seed production practices

37 41.11 53 58.89 30 33.33 60 66.67

c. Somehow I believe that the traditional ways of farming/seed production practices are the best

32 35.56 58 64.44 20 22.22 70 77.78

3.a. I am cautious about trying new practices in farm /seed production 67 74.44 23 25.56 33 36.67 57 63.33

b. After all, our fore-fathers were wise in their farming/seed production practices and I do not see any reason for changing these old methods

37 41.11 53 58.89 28 31.11 62 68.89

c. Often new farm/seed production practices are not successful, however, if they are promising I would surely like to adopt them.

37 41.11 53 58.89 35 38.89 55 61.11

The results presented in Table 5.1 indicates the innovativeness of respondents towards individual items that, 68.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘I try to keep myself up to date with information on new farm/seed production practices but does not mean that I try out all the new methods on my farm’ followed by ‘least like’ (31.11%). Whereas, 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement and ‘most like’ (45.56%).

Further, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘I feel restless till I try out a new farm/seed production practices, I have heard about’ followed by ‘least like’ (41.11%). Whereas, 78.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement and ‘most like’ (21.11%).

While, 85.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘They talk of many new farm/seed production practices these days, but who knows whether they are better than the old ones’ followed by ‘most like’ (14.44%). Whereas, 71.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (28.89%) respectively.

Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘From time to time I heard of several new farm/seed production practices and tried out most of them in the last few years’ followed by ‘least like’ (48.89%). Whereas, 77.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (22.22%) respectively.

The data presented in the table also indicates that, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘ Usually I wait to see that what results my neighbors obtain before I try out the new farm/seed production practices’ followed by ‘most like’ (41.11%). Further the data in the table also indicate that, 66.67 per cent of the other farmers ‘most like’ the same statement, followed by ‘least like’ (33.33%) respectively.

It can be seen from the table that, 64.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘Somehow I believe that the traditional ways of farming/seed production practices are the best’ followed by ‘most like’ (35.56%). Whereas 77.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘most like’ the same statement, followed by ‘least like’ (22.22%) respectively.

Whereas, 74.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘I am cautious about trying new practices in farm/seed production’ followed by ‘least like’ (25.56%). Further the data also indicates that, 63.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (36.67%) respectively.

Further, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘After all, our fore-fathers were wise in their farm/seed production practices and I do not see any reason for changing these old methods’ followed by ‘most like’ (41.11%). Whereas, 68.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement followed by ‘most like’ (31.11%), respectively.

The results presented in the table also depict that, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘Often new farm/seed production practices are not successful, however, if they are promising, I would surely like to adopt them’ followed by ‘most like’ (41.11%). Whereas, 61.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (38.89%) respectively.

4.2.2 Achievement motivation

The results from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 reveal that, 41.11 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high achievement motivation, followed by medium (38.89%) and low (31.11%) respectively. Whereas 35.56 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low achievement motivation category followed by medium (34.44%) and high (30.00) respectively.

The data depicted in table 5.2 indicates the achievement motivation with respect to individual items reveal that, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Work should come first even if one cannot get proper rest in order to achieve ones goals’ followed by ‘disagree’ (40.00%) and ‘undecided’ (15.56%), respectively. Whereas, 65.56 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (23.33%) and ‘undecided’ (11.11%) respectively.

It can be seen from the table that, 55.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is better to be content with whatever little one has, than to be always struggling for more’ followed by ‘undecided’ (31.11%) and ‘agree’ (13.33%). Whereas, 40.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘undecided’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (38.89%) and ‘disagree’ (21.11%) respectively.

Table 5.2: Achievement motivation of the respondents towards individual items

(n=180)


(n1=90)

Other farmers ( w.r.t crops)

(n2=90)


Sl.

No.

Statements

F % F % F % F % F % F %

1. Work should come first even if one cannot get proper rest in order to achieve ones goals

40 44.44 14 15.56 36 40.00 21 23.33 10 11.11 59 65.56

2. It is better to be content with whatever little one has, than to be always struggling for more

12 13.33 28 31.11 50 55.56 35 38.89 36 40.00 19 21.11

3. No matter what I have done I always want to do more

60 66.67 18 20.00 12 13.33 26 28.89 15 16.67 49 54.44

4.

I would like to try hard at something really difficult even

if it proves that I cannot do it

52 57.78 7 7.78 31 34.44 38 42.22 9 10.00 43 47.78

5. The way things are now-a-days discourage one to work hard

23 25.56 19 21.11 48 53.33 44 48.89 33 36.67 13 14.44

6. One should succeed in occupation even if one has to neglect his family

10 11.11 29 32.22 51 56.67 5 5.57 24 26.67 61 67.78

Table 5.3: Decision making ability of the respondents towards individual items (n=180)


(n1=90)


Sl. No

Decisions Justifications

F % F %

1 How did you decide the area for different Crops/Seeds to put under cultivation last year

3 - Market conditions - Financial need (Eg. Loan repayment) 2 - Ease in supervision and cultivation - Needs of the family - Always cultivated the same acres 1-Do not know

41

32

17

45.55

35.56

18.89

31

26

33

34.44

28.89

36.67

2 How do you decide on the different species/varieties of Crops/Seeds

3 - Market conditions - Recommendations of Agri.uni, extension workers/scientists 2 - Experiencing with new variety - Recommendation of salesman - General experience 1- Do not know

60

15

15

66.66

16.67

16.66

14

14

62

15.56

15.56

68.88

3 How did you decide the quantity of fertilizers used to your crops/Seeds

3 - Soil testing - Recommendations of Agri.uni, extension workers/scientists 2 - Careful observation - General experience - Used what was at hand 1- Do not know

40

40

10

44.45

44.44

11.11

6

40

44

6.67

44.44

48.89

4 How did you decide the various measures of plant/seed protection

3 - Recommendations of Agri.Uni , Extension workers/scientists 2 - Careful observation - General experience - Recommendations of relatives/ neighbors/ other farmers - Used whatever was at hand 1- Do not know

44

30 16

48.89

33.33 17.78

14

36 40

15.56

40.00 44.44

5 What type of written records you keep

3 - Production record - Receipts 2 - Bill or sales - Records of expenditure and income - Records of laborers - Used memory 1 – None

15

68 7

16.66

75.56

7.78

15

10

65

16.67

11.11

72.22

Table 5.4: Risk orientation of respondents the towards individual items

(n=180)

Response


Other farmers( w.r.t crops) (n2=90)


Sl. No.

Statement

F % F % F % F % F % F %

1. A farmer/Seed grower should grow large number of crops/seeds to avoid greater risks involved in growing one or two crops

58 64.44 26 28.89 6 6.67 33 36.67 25 27.78 32 35.56

2. A farmer/Seed grower should rather take more of a chance in making a big profit than to be content with a smaller but less risky profits

37 41.11 34 37.78 19 21.11 27 30.00 28 31.11 35 38.89

3. A farmer/Seed grower who is willing to take greater risks than the average farmer/Seed grower usually have better financial condition

50 55.56 21 23.33 19 21.11

19 21.11 22 24.44 49 54.44

4. It is good for a farmer/Seed grower to take risks when he knows his chance of success is high

44 48.89 36 40.00 10 11.11 16 17.78 30 33.33 44 48.89

5. It is better for a farmer/Seed grower not to try new farming/seed production methods unless most other farmers have used them with success

16 17.78 15 16.67 59 65.56 24 26.67 33 36.67 33 36.67

6. Trying an entirely new method in farming/seed production by a farmer/Seed grower involves risk, but it is worth

48 53.33 26 28.89 16 17.78 24 26.67 26 28.89 40 44.44

The results depicted in table also indicated that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘No matter what I have done, I always want to do more’ followed by ‘undecided’ (20.00%) and ‘disagree’ (13.33%) respectively. Whereas 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (28.89%) and ‘undecided’ (16.67%) respectively.

Further the data presented in table depicts that, 57.78 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘I would like to try hard at something really difficult even if it proves that I cannot do it’ followed by ‘disagree’ (34.44%) and ‘undecided’ (7.78%) respectively. Whereas, 47.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (42.22%) and ‘undecided’ (10.00%), respectively.

The results in table indicate that, 53.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘The way things are now-a-days discourage one to work hard’ followed by ‘agree’ (25.56%) and ‘undecided’ (21.11%). Whereas 48.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (36.67%) and ‘disagree’ (14.44%) respectively.

The data presented in table also indicates that, 56.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should succeed in occupation even if one has to neglect his family’ followed by undecided (32.22%) and agree (11.11%) respectively. Whereas, 67.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (26.67%) and ‘agree’ (5.57%) respectively.

4.2.3 Decision making ability

It is evident from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 that, 46.67 per cent of the seed growers belonged to intermediate decision making category followed by rational (27.78%) and less rational (25.55%) respectively. Whereas 50.00 per cent of the other farmers fall under less rational decision making category followed by intermediate (27.78%) and rational (22.22%) respectively.

The decision making ability of respondents with respect to individual items depicted in table 5.3 indicates that while making decisions with respect to deciding the “area” the seed growers considered the following conditions in the order of priority were ‘market conditions and financial need’ (45.55%) followed by ‘ease in supervision and cultivation, needs of the family and always cultivated the same acreage’ (35.56%), do not know (18.89%) respectively. Whereas 36.67 % of the other farmers considered the conditions like ‘do not know’ for the same statement followed by ‘market conditions and financial need’ (34.44%) and ‘ease in supervision and cultivation, needs of the family and always cultivated the same acreage’ (28.89%) respectively.

While taking decisions with respect to “different species/varieties of crops/seeds” the seed growers consider the following conditions in order of priority were ‘market conditions, recommendations of Agri.uni and extension workers/scientists’ (66.66%) followed by ‘experiencing with new variety, recommendation of salesman and general experience’ (16.67%) and ‘do not know’ (16.67%). While 68.88 per cent of the other farmers said ‘do not know’ to the same statement followed by ‘market conditions, recommendations of Agri.uni and extension workers/scientists’ (15.56%) and ‘experiencing with new variety, recommendation of salesman and general experience’ (15.56%) respectively.

While taking decisions about “quantity of fertilizer used to crops/seeds”, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers considered the conditions like ‘soil testing, recommendations of agri.uni and extension workers/scientists’ followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, used what was at hand’(44.44%) and ‘do not know’ (11.12%). Whereas 48.89 per cent of the other farmers said ‘do not know’ to the same statement followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, used what was at hand’ (44.44%) and ‘soil testing, recommendations of agri. uni and extension workers/scientists’ (6.67%) respectively.

Whereas while taking decisions about “various measures of plant/seed protection” measured to be used 48.89 per cent of the seed growers consider ‘recommendations of agri. uni, extension workers/scientists’ followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, recommendations of relatives/ neighbours/ other farmers and used whatever was at hand’ (33.33%) and ‘do not know’ (17.78%). While 44.44 per cent of the other farmers said ‘do not know’ to the same statement followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, recommendations of relatives/ neighbours/ Other farmers, used whatever was at hand’ (40.00%) and ‘recommendations of agri. uni, extension workers/scientists’ (15.56 %) respectively.

While taking decisions with respect to “different types of written records to be kept”, the seed growers considered the following conditions like 75.56 per cent of them keep ‘bills and sales, records of expenditure and income, records of labourers, used memory’ followed by ‘production record, receipts’ (16.67%) and ‘none’ ( 7.78%). Whereas 72.22 per cent of the other farmers maintain ‘none’ of the records followed by ‘production record, receipts’ (16.67%) and ‘bills or sales, records of expenditure and income, records of labourers, used memory’ (11.11%) respectively.

4.2.4 Risk orientation

The findings from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 reveal that, 43.33 per cent of the seed growers had high risk orientation followed by medium (30.00%) and low (26.67%) respectively. Whereas 42.22 per cent of other farmers had low risk orientation followed by high (33.33%) and medium (24.45%) respectively.

Risk orientation of respondents with respect to individual items presented in the table 5.4 indicates that 64.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower should grow large number of crops/seeds to avoid risks involved in growing only one or two crops’ followed by ‘undecided’ (28.89%) and ‘disagree’ (6.67%). Whereas, 36.67 per cent of other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (35.56%) and ‘undecided’ (27.78%)

The results in the table also reveal that, 41.11 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower should rather take more of a chance in making big profit than to be content with smaller but less risky profits’ followed by ‘undecided’ (37.78%) and ‘disagree’ (21.11%). Whereas, 38.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same followed by ‘undecided’ (31.11%) and ‘agree’ (30.00%) respectively.

The results in table also indicates that 55.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower who is willing to take greater risks than the average farmer/seed grower usually have better financial condition’ followed by ‘undecided’ (23.33%) and ‘disagree’ (21.11%). Whereas 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same, followed by ‘undecided’ (24.44%) and ‘agree’ (21.11%) respectively.

It can be seen from the table that, 48.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is good for a farmer/seed grower to take risks when he knows his chance of success is fairly high’ followed by ‘undecided’ (40.00%) and ‘disagree’ (11.11%). Whereas 48.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (33.33%) and ‘agree’ (17.78%) respectively.

The results also indicates that, 65.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is better for a farmer/seed grower not to try new farming/seed production methods unless most Other farmers have used them with success’ followed by ‘agree’ (17.78%) and ‘undecided’ (16.67%). Whereas, equal per cent (36.67%) of the other farmers ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (26.67%) respectively, which was also a negative statement.

It can be viewed from the table that 53.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Trying an entirely new method in farming/seed production by a farmer/seed grower involves risk, but it is worth’ followed by ‘undecided’(28.89%) and ‘disagree’(17.78%). Whereas, 44.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (28.89%) and ‘agree’ (26.67%) respectively.

4.2.5 Leadership ability

It is apparent from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 that, 45.55 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high level leadership ability category followed by low (27.78%) and medium (26.67%) respectively. Whereas 41.11 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low level of leadership ability category followed by high (30.00%) and medium (28.89%) respectively.

The data presented in the table 5.5 indicates the leadership ability of respondents with respect to individual items reveal that, 56.67 per cent of the seed growers said ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Did you participate in group discussions on new farm/seed production practice’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (33.33%) and ‘never’ (10.00%). Further, the data also indicates that, 45.56 per cent of the other farmers said ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘sometimes’ (41.11%) and ‘always’ (13.33%) respectively.

Table 5.5: Leadership ability of the respondents towards individual items

(n=180)


(n1=90)


(n2=90)

Always Sometimes Never Always Sometimes Never

Sl.

No.

Statements

F % F % F % F % F % F %

1. Did you participate in group discussions on

new farm/seed production practice 51 56.67 30 33.33 9 10.00 12 13.33 37 41.11 41 45.56

2. Whenever you see/hear a new farm/seed production practice did you initiate discussion about it with your colleagues

45 50.00 31 34.44 14 15.56 18 20.00 34 37.78 38 42.22

3. Do village people regard you as good source of information on new farm/seed production practice

62 68.89 15 16.67 13 14.44 14 15.56 9 10.00 67 74.44

4. Do you assign the farm work to your family

Members 40 44.44 32 35.56 18 20.00 29 32.22 7 7.78 54 60.00

5. Do you offer new approaches to problems 45 50.00 34 37.78 11 12.22 8 8.89 21 23.33 61 67.78

It can be observed from the table that, 50.00 per cent of the seed growers said ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Whenever you see/hear a new farm/seed production practice did you initiate discussion about it with your colleagues’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (34.44%) and ‘never’ (15.56%). Whereas , 42.22 per cent of the other farmers said ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘sometimes’ (37.78%) and ‘always’ (20.00%) respectively.

It can be observed from the table that, 68.89 per cent of the seed growers considered ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Do village people regard you as good source of information on new farm/seed production practice’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (16.67%) and ‘never’ (14.44%). Whereas, 74.44 per cent of the other farmers said ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘always’ (15.56%) and ‘sometimes’ (10.00%) respectively.

It can be observed from the table that, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers said ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Do you assign the farm work to your family Members’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (35.56%) and ‘never’ (20.00%). Further, the data also indicates that, 60.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘always’ (32.22%) and ‘sometimes’ (7.78%) respectively.

It can be observed from the table that, 50.00 per cent of the seed growers ‘always’ considering the statement of ‘Do you offer new approaches to problems’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (37.78%) and ‘never’ (12.22%). Further, the data also indicates that, 67.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘sometimes’ (23.33%) and ‘always’ (8.89%) respectively.

4.2.6 Management orientation

The results from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 revealed that, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high category of management orientation, followed by medium (28.89%) and low (26.67%) respectively. Whereas 35.56 per cent of the other farmers fall under low category of management orientation followed by high (33.33%) and medium (31.11%) respectively.

The management orientation was measured using the components like, planning orientation, production orientation and marketing orientation which are given in Table 5.6.

4.2.6.1 Planning orientation

The data presented in Table 5.6 shows that, 83.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Each year one should think a fresh plan about crops/seeds to be grown in each type of land’ followed by ‘disagree’ (16.67%). Whereas, 61.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (38.89%) respectively.

While, 61.11 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is not necessary to make prior decision about the variety of crops/seeds to be grown’ followed by ‘agree’ (38.89%). Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement followed by ‘agree’ (48.89%) respectively.

The data presented in table also indicate that, 73.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘The amount of seed, fertilizer and plant/seed protection chemicals needed for raising a crop/seed should be assessed before cultivation ’ followed by ‘disagree’ (26.67%). Whereas, 53.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (46.67%), respectively.

It can be seen from the table that, 63.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is not necessary to think a head of the cost involved in raising crop/seed’ followed by ‘agree’ (36.67%). Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (48.89%) respectively.

Further, 68.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘One need to consult an agriculture expert for the crop/seed planning’ followed by ‘disagree’ (31.11%).Whereas, 60.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (40.00%) respectively.

The data also indicate that, 77.78 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is possible to increase the yield through farm/seed production plan’ followed by ‘disagree’ (22.22%). Whereas, 62.22 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (37.78%) respectively.

Table 5.6: Management orientation of the respondents towards individual items

(n=180)

Seed growers

( w.r.t seeds) (n1=90)

Other farmers

(w.r.t crops) (n2=90)

Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

Sl

No.

Statements

F % F % F % F %

Planning orientation

1 Each year one should think a fresh plan about crops/seeds to be grown in each type of land

75 83.33 15 16.67 55 61.11 35 38.89

2 It is not necessary to make prior decision about the variety of crops/seeds to be grown 35 38.89 55 61.11 44 48.89 46 51.11

3 The amount of seed, fertilizer and plant/seed protection chemicals needed for raising a crop/seed should be assessed before cultivation

66 73.33 24 26.67 42 46.67 48 53.33

4 It is not necessary to think a head of the cost involved in raising crop/seed 33 36.67 57 63.33 46 51.11 44 48.89

5 One need to consult an agriculture expert for crop/seed planning 62 68.89 28 31.11 36 40.00 54 60.00

6 It is possible to increase the yield through farm/seed production plan 70 77.78 20 22.22 56 62.22 34 37.78

Production orientation

1 Timely sowing of crops/seeds ensures good yield 56 62.22 34 37.78 52 57.78 38 42.22

2 It is a good practice to use recommended quantities/qualities of seed 80 88.89 10 11.11 66 73.33 24 26.67

3 One should use as much fertilizers as he likes 30 33.33 60 66.67 45 50.00 45 50.00

4 One should use plant/seed protection chemicals at regular intervals irrespective of pests 51 56.67 39 43.33 49 54.44 41 45.56

5 One should use as much as irrigation water as possible when it is available 25 27.78 65 72.22 30 33.33 60 66.67

Marketing orientation

1 Market news is not much useful to the farmer/Seed grower 12 13.33 78 86.67 29 32.22 61 67.78

2 A farmer/Seed grower can get good price by grading his products 78 86.67 12 13.33 68 75.55 22 24.45

3 One should purchase his inputs from the shop where his other relatives purchases 33 36.67 57 63.33 48 53.33 42 46.67

4 One should grow those crops/seeds which have more market demand 69 76.67 21 23.33 60 66.67 30 33.33

4.2.6.2 Production orientation

The data presented in Table 5.6 depict that, 62.22 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Timely sowing of crops/seeds ensures good yield’ followed by ‘disagree’ (37.78%). Further the data in the table also indicate that, 57.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement followed by ‘disagree’ (42.22%) respectively.

Further, 88.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is a good practice to use recommended quantities/qualities of seed’ followed by ‘disagree’ (11.11%). Whereas, 73.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (26.67%) respectively.

Whereas, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should use as much fertilizers as he likes’ followed by ‘agree’ (33.33%). Whereas, 50 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ as well as ‘disagree’ to the same statement.

While, 56.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘One should use plant/seed protection chemicals at regular intervals irrespective of pests’ followed by ‘disagree’ (43.33%). Whereas, 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (45.56%) respectively.

Further, 72.22 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should use as much as irrigation water as possible when it is available’ followed by ‘agree’ (27.78%). Whereas, 66.67 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (33.33%) respectively.

4.2.6.3 Marketing orientation

The data presented in Table 5.6 shows that, 86.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘Market news is not much useful to a farmer/seed grower’ followed by ‘agree’ (13.33%). Whereas, 67.78 per cent of other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (32.22%) respectively.

The results also depict that, 86.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower can get good price by grading his produce’ followed by ‘disagree’ (13.33%). Whereas, 75.55 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (24.45%) respectively.

Further, 63.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should purchase his inputs from the shop where his other relatives purchases’ followed by ‘agree’ (36.67%). Whereas, 53.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (46.67%) respectively.

The data presented in table also shows that, 76.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘One should grow those crops/seeds which have more market demand’ followed by ‘disagree’ (23.33%). Whereas, 66.67 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (33.33%) respectively.

4.3 Source consultancy pattern

It is apparent from the Table 6 and Fig. 5 that, majority (40.00%) of the seed growers had medium source consultancy pattern followed by high (35.56%) and low (24.44%) respectively. Whereas 46.67 per cent of the other farmers had low source consultancy pattern followed by high (32.22%) and medium (21.11%) respectively.

a) Formal sources

It can be observed from table 6.1 that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers regularly referred package of practices, whereas 51.11 per cent of the other farmers and 13.33 per cent of seed growers never referred this source. While 20.00 per cent of the seed growers and 48.89 per cent of other farmers regularly referred this source. While the formal sources like ADA, AO, AAO were never consulted by 87.78, 88.89 and 93.33 per cent of seed growers and 97.78, 94.44, 96.67 per cent of other farmers respectively. Whereas, 73.33 per cent of the seed growers consulted AA regularly followed by occasionally contacted (26.67%) and 86.67 per cent of the other farmers never contacted AA followed by occasionally contacted (13.33%) respectively. Further 83.33 per cent of the seed growers regularly contacted seed certification officer and only 3.33 per cent of the other farmers regularly contacted seed certification officer.

Table 6: Distribution of respondents according to their Source consultancy pattern (n=180)


Other farmers( w.r.t crops) (n2=90)

F % F %

Low(<13.37) 22 24.44 Low(<74.84) 42 46.67

Medium(13.37-15.76) 36 40.00 Medium(74.84-82.14) 19 21.11

High(>15.76) 32 35.56 High(>82.14) 29 32.22

1.

Source consultancy pattern

Mean=14.57 SD=2.81

Mean=10.66 SD=3.27

Table 6.1: Source consultancy pattern of the respondents (n=180)

Extent of contact

Seed growers ( w.r.t seeds) (n1=90) Other farmers (w.r.t crops) (n2=90)

Regular Occasional Never Regular Occasional Never

No.

Sources consulted

F % F % F F % F % F %

A. Formal Sources

1 Package of practices 60 66.67 18 20.00 12 13.33 0 00 44 48.89 46 51.11

2 ADA 0 00 11 12.22 79 87.78 0 00 2 2.22 88 97.78

3 AO 0 00 10 11.11 80 88.89 0 00 5 5.56 85 94.44

4 AAO 0 00 6 6.67 84 93.33 0 00 3 3.33 87 96.67

5 AA 66 73.33 24 26.67 0 00 0 00 12 13.33 78 86.67

6 Seed certification officer 75 83.33 10 11.11 5 5.56 3 3.33 34 37.78 53 58.89

7 Officials of input agencies 68 75.56 10 11.11 12 13.33 40 44.45 35 38.89 15 16.66

8 UAS scientists 10 11.11 14 15.56 66 73.33 7 7.78 10 11.11 73 81.11 B. Informal sources

1 Family members 61 67.78 25 27.78 4 4.44 43 47.78 37 41.11 10 11.11

2 Relatives 60 66.66 20 22.23 10 11.11 45 50.00 25 27.78 20 22.22

3 Friends 72 80.00 12 13.33 6 6.67 43 47.78 32 35.56 15 16.66

4 Neighbours 58 64.45 20 22.22 12 13.33 42 46.67 28 31.11 20 22.22

5 Progressive farmers 78 86.67 8 8.89 4 4.44 32 35.56 30 33.33 28 31.11 C. Mass media sources

1 TV 85 94.45 3 3.33 2 2.22 44 48.89 27 30.00 19 21.11

2 Radio 75 83.33 9 10.00 6 6.67 83 92.22 5 5.56 2 2.22

3 News paper 71 78.89 12 13.33 7 7.78 46 51.11 36 40.00 8 8.89

4 Agriculture/Farm magazines 65 72.22 15 16.67 10 11.11 4 4.44 10 11.11 76 84.45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Low Medium High

Characteristics


Fig. 5: Distribution of respondents according to their source consultancy pattern

Fig. 5: Distribution of respondents according to their source consultancy pattern

Whereas, 11.11 per cent of the seed growers and 37.78 per cent of the other farmers occasionally contacted, 5.56 per cent of the seed growers and 58.89 per cent of the other farmers never contacted seed certification officer. Whereas, 75.56 per cent of the seed growers and 44.45 per cent of the other farmers regularly contacted officials of input agencies followed by occasionally contacted (11.11 and 38.89%) and never contacted (13.33 and 16.66%) respectively. While, 73.33 per cent of the seed growers and 81.11 per cent of the other farmers never contacted UAS scientists followed by occasionally contacted (15.56 and 11.11%) and regularly contacted (11.11 and 7.78%) respectively.

b) Informal sources

The results depicted in table 6.1 reveals that, 67.78 per cent of seed growers and 47.78 per cent of other farmers regularly consulted family members followed by occasionally consulted (27.78 and 41.11%) and never consulted (4.44 and 11.11%) respectively. While, 66.66 per cent of the seed growers and 50.00 per cent of the other farmers regularly consulted relatives followed by occasionally consulted (22.23 and 27.78%) and never consulted (11.11 and 22.22%) respectively. With respect to friends, neighbours, progressive farmers were regularly consulted by 80.00, 64.45, 86.67 per cent and occasionally consulted by 13.33, 22.22, 8.89 per cent and never consulted by 6.67, 13.33, 4.44 per cent of seed growers respectively, while the other farmers with respect to the same source regularly contacted by 47.78, 46.67 and 35.56 per cent and occasionally consulted 35.56, 31.11, 33.33 per cent and never consulted 16.66, 22.22, 31.11 per cent respectively.

c) Mass media sources

The results presented in Table 6.1 indicates the mass media sources such as TV, Radio, Newspaper, Agriculture/ Farm magazines were consulted by 94.45, 83.33, 78.89, 72.22 per cent followed by occasionally consulted by 3.33, 10.00, 13.33, 16.67 per cent and never consulted by 2.22, 6.67, 7.78, 11.11 per cent of seed growers respectively. While other farmers consulted the same sources by 48.89, 92.22, 51.11, 4.44 per cent regularly consulted followed by 30.00, 5.56, 40.00, 11.11 per cent occasionally consulted and 21.11, 2.22, 8.89, 84.45 per cent respectively.


The data depicted in Table 7 and Fig. 6 indicates the constraints faced by the commercial seed growers. In the order of priority; shortage of labours (97.77%), high labour wages (93.33%) and financial constraints (72.22%) were major constraints faced by commercial seed growers. Whereas, 68.88 per cent of the seed growers expressed lack of timely advisory services followed by lack of knowledge about disease control (66.66%), lack of knowledge about pest control (64.44), non-availability of inputs in time (51.11%) and high cost of inputs (47.77%).

Table 7: Constraints faced by the respondents

(n=90)

Respondents

Seed growers

(n=90)

Sl. No.

Constraints

Frequency Percentage

1 Non-availability of inputs in time

46 51.11

2 High cost of inputs 43 47.77

3 Shortage of labours 88 97.77

(I)

4 High labour wages 84 93.33

(II)

5 Financial constraints 65 72.22

(III)

6 Lack of timely advisory services

62 68.88

(IV)

7 Lack of knowledge about disease control

60 66.66

(V)

8 Lack of knowledge about pest control

58 64.44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Non-availability of

inputs in time

High cost of inputs Shortage of laboursHigh labour wages Financial

constraints

Lack of timely

advisory services

Lack of knowledge

about disease

control

Lack of knowledge

about pest control

Constraints

Seed growers

Fig. 6: Constraints faced by the respondents

Fig. 6: Constraints faced by the respondents

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study are discussed in this chapter under the following sub headings.






5.1.1 Age

It can be observed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that, 53.33 per cent of the seed growers belonged to the middle age group, followed by old age (34.45%) and young age (12.22%) respectively. It can also be viewed from the table that, 62.22 per cent of the other farmers (not taking seed production) belonged to middle age group, followed by old age (21.11%) and young age (16.67%) respectively. These finding are supported by the findings of Suresh (2004), Suresh kumar (2009) and Kikon (2010). The reason might be that, farmers of middle age with more farming experience work more efficiently than older and younger ones. Further, individuals of 31 to 50 years of age have more family responsibility than the younger ones.

5.1.2 Education

With regard to level of education, it can be observed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers educated up to PUC, followed by high school (32.22%), middle school (12.22%), primary school (8.89%), illiterate (5.56%) and graduate (4.44%). Whereas, none of the seed growers found to be educated up to post graduate. These finding are supported by the findings of Vijay Kumar (2001), Chand rajshekhar (2007) and Sabi (2012).

Further the table also depicts that, 31.11 per cent of the other farmers educated up to high school, followed by middle school (26.67%), PUC (20.00%), primary school (8.89%), illiterate (7.78%) and graduate (5.55%). Whereas, none of the seed growers found to be post graduate. This findings is supported by the findings of Govindagowda and Anand (2001), Atul Basweshwar Patil, (2008) and Madhu (2010).

One of the possible reason might be that, farmer with higher education are better exposed to outside world will have better contact with the extension personnel, mass medias and likely to acquire more information. Therefore, it is reasonable to find higher education level among seed growers compared to other farmers.

5.1.3 Land holding

The distribution of respondents according to land holding as presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2 reveals that, 42.22 per cent of the seed growers belonged to medium land holding category (10.01-25.00 acres), 20.00 per cent belonged to big land holding category (>25.00 acres), 17.78 per cent belonged to semi-medium land holding category (5.01-10.00 acres), 11.11 per cent belonged to small land holding category (2.51-5.00 acres) and only 8.89 per cent (< 2.50 acres) of them were marginal farmers. These findings are in consonance with the findings of Patel (2005), Suresh Kumar (2009) and Sabi (2012).

Further, the table also depicts that, 34.44 per cent of the other farmers belonged to semi-medium land holding category (5.01-10.00 acres), 30.00 per cent to medium land holding category (10.01-25.00 acres) while 16.67 per cent belonged to small land holding category (2.51-5.00 acres). Whereas 12.22 per cent belonged to big land holding category (< 25 acres) and only 6.67 per cent (< 2.50 acres) of them were marginal farmers. These findings are supported by the findings of Suresh (2004), Kikon (2010) and Shilpashree (2011).

The possible reason for this trend might be that, majority of the seed production farmers having more land as they undertake seed production for profit purpose. Whereas in case of other farmers they grow field crops for consumption purpose having less land holding.

5.1.4 Annual income

It can be observed from the Table1 and Fig. 2 that, 38.89 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high income category followed by medium (37.78%) and low (23.33%) respectively. These finding are supported by the findings of Nagesha (2005), Amol (2006) and Sushma (2007). The possible reason might be their large land holdings and engaged in seed production other than agriculture might have contributed for this kind of result.

Whereas, 47.78 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low income category followed by medium (41.11%) and high (11.11%) respectively. These findings are supported by the findings of Suresh (2004) and Nagesh (2006). The reason for low income of the other farmers is because of having small land holdings and also they depend mainly on agriculture which is gambling with nature. Further, it was experienced during the investigation that majority of them grow crops under rain fed conditions so naturally the income is less in other farmers.


The data presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2 revealed that 56.67 per cent of the seed growers had high level of farming experience followed by medium (33.33%) and low (10.00 %) level of farming experience respectively. The reason could be that, in order to take up efficient farming, one needs to have more and more experience. Higher confidence and more knowledge is usually associated with higher farming experience. These finding are supported by the findings of Lekshmi et al. (2006), Madhu (2010) and Sabi (2012).

In case of the other farmers 71.11 per cent of them had high level of farming experience followed by medium (28.89%) level of farming experience and none of them had low farming experience. This can be justified as majority of the other farmers belonged to middle and old age being agriculture as their major occupation, so they might have had high farming experience. These finding are supported by the findings of Raghavendra (2007), Sidram (2008) and Shilpashree (2011).

5.1.6 Experience in Seed production

It can be viewed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that 77.78 per cent of the seed growers had low seed production experience (< 10 years) followed by medium (15.55%) (10-20 years) and high level (6.67%) (>20 years) respectively. The possible reason might be lack of awareness and knowledge about seed production which resulted in low experience among the farmers also and the risk factor involved in seed production might have prevented in setting more experience. These finding are supported by the findings of Reddy Prasad (2003), Suresh Kumar (2009) and Vimalraj (2010).

In case of other farmers none of them had experience in seed production may be due to less education, less knowledge and less resources.


The data presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2 indicates that, 40.00 per cent of the seed growers were from medium extension participation category, followed by high (34.44 %) and low (25.56 %) extension participation categories respectively. These results are in line with the results of Nomesh Kumar et al. (2000), Anitha (2004), Nagesh (2006), Shilpashree (2011) and Jyoti (2012).

Whereas, 42.22 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low extension participation category, followed by medium (38.89 %) and high (18.89 %) extension participation categories respectively. These results are in line with the results of Srinivas Reddy (1995), Nagesha (2005), Shanthamani (2007) and Sabi (2012).

The reason may be that the seed growers might have participated more in extension activities like trainings, field days, field visits, agricultural exhibitions and krishi mela compared to other farmers to increase their experience level and gain more exposure in seed production and hence the extension participation is more in seed growers.

The data presented in Table 2 indicates that 68.89 per cent of the seed growers and 30.00 per cent of other farmers occasionally attended training programmes, while 22.22 per cent of seed growers and 13.33 per cent of the other farmers attended training programmes regularly. Whereas 8.89 per cent of seed growers and 56.67 per cent of other farmers never attended training programmes .Since the seed growers are more educated than other farmers an urge to learn more about seed production practices has led to this kind of results.

The data in the table also reveals that, 64.45 per cent of the seed growers and 27.78 per cent of other farmers occasionally attended demonstrations, while one fifth (20.00%) of the seed growers and 6.67 per cent of other farmers regularly attended demonstrations. Whereas 15.55 per cent of seed growers and 65.55 per cent of the other farmers never attended demonstrations. The possible reasons might be that demonstrations are rarely being conducted in the study area so less per cent of respondents regularly participate in demonstrations.

The data indicates that, 48.89 per cent of the seed growers and 8.89 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in field days, while 33.33 per cent of the seed growers and 32.22 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in field days. Whereas 17.78 per cent of the seed growers and 58.89 per cent of the other farmers never participated in field days. Lack of knowledge and awareness might have led to this kind of results.

It can also be observed that, more than half (53.33%) of the seed growers and few (8.89%) of the other farmers regularly participated in field visits, while 38.89 per cent of the seed growers and 28.89 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in field visits. Whereas 7.78 per cent of the seed growers and 62.22 per cent of the other farmers never participated in field visits. Lack of interest might have led to the above result. The data in the table also indicates that, 62.22 per cent of the seed growers and 4.44 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in group meetings, while 33.34 per cent of the seed growers and 21.11 per cent of other farmers occasionally participated in group meetings. Whereas 4.44 per cent of the seed growers and 74.45 per cent of the other farmers never participated in group meetings. To gain more information the seed growers might have participated more in group meetings than other farmers.

The data in the table also reveals that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers and 16.67 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in Agril. Exhibition, while 28.89 per cent of the seed growers and 25.55 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in Agril. Exhibition. Whereas 4.44 per cent the seed growers and 57.78 per cent of the other farmers never participated in Agril. Exhibition. The possible reason might be most of the respondents found it to be very useful and interesting and the seed growers are more educated than the other farmers naturally, they tend to participate more in number.

The data in the table also depicts that, 91.11 per cent of the seed growers and 68.89 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in krishimela, while 8.89 per cent of the seed growers and 28.89 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in krishimela and 2.22 per cent of the other farmers never participated in krishimela. All most all of the respondents participate because they consider it as a fest which is very informative, useful and entertaining and also seed growers have better exposure and more knowledge and these might be the reasons for above results. The data in the table also reveals that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers and 50.00 per cent of the other farmers occasionally participated in educational tours, while 17.77 per cent of the seed farmers and 6.67 per cent of the other farmers regularly participated in educational tours. Whereas 15.56 per cent of the seed growers and 43.33 per cent of the other farmers never participated in educational tours. The possible reasons might be more contact with outside world by the seed growers than the other farmers might have led to participation of more seed growers in educational tours than other farmers.


The data furnished in Table 1 and Fig. 2 reveals that, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high economic motivation category followed by medium (32.22%) and low (31.11%) respectively. These results are in line with the results of Chauhan and Patel (2003), Suresh Kumar (2009) and Sabi (2012).

Whereas, 43.33 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low economic motivation category followed by medium (28.89%) and high (27.78%) respectively. These results are in line with the results of Madhu (2010) and Shilpashree (2011). This might be due to their high risk bearing capacity, high educational qualification, extension participation and more profit seeking behavior of seed growers as compared to other farmers.

The data presented in table 3 reveals that, 88.90 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should work towards more yield and economic profit’ followed by ‘undecided’ (6.66%) and ‘disagree’ (4.44%) respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicates that, 70.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (30.00%). The reason for this could be higher returns always provides more satisfaction and also farmers can sustain their livelihood of the family.

It can be observed from the table that, 48.90 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘The most successful farmer is one who makes the most profit’ followed by ‘undecided’ (33.30%) and ‘disagree’ (17.80%), respectively. Whereas, 47.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘undecided’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (45.55%) and ‘disagree’ (6.67%) respectively. The reason might be recognition needs in the society for the farmer is always more valuable, because they have satisfied all other needs like physiological, safety and belonging needs.

The data presented in table also indicated that, 61.10 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should always try any new farming idea which may earn him more money’ followed by ‘undecided’ (20.00%) and ‘disagree’ (18.90%) respectively. The reason for this may be always new farming practices are always having high advantages over traditional farming practices in terms of less drudgery, less labour requirement etc. Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘undecided’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (44.44%) and ‘disagree’ (4.44%) respectively. The reason for this might be that other farmers are always worried about sustaining their livelihood of family members and also they feel that new farming practices are risky and more costly, hence the results.

It can be observed from the table that, 63.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should grow cash crops to increase monetary profit in comparison to growing of food crops for home consumption’ followed by ‘undecided’ (21.11%) and ‘disagree’ (15.56%), respectively. Whereas, 53.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (37.78%) and ‘disagree’ (8.89 %) respectively. The reason for this could be cash crops are always highly remunerative than field crops and also now a days money is taking upper hand everywhere. Here farmer also feels more secured financially. So every farmer wants to earn more.

The data in table also reveals that, 57.78 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is difficult for the farmer’s children to make good start unless he provides them with economic assistance’ followed by ‘undecided’ (28.89%) and ‘disagree’ (13.33%), respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicate that, 60.00 per cent of other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (34.44%) and ‘disagree’ (5.56%) respectively.

The reason for this could be good monetary support is required for better education, so that the farmer’s children can also join to the technical courses could get better job and economically improve.

The data also depicts that, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer must earn his living but the most important things in life cannot be defined in terms of economic terms’ followed by ‘disagree’ (22.22%) and ‘undecided’ (18.89%), respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicate that, 57.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (36.67%) and ‘disagree’ (5.55%) respectively. The probable reason may be farmers believe in ‘Money can buy bed but not sleep’, which indicates that there are so many other motivational forces which guide them towards this goal.


Farm resources were computed by considering the different resources like land , livestock, water, and material possession. Table 1 and Fig. 1 indicates that, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers possessed medium farm resources, followed by and high (34.44%) and low (28.89%) respectively. Further, the data in the table also indicate that, 42.22 per cent of the other farmers possessed low farm resources followed by medium (35.56%) and high (22.22%) respectively. The possible reasons might be that the seed growers requires various equipments and resources as there is an acute shortage of labours now a days which might have made them to acquire more resources. These findings are not in line with the findings of Saikrishna (1998) and Ravindra (2012).


It can be observed from Table 1 and Fig. 2 that, 83.33 per cent of the seed growers belonged to low cropping intensity category, only 16.67 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high cropping intensity. The findings are not in line with the findings of Anandaraja (1999). Since they are inclined to produce more per unit of land rather than just increasing the area under different crops as it could be observed in case of other farmers had high cropping intensity (88.89%) followed by low cropping intensity category (11.11%). These findings are in line with the findings of Jyoti (2012).


The results with respect to the overall entrepreneurial behaviour of the selected seed growers and other farmers of Dharwad district are presented in Table 4 and Fig. 3.

Overall entrepreneurial behaviour

It is clear from the Table 4 and Fig. 3 that, 48.89 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high entrepreneurial behaviour category followed by medium (36.67%) and low (14.44%) respectively. These results are in line with the results of Rao and Dipak De (2003) and Nagesh (2006). The possible reason might be due to high innovativeness, achievement motivation, risk orientation, leadership ability and management orientation of the seed growers.

Whereas 40.00 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low entrepreneurial behaviour category followed by medium (32.22%) and high (27.78%) respectively. These results are in line with the results of Nagesha (2005), Chaudhari (2006) and Ravi (2007). The possible reason might be due to less educational level, less land holding, poor financial condition, less innovativeness, late adoption of new technologies, less achievement motivation and less decision making ability and low management orientation of the other farmers.

5.2.1 Innovativeness

From the Table 5 and Fig. 4, it can be observed that, 40.00 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high innovativeness category followed by medium (36.67%) and low (23.33%) category respectively. These results are in line with the results of Nagesh (2006), Atul Basweshwar Patil (2008) and Vimalraj (2010). Innovativeness is a cognitive aspect of change, which affects the readiness of an individual to accept new technology. The high and medium innovativeness of seed growers might be due to their higher educational status, higher knowledge level and more extension participation.

Whereas 44.44% of the other farmers fall under low innovativeness category followed by almost equal per cent 28.89 and 26.67% of them belonged to medium and high innovativeness category respectively. These results are in line with the results of Suresh (2004), Kolur (2007) and Shilpashree (2011). Low innovativeness of the other farmers might be due to their less educational status, less knowledge about new technologies, low extension participation and less extension contact.

The results presented in Table 5.1 indicate that, 68.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘I try to keep myself up to date with information on new farm/seed production practices but does not mean that I try out all the new methods on my farm’ followed by ‘least like’ (31.11%). This might be due to most of the seed growers always having an urge to do new things. Whereas, 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement and ‘most like’ (45.56%). This might be due to less educational level and extension participation.

Further, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘I feel restless till I try out a new farm/seed production practices, I have heard about’ followed by ‘least like’ (41.11%). The probable reason may be the curiosity of seed growers to try out new idea and judge the profitability on his own farm. Whereas, 78.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement and ‘most like’ (21.11%).This might be due to less risk taking ability might have prevented them to try new farm practice

While, 85.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘They talk of many new farm/seed production practices these days, but who knows whether they are better than the old ones’ followed by ‘most like’ (14.44%). Whereas, 71.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (28.89%) respectively.The reason may be, farmers have seen and experienced the advantages of modern farming. They feel modern farming with new technologies is better than the traditional one and hence this kind of result.

Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘From time to time I heard of several new farm/seed production practices and tried out most of them in the last few years’ followed by ‘least like’ (48.89%). Whereas, 77.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (22.22%) respectively. The probable reason may be the curiosity and interest and profit making behavior of the farmer to try new farm practice. The data presented in the table also indicates that, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘ Usually I wait to see that what results my neighbors obtain before I try out the new farm/seed production practices’ followed by ‘most like’ (41.11%).

All the seed growers being progressive farmers, they will be first to take up any new farming practice before the average farmer of the community. This may be probable reason to attribute this kind of result. Further the data in the table also indicate that, 66.67 per cent of the other farmers ‘most like like’ the same statement, followed by ‘least like’ (33.33%) respectively. The reason might be that other farmers adopt new technologies only when its worthiness is proved after being adopted by fellow farmers.

It can be seen from the table that, 64.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘Somehow I believe that the traditional ways of farming/seed production practices are the best’ followed by ‘most like’ (35.56%). Whereas 77.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘most like’ the same statement, followed by ‘least like’ (22.22%) respectively. The reason for this could be that since the seed growers are innovative in nature they always adopt new farm practices. Whereas other farmers have more belief in traditional practices.

Whereas, 74.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘most like’ the statement of ‘I am cautious about trying new practices in farm/seed production’ followed by ‘least like’ (25.56%). Higher education, more exposure to mass media makes the seed growers to be cautious while trying new practice. Further the data also indicates that, 63.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (36.67%) respectively. This is may be due to less educational qualification, less risk taking ability might support this finding.

Further, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘After all, our fore-fathers were wise in their farm/seed production practices and I do not see any reason for changing these old methods’ followed by ‘most like’ (41.11%). Our fore fathers were wise at that particular point of time when the climatic conditions were totally different from now but with the changes in environmental conditions we cannot rely on those old practices and hence the above findings. Whereas, 68.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement followed by ‘most like’ (31.11%), respectively. Because of their traditional orientation of preserving their own culture and value system of fore fathers might have made them to continue the traditional practices.

The results presented in the Table also depict that, 58.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘least like’ the statement of ‘Often new farm/seed production practices are not successful, however, if they are promising, I would surely like to adopt them’ followed by ‘most like’ (41.11%). Whereas, 61.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘least like’ the same statement, followed by ‘most like’ (38.89%) respectively. The reason for this could be high cost of technology and complexity of the technology.

5.2.2 Achievement motivation

The results from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 reveal that, 41.11 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high achievement motivation, followed by medium (38.89%) and low (31.11%) respectively. These results are in line with the results of Nagesha (2005), Ravi (2007) and Hage Manty (2011). Whereas 35.56 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low achievement motivation category followed by medium (34.44%) and high (30.00) respectively. These results are in line with the results of Sushma (2007) and Shilpashree (2011). It is assumed that, achievement motivation forces the individual towards reaching goals, which one had set for oneself. The higher education, annual income and economic motivation might have encouraged them to set the higher goal and hence the higher achievement motivation among seed growers is compared to other farmers.

A perusal of the table 5.2 indicates that, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Work should come first even if one cannot get proper rest in order to achieve ones goals’ followed by ‘disagree’ (40.00%) and ‘undecided’ (15.56%), respectively. The probable reason could be that seed farmers may be having determination to achieve the goal or to do something better than others. Whereas, 65.56 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (23.33%) and ‘undecided’ (11.11%) respectively. The reason may be due to less education, less exposure to mass media etc.

It can be seen from the table that, 55.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is better to be content with whatever little one has, than to be always struggling for more’ followed by ‘undecided’ (31.11%) and ‘agree’ (13.33%).This is due to most of the seed growers were under high innovativeness category. Whereas, 40.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘undecided’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (38.89%) and ‘disagree’ (21.11%) respectively, which was negative statement. This is due to less land holding and less income.

The results depicted in table indicates that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘No matter what I have done, I always want to do more’ followed by ‘undecided’ (20.00%) and ‘disagree’ (13.33%) respectively. The probable reason for this finding could be their high risk bearing ability and high innovativeness characters. Whereas 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (28.89%) and ‘undecided’ (16.67%) respectively, may be due to low educational qualification, low innovativeness, lack of interest in doing things repeatedly might have attributed to this kind of result.

Further the data presented in table depicts that, 57.78 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘I would like to try hard at something really difficult even if it proves that I cannot do it’ followed by ‘disagree’ (34.44%) and ‘undecided’ (7.78%) respectively. The possible reason might be that every individual wants to prove him/her capable of everything and wants to be the best among all. Whereas, 47.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (42.22%) and ‘undecided’ (10.00%), respectively. The probable reason may be due to the fact that other farmers are having less land holding, less income, less risk bearing capacity which might have contributed for this kind of result.

It could be seen from the table that, 53.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘The way things are now-a-days discourage one to work hard’ followed by ‘agree’ (25.56%) and ‘undecided’ (21.11%). The possible reason might be that seed growers are usually willing to accept the fact about the present condition and always want to work hard to strive a better future. Whereas 48.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (36.67%) and ‘disagree’ (14.44%) respectively. The probable reason may be that other farmers perceive that present conditions are not favorable for motivating them to work and also they anticipate something better backup to work towards better future.

The data presented in table also indicates that, 56.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should succeed in occupation even if one has to neglect his family’ followed by undecided (32.22%) and agree (11.11%) respectively. Whereas, 67.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (26.67%) and ‘agree’ (5.57%) respectively. The possible reason might be that they give first preference to their family without considering the other things.

5.2.3 Decision making ability

It is evident from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 that, 46.67 per cent of the seed growers had intermediate decision making category followed by rational (27.78%) and less rational (25.55%) category respectively. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Suresh (2004) and Nagesh (2006). Whereas 50.00 per cent of the other farmers fall under less rational decision making category followed by intermediate (27.78%) and rational (22.22%) respectively. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Ravi (2007) and Sidram (2008). The possible reason might be that decision making in farming, especially under Indian conditions is very difficult due to ever changing agro-climatic conditions and lack of stabilized price policy.

It can be observed from the table 5.3 that while taking decisions with respect to deciding the “area” the seed growers considered the following conditions in the order of priority were ‘market conditions and financial need’ (45.55%) followed by ‘ease in supervision and cultivation, needs of the family and always cultivated the same acreage’ (35.56%), do not know (18.89%) respectively. Whereas 36.67 % of the other farmers considered the conditions like ‘do not know’ for the same statement followed by ‘market conditions and financial need’ (34.44%) and ‘ease in supervision and cultivation, needs of the family and always cultivated the same acreage’ (28.89%) respectively. The probable reason might be that it is quite natural to consider the market price, ease in supervision and cultivation while deciding the area under seed production.

While making decisions with respect to “different species/varieties of crops/seeds” the seed growers consider the following conditions in order of priority were ‘market conditions, recommendations of Agri.uni and extension workers/scientists’ (66.66%) followed by ‘experiencing with new variety, recommendation of salesman and general experience’ (16.67%) and ‘do not know’ (16.67%). While 68.88 per cent of the other farmers said ‘do not know’ to the same statement followed by ‘market conditions, recommendations of Agri.uni and extension workers/scientists’ (15.56%) and ‘experiencing with new variety, recommendation of salesman and general experience’ (15.56%) respectively. The reason might be higher educational level and more knowledge of seed growers might have exhibited this kind of results.

While taking decisions about “quantity of fertilizer used to crops/seeds”, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers considered the conditions like ‘soil testing, recommendations of agri.uni and extension workers/scientists’ followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, used what was at hand ’(44.44%) and ‘do not know’ (11.12%). Whereas 48.89 per cent of the other farmers said ‘do not know’ to the same statement followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, used what was at hand ’ (44.44%) and ‘soil testing, recommendations of agri. uni and extension workers/scientists’ (6.67%) respectively. The reason might be seed growers exposure to various kind of information sources and soil testing reports might have brought this kind of result.

Whereas while taking decisions about “various measures of plant/seed protection” 48.89 per cent of the seed growers consider ‘recommendations of agri. uni, extension workers/scientists’ followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, recommendations of relatives/ neighbours/ other farmers and used whatever was at hand ’ (33.33%) and ‘do not know’ (17.78%). While 44.44 per cent of the other farmers said ‘do not know’ to the same statement followed by ‘careful observation, general experience, recommendations of relatives/ neighbours/ Other farmers, used whatever was at hand ’ (40.00%) and ‘recommendations of agri. uni, extension workers/scientists’ (15.56 %) respectively. Reason might be seed growers contact with extension personnel and source consultancy pattern is more than the other farmers.

While taking decisions with respect to “different types of written records to be kept”, the seed growers considered the following conditions like 75.56 per cent of them keep ‘bills and sales, records of expenditure and income, records of labourers, used memory’ followed by ‘production record, receipts’ (16.67%) and ‘none’ ( 7.78%). Whereas 72.22 per cent of the other farmers maintain ‘none’ of the records followed by ‘production record, receipts’ (16.67%) and ‘bills or sales, records of expenditure and income, records of labourers, used memory’ (11.11%) respectively. Since seed growers educational level is more they know the importance of keeping records as they help in arriving decision about profit and loss and hence the results.

5.2.4 Risk orientation

The findings from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 reveal that, 43.33 per cent of the seed growers had high risk orientation followed by medium (30.00%) and low (26.67%) respectively. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Suresh (2004), Sidram (2008) and Jyoti (2012). Whereas 42.22 per cent of other farmers had low risk orientation followed by high (33.33%) and medium (24.45%) respectively. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Atul Basweshwar Patil (2008), Suresh Kumar (2009) and Sabi (2012). Risk indicates the extent of pains/uncertainities faced by a farmer to achieve greater success than others. Ability to take risk involves several factors and motivation is one of the such factor. Since, seed growers are highly motivated and try to acquire as much information as possible besides, owning large land holding and high income might have enabled them to exhibit better risk bearing capacity.

It can be seen from Table 5.4 that, 64.44 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower should grow large number of crops/seeds to avoid risks involved in growing only one or two crops’ followed by ‘undecided’ (28.89%) and ‘disagree’ (6.67%). Whereas, 36.67 per cent of other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (35.56%) and ‘undecided’ (27.78%). The reason might be the diversification of crop enterprise helps to avoid the risk instead of adopting a single enterprise. Due to uncertainties, it is better to cultivate two or more crops and hence the result.

It was also observed that, 41.11 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower should rather take more of a chance in making big profit than to be content with smaller but less risky profits’ followed by ‘undecided’ (37.78%) and ‘disagree’ (21.11%). Whereas, 38.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same followed by ‘undecided’ (31.11%) and ‘agree’ (30.00%) respectively. High achievement motivation, extension participation, innovativeness, economic orientation of seed growers might have lead them to go for high risky enterprises which may earn more profit to them. Whereas this may be opposite in case of other farmers.

The results in table also indicates that 55.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower who is willing to take greater risks than the average farmer/seed grower usually have better financial condition’ followed by ‘undecided’ (23.33%) and ‘disagree’ (21.11%). Whereas 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same, followed by ‘undecided’ (24.44%) and ‘agree’ (21.11%) respectively.

The possible reason might be always high risk enterprises earn more returns and the farmer who can take greater risk has the ability to perform better financially as compared to average farmer. Whereas this may be opposite in case of other farmers whose risk taking ability is low.

It can be seen from the table that, 48.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is good for a farmer/seed grower to take risks when he knows his chance of success is fairly high’ followed by ‘undecided’ (40.00%) and ‘disagree’ (11.11%). Whereas 48.89 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (33.33%) and ‘agree’ (17.78%) respectively. It is a human tendency that when the success is high, the individual will be ready to take risk and hence the results.

The results also indicates that, 65.56 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is better for a farmer/seed grower not to try new farming/seed production methods unless most Other farmers have used them with success’ followed by ‘agree’ (17.78%) and ‘undecided’ (16.67%). Whereas, equal per cent (36.67%) of the other farmers ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (26.67%) respectively. The reason may be that, seed growers are usually innovative in nature and also their high socio-economic status make them to take risk involved in adopting new technologies. Whereas, other farmers being resource poor, make them not to venture into new enterprise, where success rate is yet not known to them.

It can be viewed from the table that 53.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Trying an entirely new method in farming/seed production by a farmer/seed grower involves risk, but it is worth’ followed by ‘undecided’(28.89%) and ‘disagree’(17.78%). Whereas, 44.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘undecided’ (28.89%) and ‘agree’ (26.67%) respectively. A new enterprise which is having high market demand give worthy returns to farmers and hence the result in seed growers. While other farmers do not want to take risk because of their financial constraints.

5.2.5 Leadership ability

It is apparent from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 that, 45.55 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high level leadership ability category followed by low (27.78%) and medium (26.67%) respectively. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Suresh (2004) and Ravi (2007). Whereas 41.11 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low level of leadership ability category followed by high (30.00%) and medium (28.89%) respectively. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Vijay Kumar (2001) and Nagesha (2005). The reason may be that, seed growers are usually innovative in nature and also their high socio-economic status make them to take risk involved in new technologies. Whereas, other farmers being resource poor, make them not to venture into new enterprise, where success rate is yet not known to them.

The data presented in the table 5.5 indicates that, 56.67 per cent of the seed growers show leading character ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Did you participate in group discussions on new farm/seed production practice’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (33.33%) and ‘never’ (10.00%). Further, the data also indicates that, 45.56 per cent of the other farmers said ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘sometimes’ (41.11%) and ‘always’ (13.33%) respectively. The possible reason might be seed farmers having more education, more knowledge, ready to take leadership, participating in group discussion compared to other farmers. Their urge to learn more might have led to the above result.

It can be observed from the table that, 50.00 per cent of the seed growers come forward ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Whenever you see/hear a new farm/seed production practice did you initiate discussion about it with your colleagues’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (34.44%) and ‘never’ (15.56%). Whereas , 42.22 per cent of the other farmers said ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘sometimes’ (37.78%) and ‘always’ (20.00%) respectively. Since seed growers participate more in group discussions they have more knowledge and share the information with others. Whereas it is opposite in case of other farmers.

It can be observed from the table that, 68.89 per cent of the seed growers take lead ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Do village people regard you as good source of information on new farm/seed production practice’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (16.67%) and ‘never’ (14.44%). Whereas, 74.44 per cent of the other farmers said ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘always’ (15.56%) and ‘sometimes’ (10.00%) respectively.

The possible reason might be seed growers having more knowledge, exposure to outside sources and extension participation making them to be up to date with new technologies whereas the other farmers having less knowledge, exposure and less extension participation and most of them they have very little knowledge about new technologies and hence the results.

It can be observed from the table that, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers said ‘always’ to the statement of ‘Do you assign the farm work to your family Members’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (35.56%) and ‘never’ (20.00%). Further, the data also indicates that, 60.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘always’ (32.22%) and ‘sometimes’ (7.78%) respectively. The reason might be that because of high cost of the labour, the family members themselves might have involved in agriculture activities.

It can be observed from the table that, 50.00 per cent of the seed growers ‘always’ considering the statement of ‘Do you offer new approaches to problems’ followed by ‘sometimes’ (37.78%) and ‘never’ (12.22%). Further, the data also indicates that, 67.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘never’ to the same statement, followed by ‘sometimes’ (23.33%) and ‘always’ (8.89%) respectively. Reason might be seed growers had more educational level, more extension participation and more exposure to mass media and might have increased their horizon to apply new approaches in farming and hence this kind of result.

5.2.6 Management orientation

The results from the Table 5 and Fig. 4 revealed that, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high category of management orientation, followed by medium (28.89%) and low (26.67%) respectively. The probable reason for high level of management orientation might be their more extension contacts and discussion with the field extension personnel. These interactions might have helped the farmers to reorient their current management practices. Exposure of the farmers to various professional situations like extension meetings, exhibitions, field days, Krishi mela etc., also might have contributed to develop their high level of management orientation in comparison to other farmers. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Manjula (2003), Nagesha (2005) and Shilpashree (2011).

Whereas 35.56 per cent of the other farmers fall under low category of management orientation followed by high (33.33%) and medium (31.11%) respectively. The results are in confirmity with the findings of Nagesh (2006), Atul Basweshwar Patil (2008) and Shilpashree (2011). The probable reason might be low exposure and low extension participation of other farmers.

The management orientation was measured with the components viz., planning orientation, production orientation and marketing orientation which are given in Table 5.6

5.2.6.1 Planning orientation

The data presented in Table 5.6 shows that, 83.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Each year one should think a fresh plan about crops/seeds to be grown in each type of land ’ followed by ‘disagree’ (16.67%). Whereas, 61.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (38.89%) respectively. The probable reason might be that instead of growing same crops every year, the concept of crop rotation might have motivated them to have this kind of result.

While, 61.11 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is not necessary to make prior decision about the variety of crops/seeds to be grown’ followed by ‘agree’ (38.89%). Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement followed by ‘agree’ (48.89%) respectively. But, it is very much essential to a farmer to plan for the crop, variety, inputs required, capital requirement well in advance for getting better profit and hence the result.

The data presented in table also indicate that, 73.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘The amount of seed, fertilizer and plant/seed protection chemicals needed for raising a crop/seed should be assessed before cultivation ’ followed by ‘disagree’ (26.67%). Whereas, 53.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (46.67%), respectively. If a farmer knows all the requirements well in advance then, he can think of purchasing better inputs from a credible source which ultimately give high returns and so the above results.

It can be seen from the table that, 63.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘It is not necessary to think a head of the cost involved in raising crop/seed’ followed by ‘agree’ (36.67%). Whereas, 51.11 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (48.89%) respectively. It is necessary to think well in advance about cost involved in adopting crop/seed and hence thin kind of result.

Further, 68.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘One need to consult an agriculture expert for the crop/seed planning’ followed by ‘disagree’ (31.11%).Whereas, 60.00 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (40.00%) respectively. Usually the progressive farmers are in the habit of consulting the experts to seek their opinion for adopting improved technologies to make higher profit.

The data also indicate that, 77.78 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is possible to increase the yield through farm/seed production plan’ followed by ‘disagree’ (22.22%). Whereas, 62.22 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (37.78%) respectively. Planning is one of the functions of entrepreneurship, as seed growers has more entrepreneurial behavior and hence the results.

5.2.6.2 Production orientation

The data presented in Table 5.6 depict that, 62.22 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘Timely sowing of crops/seeds ensures good yield’ followed by ‘disagree’ (37.78%). Further the data in the table also indicate that, 57.78 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement followed by ‘disagree’ (42.22%) respectively. It is quite natural that, if the seeds are sown timely when the soil is having sufficient moisture and also timely application of fertilizers ensure good yield.

Further, 88.89 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘It is a good practice to use recommended quantities/qualities of seed’ followed by ‘disagree’ (11.11%). Whereas, 73.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (26.67%) respectively. It is true that recommended quantities/qualities of seed ensures good yield and hence the results.

Whereas, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should use as much fertilizers as he likes’ followed by ‘agree’ (33.33%). Whereas, 50 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ as well as ‘disagree’ to the same statement. The farmers having knowledge about judicious use of chemical fertilizers affect the yield and hence they disagree to this statement.

While, 56.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘One should use plant/seed protection chemicals at regular intervals irrespective of pests’ followed by ‘disagree’ (43.33%). Whereas, 54.44 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (45.56%) respectively. In order to avoid and control pest incidence farmers use chemicals at regular intervals hence this kind of result.

Further, 72.22 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should use as much as irrigation water as possible when it is available’ followed by ‘agree’ (27.78%). Whereas, 66.67 per cent of the other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (33.33%) respectively. Since, excess use of irrigation water cause water logging and also affects soil structure so the farmers have disagreed to this statement.

5.2.6.3 Marketing orientation

The data presented in Table 5.6 shows that, 86.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘Market news is not much useful to a farmer/seed grower’ followed by ‘agree’ (13.33%). Whereas, 67.78 per cent of other farmers ‘disagree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (32.22%) respectively. The probable reason may be that usually such kind of farmers produce more yield and wants to get good price for their produce and hence, they depend more on market news.

The results also depict that, 86.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘A farmer/seed grower can get good price by grading his produce’ followed by ‘disagree’ (13.33%). Whereas, 75.55 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘agree’ (24.45%) respectively. Different grades fetch different price, the more the grade is the more the price will be, farmers may be having knowledge about graded produce fetch good price and hence this type of results.

Further, 63.33 per cent of the seed growers ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘One should purchase his inputs from the shop where his other relatives purchases’ followed by ‘agree’ (36.67%). Because of having high extension contact and more mass media exposure might have motivated them for purchasing the inputs from only authenticated sources. Whereas, 53.33 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (46.67%) respectively. The reason may be that other farmers believe that the relatives and friends as their credible sources and hence, would like to purchase from them only.

The data presented in table also shows that, 76.67 per cent of the seed growers ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘One should grow those crops/seeds which have more market demand ’ followed by ‘disagree’ (23.33%). Whereas, 66.67 per cent of the other farmers ‘agree’ to the same statement, followed by ‘disagree’ (33.33%) respectively. The reasons may be the varieties which are having high market demand fetch good price. So this might have motivated them to grow varieties which can give more yields, to have this kind of result.


It is apparent from the Table 6 and Fig. 5 that, majority (40.00%) of the seed growers had medium source consultancy pattern followed by high (35.56%) and low (24.44%) respectively. This results are in line with the findings of Govinda gowda and Narayana gowda (2006). Whereas 46.67 per cent of the other farmers had low source consultancy pattern followed by high (32.22%) and medium (21.11%) respectively. This finding is in line with the findings of Gotyal (2007).

a) Formal sources

It can be observed from table 6.1 that, 66.67 per cent of the seed growers regularly referred package of practices, whereas 51.11 per cent of the other farmers never referred this source . While the formal sources like ADA, AO, AAO were never consulted by 87.78, 88.89 and 93.33 per cent of seed growers respectively. Whereas the same trend is being observed with respect to the other farmers. Whereas, 73.33 per cent of the seed growers contacted AA regularly followed by occasionally contacted (26.67%) and 86.67 per cent of the other farmers never contacted AA followed by occasionally contacted (13.33%) respectively.

Further 83.33 per cent of the seed growers regularly contacted seed certification officer and 3.33 per cent of the other farmers regularly contacted seed certification officer, 11.11 per cent of the seed growers and 37.78 per cent of the other farmers occasionally contacted, 5.56 per cent of the seed growers and 58.89 per cent of the other farmers never contacted seed certification officer.

Whereas, 75.56 per cent of the seed growers and 44.45 per cent of the other farmers regularly contacted officials of input agencies followed by occasionally contacted (11.11 and 38.89%) and never contacted (13.33 and 16.66%) respectively. While, 73.33 per cent of the seed growers and 81.11 per cent of the other farmers never contacted UAS scientists followed by occasionally contacted (15.56 and 11.11%) and regularly contacted (11.11 and 7.78%) respectively.

b) Informal sources

The results depicted in table 6.1 reveals that, majority of the seed growers regularly consulted the informal sources in order of priority were, progressive farmers (86.67%), friends (80.00%), family members (67.78%), relatives (66.66%) and neighbours (64.45%) respectively. Whereas the same trend was observed with respect to other farmers source consultancy pattern.

c) Mass media sources

The results presented in table 6.1 indicates the mass media sources consulted by seed farmers in order of priority were television (94.45%), radio (83.33%), newspaper (78.89%) and Agri. Magazines (72.22%). Whereas with respect to the other farmers very less per cent consulted these sources except radio (92.22%).

Seed growers consult different sources of information more than other farmers. The plausible reasons might be due to the fact that their higher educational level, high interest, high exposure and training might have motivated them to seek the information for managing their enterprise properly. The above result is in congruence with the findings of Chaudhari (2006).


The data in Table 7 and Fig. 6 indicates the constraints faced by the commercial seed growers. 97.77 per cent of the seed growers indicated shortage of labours, followed by high labour wages (93.33 %), the possible reason might be many of the labours are shifting from rural areas to urban areas because of high wages and financial constraints (72.22 %) as major constraints. Whereas, 68.88 per cent of the seed growers expressed lack of timely advisory services, the reason is poor feedback from the extension personnel in time. Further, lack of knowledge about disease control (66.66 %), lack of knowledge about pest control (64.44 %), non-availability of inputs in time (51.11 %). This might be due to non-availability of seeds, fertilizers when needed because of heavy demand as compared to other inputs during peak season and high cost of inputs (47.77%) respectively, In recent years, the prices of inputs have gone up and naturally it has engrossed the attention of many farmers, especially the small and medium land holders since, the cost of inputs does not commensurate with the low price they get for the produce, were some of the constraints. These findings are not in line with the findings of Kadam et al. (2001), Nagesh (2006).

SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

All round development of agriculture is possible with the effective exploitation of human as well as material resources. In our country, where human resources are found to be plenty, we can identify individuals in all segments of population who have the requisite entrepreneurial skills. To all these groups, however, entrepreneurship stands as a vehicle to improve the quality of life for individuals, families and communities and to sustain a healthy economy and environment. Entrepreneurship is the capacity of an individual to introduce innovative techniques in business operations. Entrepreneurs are the agents who provide leadership that distributes the initial conditions of the economy and effect dynamic changes in the economy. It is only the innovative entrepreneur, who has the power to dream, to transform new situations into thoughts and resolve them into action. Thus, entrepreneurs can play an important role in increasing agricultural production and in turn contribute for economic development of the country.

Keeping the above facts in view, the present study was designed to study the entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers and other farmers with the following specific objectives:

1. To study the socio-economic profile of commercial seed growers and other farmers

2. To assess the entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers and other farmers

3. To ascertain the source consultancy pattern of commercial seed growers

4. To identify the constraints faced by the commercial seed growers

The study was conducted during 2012-13 in Dharwad district of Karnataka state. Further, no research study has been conducted in Dharwad district on entrepreneurial behaviour of commercial seed growers and other farmers. Dharwad district consists of five taluks and considering the maximum number of seed growers as criteria, the first three taluks viz, Dharwad, Kundagol and Hubli taluks were selected for conducting the study.

From the three taluks, three villages having maximum number of seed growers were listed in descending order in consultation with the Karnataka State Seed Certification Agency. From each selected village, 10 seed growers (farmers who are involved in seed production) and 10 other farmers (farmers who are not involved in seed production) were selected by simple random sampling procedure. Thus sample from each taluka was 60 making a total sample size of 180 respondents.

A schedule was developed to collect the data and personal interview method was employed to collect the information in the light of objectives of the study. The data was collected with the help of structured schedule. The data was tabulated and analysed by using statistical techniques like frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation whichever is suitable, so that findings could be meaningfully interpreted to draw necessary inferences and conclusions.

Major findings of the study are as follows

1. Relatively higher proportion (53.33%) of the seed growers and the other farmers (62.22%) belonged to the middle age group.

2. With regard to level of education, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers educated up to PUC and 31.11 per cent of the other farmers educated up to high school.

3. Maximum number of (42.22%) of the seed growers belonged to medium land holding category (10.01-25.00 acres) and 34.44 per cent of the other farmers belonged to semi-medium land holding category (5.01-10.00 acres).

4. Higher proportion (38.89%) of the seed growers belonged to high income category (> Rs. 100841) and 47.78 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low income category (<Rs.37460.24).

5. More than half (56.67%) of the seed growers and 71.11 per cent of the other farmers had high level of farming experience (>20 years).

6. Majority (77.78%) of the seed growers had low experience in seed production (<10 years) and none of the other farmers had experience in seed production.

7. Further, 40.00 per cent of the seed growers belonged to medium extension participation category and 42.22 per cent of the other farmers belonged low extension participation category.

8. The results indicated that, 36.67 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high economic motivation category and 43.33 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low economic motivation category.

9. Higher proportion (36.67%) of the seed growers possessed medium farm resources and 42.22 per cent of the other farmers possessed low farm resources.

10. The results indicated that, majority (83.33%) of the seed growers belonged to low cropping intensity category and 88.89 per cent of other farmers belonged to high cropping intensity category.

11. Maximum number (48.89%) of the seed growers belonged to high entrepreneurial behaviour category and 40.00 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low entrepreneurial behaviour category.

12. Further, 40.00 per cent of the seed growers had high innovativeness and 44.44 per cent of the other farmers fall under low innovativeness category.

13. Majority (41.11%) of the seed growers had high achievement motivation and 35.56 per cent of the other farmers fall under low achievement motivation category.

14. Higher proportion (46.67%) of the seed growers belonged to intermediate decision making ability category and 50.00 per cent of the other farmers belonged to less rational decision making ability category.

15. Majority (43.33%) of the seed growers had high risk orientation and 42.22 per cent of other farmers had low risk orientation

16. Further, 45.55 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high level of leadership ability category and 41.11 per cent of the other farmers belonged to low level of leadership ability category.

17. Further, 44.44 per cent of the seed growers belonged to high management orientation category and 35.56 per cent of the other farmers fall under low management orientation category.

18. Majority of the seed growers consulted the formal sources like package of practice booklet (66.67%), Agriculture assistants (73.33%), informal sources like progressive farmers (86.67%), friends (80.00%) and mass media sources like television (94.45%), radio (83.33%) regularly. Whereas other farmers never referred the formal sources like package of practices (51.11%) and contacted the informal sources like relatives (50.00%), family members (47.78%) and friends (47.78%) regularly and mass media sources like radio (92.22%) regularly.

19. Further, majority of the seed growers indicated the constraints in the order of priority were; shortage of labours (97.77%), high labour wages (93.33%) and financial problems (72.22%) as major constraints.

Policy implications of the study

The findings of the current research study have brought out certain points for consideration and policy recommendations.

1. Majority of the seed growers belonged to high entrepreneurial behaviour category. It is a clear indication of the progressiveness and innovative character of the farmers whereas majority of the other farmers (who are not taking seed production) belonged to low entrepreneurial behaviour category. Therefore, it calls for intensification of educational efforts and policy support to such farmers by the government.

2. The entrepreneurial behavioural components like innovativeness, decision making ability, risk orientation and leadership ability were found to be very low with respect to the other farmers. Hence, intensive training programmes need to be conducted by government and non-government agencies to create awareness about these aspects, which would enable them for efficient utilization of their potentials followed by vigorous follow-up, guidance, counseling for sustainability of the entrepreneurial activity.

3. Source consultancy pattern of other farmers with respect to formal sources was very low hence exposure trainings may be organised about the utilization of these sources.

4. Financial problem was one of the major constraint faced by the farmers. Hence, policy decisions should be made by the government to simplify the loan sanctioning procedure, increase the quantum of loan amount with very minimum rate of interest.

5. Further, high cost of inputs specially seeds was one of the major constraint faced by seed growers hence, government should provide quality seeds with more subsidized rates before start of the season and encourage them to take up seed production in large quantity.

Future line of work

The present investigation was confined to three taluks and nine villages of one district. The study needs to be replicated in large sample covering all the major potential areas in Karnataka engaged in seed production. So that the inference drawn can be generalized to a greater extent.

A comparative study on entrepreneurial behaviour of farmers engaged in different enterprises such a poultry, fisheries, floriculture, etc., may throw new light on farm enterprises.

There is need to develop Entrepreneurial Development Programme (EDP) models to train different types of farmers under different agro-climatic conditions for development of entrepreneurial behavior of farmers in the country. Hence, there is a broad scope for future research in this line.

REFERENCES

Amol, A. N., 2006, A study on indigenous technical knowledge about rice cultivation and bovine health management practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Amudha, S. and Veerabhadraiah, V., 2000, Women in commercial poultry. Kuruk., 5(7): 37-40.

Anandaraja, N., 1999, Farm Mechanisation in Tamil Nadu: Issues and Prospects. M.Sc. (Agri.)Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.

Anitha, B., 2004, A study on entrepreneurial behaviour and market participation of farm women in Bangalore rural district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Bangalore.

Anjaneyaswamy, G., 1992, Implications of rural entrepreneurship in non-farm activities. Kurukshetra, 11(6) : 24-26.

Anonymous, 1980, Implication of tractorisation for farm employment, productivity and income. National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.

Anujkumar, Sidhu, D.S. and Singh, S.R. 2002, Constraints analysis of dairy farmers in Bihar. Indian J. Animal Res., 36(2): 102-105.

Aravindkumar, M. K. and Vasanthakumar, A. S 2003, Constraints faced by small and marginal farmers in dairy farming as a subsidiary occupation. Rural India, 66 (6 & 7): 118-119.

Atul Basweshwar Patil, 2008, A study on constraints analysis of grape exporting farmers of Maharashtra state. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Balu, V., 1998, Women entrepreneurship in India- Problems and prospects. Third Concepts, 29(139) : 39-41.

Baswarajaiah, H. V., 2001, Impact of Edira Watershed development on farm families in Mahaboobbnagar district of Andhra Pradesh. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agric. Unic. Uni., Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (India).

Bhagyalaxmi, K., GopalaKrishna Rao, V. and Sudarshan Reddy, M., 2003, Profile of the rural women micro-entrepreneurs. Journal of Research, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, 31(4) : 51-54.

Bheemappa, A., 2003, Entrepreneurship development in agriculture. Yojana, 47(12) : 19-20.

Binswanger, H., 1978, The Economics of Tractors in South Asia: An Analytical Review. New York: Agricultural Development Council; Hyderabad, ICRISAT.

Chandrakala, H. T., 1999, Extent of knowledge, adoption and time utilization pattern of farm women labours in dairy management - An analysis. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Bangalore.

Chandrapaul K., 1998, A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable growers in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Chandrashekara, P., 1999, Knowledge and adoption gaps in coffee cultivation practices among coffee growers. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, Karnataka (India).

Chandrashekar, S. K., 2007, Analysis of onion production and marketing behaviour of farmers in Gadag district of Karnataka. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Chandregowda, M. J., 1996, Sustainability of rice farming in different eco systems. Ph. D. Thesis Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, Karnataka (India)

Chatterjee, A., 1992, Entrepreneurship Development Programme and Self-employment. Yojana, 38(6) : 12-15.

Chaudhari Ratan Ranuji, 2006, A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of dairy farmers. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.

Chauhan, N. B. and Patel, R. C., 2003, Entrepreneurial uniqueness of poultry entrepreneurs. Rural India, 66 (12) : 236-239.

Chennegowda, M. B., 1977, Influence of different methods involving print information on farmers communication behaviours an experimental study. Ph.D Thesis, University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore.

Danoff, C. H., 1949, Observations at entrepreneurship in agriculture change and the entrepreneur. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Deepak, M. P., 2003, A study on perception of benefeciaries and non-beneficiaries towards WYTEP programme in Dharwad district. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Desai, V., 1995, Small Scale Industries and Entrepreneurship, Himachal Publishing House, Bombay, pp. 15-24.

Dhamodaran, T. and Vasanthakumar, J., 2001, Relationshipbetween selected characteristics of registered sugarcane growers and their extend of adoption of improved sugarcane cultivation practices. J. Ext. Edu., 12 (2): 3138-3143

Ganeshan, G., 2001, Entrepreneurship Development. Kisan World, 28(6) : 50-51.

Gotyal, S. H., 2007, Backward and forward linkages of grape production in Karnataka. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Govindagowda, V. and Anand, T. N., 2001, Profile of groundnut growers. Curr. Res., 30 (8):125-127.

Govinda Gowda, V. and Narayana Gowda, K., 2006, Profile of Thompson Seedless and Bangalore Blue grape growers. Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 40 (3) : 424-429.

Hage Manty, 2011, Access and use of ICT tools by extension personnel for transfer of technology in North Karnataka. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Hanchinal, S. N., 1999, Privatization of extension service : attitude and preference of farmers and extension personnel. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.

Hanumarangaiah, 1996, Factors influencing the productivity of paddy and sugarcane under irrigation. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, Karanataka (India).

Harold, K., 1994, Essentials of Management. I Edition, McGraw Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 39.

Hinge, R. B., 2009, Diffusion and adoption of wine grape production technology in Maharashtra. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Joshi, S. S. and Kapur, T. R., 1973, Fundamentals of Farm Business, Ronald Press, New York, pp. 35-39.

Jyoti, N. Goravi, 2012, Farm mechanization expectations of cotton growers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Kadam, K. R. and Borse, A. V., 2001, Adoption behaviour of banana growers. Maharashtra J. Extn. Edun., 12 : 45-46.

Kikon. W., 2010, Adoption gap in groundnut production in northern transition zone of Karnataka. M. Sc(Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Kolur, M. S., 2007, A study on rehabilitant farmers in Upper Krishna Project area of Bagalkot district in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Kumar, H. S., 1998, A study on knowledge adoption and economic performance of banana growers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Bangalore.

Lakshminarayan, M. T., 1997, Adoption of sustainable sugarcane farming practices by farmers - an analysis. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, (Karnataka) India.

Lekshmi, P. S., Chandrakandan, K. and Balasubramani, N., 2006, Yield gap analysis among rice growers in North Eastern Zone of Tamil Nadu. Agric. Situ. India., 63(2) : 729-773.

Madhu, B. M., 2010, Technological gap in turmeric production practices in Belgaum district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Mangala, B., 2008, Impact of integrated farming system on socio-economic status o bharatiya agro-industries foundation (BAIF) beneficiary farmers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

Manjula, N., 2003, An analysis of Krishi prashasthi awardee farmers and their influence on the neighbouring farmers. M.Sc. (Agri). Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Bangalore, Karnataka (India).

Manjula, S., 1995, A study of entrepreneurial behaviour of rural women in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (H.Sc.) Thesis, Andhra Pradesh Agril. Univ., Hyderabad.

Manjunath, S. Kolur, 2007, A study on rehabilitant farmers in upper Krishna project area of Bagalkot district in Karnataka

Manoharan, R., Selvakumar, K.N. and Pandian, A.S., 2003, Constraints in milk production faced by the farmers in Pondicherry Union Territory. Indian J. Animal Res., 37(1): 68-70.

Meenakshi Chaudhary and Intodia, S.L., 2000, Constraints perceived by cattle owners in adoption of modern cattle management practices. Indian J. Animal Res., 34(2):116-119.

Meeran, M. N. and Jayaseelan, M. J., 1999, Study on socio-personal, socio-economic and socio-psychological profile of shrimp farmers. J. Extn. Edun., 10 (2) : 2445-2448.

Moulasab, I., 2004, A study on knowledge and adoption of improved cultivation practices by mango growers of north Karnataka, M.Sc.(Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.

Moulik, T. K. and Rao, C. B. S., 1965, Self rating personality scale for farmers, in a Pareek, V. and Rao, V.T., Handbook of Psychological and Social Instruments Samithi, Baroda.

Nagesh, 2006, A Study on entrepreneurial behaviour of pomegranate growers in Bangalkot district of Karnataka, M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.

Nagesha, P.N., 2005, Study on entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable seed producing farmers of Haveri district. M.Sc.(Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.

Nandapurkar, C. G., 1980, A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of small farmers. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Bangalore.

Nandapurkar, C. G., 1982, Significance of entrepreneurship in agricultural development : An empirical study. Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., 1(1): 47-51.

Narendrareddy, P.V.R., Moorthy, P.R.S. and Sarjan Rao, K., 2003, Constraints in dairy farming in Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh. Indian J. Ext. Edu., 39(1&2): 69-73.

Narmatha, N., Krishnaraj, R. and Mohmed Safiullah, A., 2002, Entrepreneurship behavior of livestock farm women. J. Ext. Edu., 13(4): 3431-3438.

Natikar, K. V., 2001, Attitude and use of farm journal by the subscriber farmer and their profile. A critical analysis. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Nomeshkumar, N. and Narayanaswamy, B. K., 2000, Entrepreneurial behaviour and socio economic characteristics of farmers who adopted sustainable agriculture in India. Karnataka J. Agril. Sci. 13(1): 83-90.

Palaniswamy, K. and Sriram, M. S., 2001, A scale to measure extension participation of farmers. Ind. J. Ext. Edu, 19: 325-328.

Pandeti, C. M., 2005, A study on entrepreneurial behaviour of farmers in Raichur district of Karnataka. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.

Pandya, R. D., 1996, Entrepreneurial behaviour of sugarcane growers. J. Ext. Edu., 6(7) : 1299-1301.

Patel, 2005, A study of Peasantry Modernization in Integrated Tribal Development Project Area of Dahod district of Gujarat State. Ph. D. Thesis, Anand Agricultural University, Anand.

Patel, M. M. and Sanoria, Y. C., 1997, Correlates of entrepreneurial behaviour of sugarcane growers. Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., XVI : 344-346.

Patel, M. M., Sanoria, Y. C. and Amit chatterjee, 2003, Communication factors and entrepreneurial behaviour of sugarcane growers. J. Res., Acharya N. G. Ranga Agril. Univ., Hyderabad, 31(3) : 62-67.

Patil, U. and Sirohi, H., 1987, Improving land management: modern methods from traditional techniques. Paper Presented at the 15th International Symposium for the Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension, 1998, Pretoria, South Africa.

Porchezhian, M. R., 1991, An analysis of entrepreneurial behaviour of farmers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

Prasad, C., 2002, A study on the impact of on-farm extension demonstration (OFEDs) in rice in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agril. Univ., Hyderabad.

Raghavendra, B. N., 2007, A study on management practices of pineapple growers in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Raghavendra, R., 2005, Knowledge and adoption of recommended cultivation practices of cauliflower growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Ramana, A. V., 1999, Entrepreneurship and economic development. Kurukshetra, 48(2) : 8-10.

Ramana, K. N., Chandrakandan, K. and Kartikeyan, C., 2000, Motivation factors and constraints of hybrid sunflower seed growers. J. Ext. Edn., 11(3):2840-2844

Rao, M. S. and Dipak De, 2003, Entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable growers, Department of Exension Education, Institute of Agricultural Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

Ravi, G. K., 2007, A study on entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics of SC and ST farmers of Gulbarga district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Ravindra Jamadar., 2012, Farmers awareness of climate change and their adaptation. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Ravishankar, R. L., 1995, A study on knowledge adoption and constraint analysis of potato farmers of Chikkamagalur district in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Reddy Prasad, T. S., 2003, Differential Innovation Decision and Attitude of Rice Growing Farmers towards Eco-Friendly Technologies in Andhra Pradesh – A Critical Analysis. Ph. D Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agric. Univ., Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (India).

Reddy, V. P., 1997, A study of the entrepreneurial characteristics and farming performance of fish farmers in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh. Ph. D. Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Sabi, S., 2012, Knowledge and technological gap in wheat production. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Saikishna, N., 1998, A study on knowledge of paddy cultivation practices and adoption behaviour of Andhra migrant farmers in Raichur district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.

Samanta, R. K., 1977, A study of some agro economic socio- psychological and communication variables associated with repayment behaviour of agricultural credit users of Nationalised Bank”. Ph.D. Thesis, Bidan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyala, West Bengal (India)

Samwel, K. L., 2003, Co-operative entrepreneurship – A perspective. Kurukshetra, pp. 20-23.

Sarah Kamala, T. and Atchuta Raju, K., 2003, Problems faced by farm women in managing enterprises. MANAGE Extn. Res. Rev., 6(1): 74-79.

Saravanakumar, R., 1996, A study of management of mango gardens by farmers in Krishnagiri taluk of Dharmapuri diatrict, Tamil Nadu. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Sarmah, R. C. and Singh, A. K., 1994, Determinants of entrepreneurship in Agriculture. Agril. Ext. Rev., 35(3) : 538-539.

Seema and Indu, G., 2001, Constraints experienced by women entrperneurs. Haryana Univ. J. Res., 31(3&4): 135-140.

Shanthamani, G., 2007, A critical analysis of MYRADA (NGO) programme in Gulbarga district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Shashidhara, K. K., 2003, A study on socio-economic profile of drip irrigation farmers on Shimoga and Davengere district of Karnataka. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Shilpashree, B. S., 2011, A profilistic study on awardee farmers in North Karnataka. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Sidram, 2008, Analysis of organic farming practices in Pigeonpea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Singh, P. R., Singh, M. and Jaiswal, R.S., 2004, Constraints and strategies in rural livestock farming in Almora district of Hilly Uttaranchal. Indian J. Animal Res., 38(2): 91-96.

Srinivas Reddy, M. V., 1995, A study on knowledge and adoption of recommended mango cultivation practices among farmers of Kolar district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore.

Subramanyam, I., 2002, A study on the impact of agricultural market yard committee level training programmes in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agril. Univ., Hyderabad.

Subramanyeswari, B. and Veeraraghavareddy, K., and B Sudhakar Rao 2003, Entrepreneurial behaviour of rural dairy women: a multidimensional analysis. Livestock Res. Rural Develop., 19(1) : 25-30.

Sunil Kumar, G. M., 2004, A study on farmers knowledge and adoption of production and post- harvest technology in tomato crop of Belgaum district in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,Dharwad, Karnataka.

Supe, S.V., 1969, Factors related to different degree of variability in decision making among farmers. Ph.D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi.

Suresh, 2004, Entrepreneurial behaviour of milk producers in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh – A critical study. M. V. Sc. Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agril. Univ., Hyderabad.

Suresh Kumar, 1997, Feasibility analysis of privatization of extension services for selected farm enterprises. Ph. D. Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Suresh Kumar., 2009, Technological gap in adoption of improved cultivation practises by the soybean growers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Suresh Reddy, J., 2004, Entrepreneurship : Concept and Development. Third Concept, 17(203) : 39-42.

Sushma. K. C., 2007, An analysis of entrepreneurship development in women through EDP trainings. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Thiranjangowda, B. T., 2005, Cultivation and marketing pattern of selected flowers in Belgaum district of Karnataka. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Tomar, B. S., Kalyanrao and Vinod Kumar, K., 2011, Seed production: An entrepreneurial venture. Indian farming. 61(4): 4-9.

Trivedi, G., 1963, Measurement and analysis of socio-economic status of rural families. Ph.D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi.

Tyson, L., Petrin, T. and Rogers, H., 1994, Promoting entrepreneurship in Central and Eastern Europe. Small Business Econ., 6 : 1-20.

Vedamurthy, H. S., 2002, A study on arecanut management practices in Shimoga district in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Venkataramulu, 2003, A study on the knowledge level adoption and marketing behavior of chili growers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

Vijayakumar, A. C. and Narayanagowda, K., 1999, Adoption of improved cultivation practices among rose growers. J. Ext. Edu., 14: 201-204.

Vijay Kumar, K., 2001, Entrepreneurship behaviour of floriculture farmers in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Vijay Kumar, K., Pochaiah, M. and Raghupathi Reddy, G., 2003 Correlates of entrepreneurial behaviour of floriculture farmers. Manage Ext. Res. Rev., IV (1):153-164.

Vijayalakshmi, V., 1992, Women entrepreneurship (Ed.) Rajkumari Chandrasekhar Women’s Resource and National Development – A perspective, Gaurav Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 75-78.

Vijaylakshmi and Poonam Sharma, 2002, Women entrepreneurs and finance. Soc. Wel., 49(2): 19-24.

Vimalraj G., 2010, An analytical study of best practices and competencies of award winning agripreneurs of Tamil Nadu. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, IARI, New Delhi.

Vinay Kumar R., 2005, Study on knowledge and adoption of rose growing farmers in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

Waman, G. K. And Patil, P. S., 2000, Production, storage and marketing constraints faced by onion growers. Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., XIX : 104- 108.

Yawalkar, P. B., Nikhade, P. M. And Bhople, R. S., 1991, Correlates of adoption of plant protection recommendations of kolsi by orange growers – A path analysis. Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., 10 : 216-220.

Yogananda, H. G., 1992, A study on knowledge level, adoption behavior and training needs of coconut growers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore.

A STUDY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR OF COMMERCIAL

SEED GROWERS OF DHARWAD DISTRICT

Interview schedule Respondent No. and type:

PART - A

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Name of the farmer :

2. Village :

3. Gram Panchayat :

4. Taluk :

5. District :

II. PERSONAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. Age : ___________years

2. Education : Illiterate/Primary school/Middle school/High school/ PUC/Graduate/

Postgraduate

3. Size of the land holding (acres) : Irrigated :

Dry land :

Total :

4. Annual family income (Rs.) : Main occupation : Rs. Subsidiary : Rs. Other sources : Rs. Total : Rs. 5. Farming experience : years

6. Experience in seed production : years

7. EXTENSION PARTICIPATION

Please indicate your response regarding your extent of participation in the following extension activities.

Extension participation Sl. No.

Extension activity

Regular Occasional Never

Place of programme

Subject

1 Training programme

2 Demonstration

3 Field day

4 Field visit

5 Extension group meeting

6 Agriculture exhibitions

7 Krishi Mela

8 Educational tours

8. ECONOMIC MOTIVATION

Please indicate your opinion about each of the following statements

Sl.

No.

Statements A UD DA

1 A farmer/seed grower should work towards more yield and economic profit.

2 The most successful farmer/seed grower is the one who makes the most profit.

3 A farmer/seed grower should always try any new farming idea which may earn him more money.

4 A farmer/seed grower should grow more cash crops to increase monetary profit in comparison to growing of food crops for home consumption.

5 It is difficult for farmer’s/seed grower’s children to make good start unless he provides them with economic assistance.

6 A farmer/seed grower must earn his living but most important things in life cannot be defined in economic terms.

A-Agree, UD-Undecided, DA-Disagree

9. FARM RESOURCES

Resource type Category Score

Land Black

Red

Non-Arable

Water Irrigated

Rainfed

Livestock Draft animal

Buffaloes

Ship and Goat

Poultry

Farm equipments Tractor

Bullock cart

Plough

Other equipments

10. CROPPING INTENSITY

Crops grown and the acreages Sl.

No.

Season

Dry land Acres Irrigated Acres

1 Kharif 1

2

3

2 Rabi 1

2

3

3 Summer 1

2

3

PART – B

ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR OF COMMERCIAL SEED GROWERS AND OTHER FARMERS

1. INNOVATIVENESS

Please indicate your degree of linking on hearing 3 statements under different items. From among the 3 statements, you here indicate the statement you like most and also indicate statement you like least.

Sl.

No.

Statements

Most like

Least like

1.a. I try to keep myself up to date with information on new farm/seed production practices but that does not mean that I try out all new methods on my farm

b. I feel restless till I try out a new farm/seed production practices, that I have heard about

c. They talk of many new farm/seed production practices, these days but who knows whether they are better than the old ones

2.a. From time to time I have heard of several new farm/seed production practices and I have tried out most of them in the last few years

b. Usually I wait to see that what results my neighbors obtain before I try out the new farm/seed production practices

c. Somehow I believe that the traditional ways of farming/seed production practices are the best

3.a. I am cautious about trying new practices in farm /seed production

b. After all, our fore-fathers were wise in their farming/seed production practices and I do not see any reason for changing these old methods

c. Often new farm/seed production practices are not successful, however, if they are promising I would surely like to adopt them.

2. ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

A set of statements is given below representing the achievement motivation of farmers. Please express your feelings about these statements by indicating the degree of your agreement or disagreement on the three points continuum.

Sl.

No.

Statements

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

1. Work should come first even if one cannot get proper rest in order to achieve ones goals

2. It is better to be content with whatever little one has, than to be always struggling for more (N)

3. No matter what I have done I always want to do more

4. I would like to try hard at something really difficult even

if it proves that I cannot do it

5. The way things are now-a-days discourage one to work hard (N)

6. One should succeed in occupation even if one has to neglect his family

3. DECISION MAKING ABILITY

The following are some of the management decisions which you might have taken while growing the crops/seeds. Please indicate the appropriate justification for taking each decision in your case

Sl.

No.

Decisions

Justifications

1 How did you decide the area for different Crops/Seeds to put under cultivation last year

3 - Market conditions

-Financial need (Eg. Loan repayment)

2 - Ease in supervision and cultivation

- Needs of the family

- Always cultivated the same acres

1-Do not know

2 How do you decide on the different species/varieties of Crops/Seeds

3- Market conditions

- Recommendations of Agri.uni, extension workers/scientists

2 - Experiencing with new variety

- Recommendation of salesman

- General experience

1- Do not know

3 How did you decide the quantity of fertilizers used to your crops/Seeds

3- Soil testing

- Recommendations of Agri.uni, extension workers/scientists

2 - Careful observation


- Used what was at hand

1 - Do not know

4

How did you decide the various measures of plant/seed protection

3 - Recommendations of Agri.Uni , Extension workers/scientists

2 - Careful observation


- Recommendations of relatives/

neighbors/ other farmers

- Used whatever was at hand

1- Do not know

5 What type of written records you keep 3 - Production record

- Receipts

2 - Bill or sales

-Records of expenditure and income

- Records of laborers

- Used memory

1– None

4. RISK ORIENTATION

Please indicate whether you agree, undecided or disagree with the following six statements.

Response

Sl.

No.

Statement

Agree Undecided Disagree

1. A farmer/Seed grower should grow large number of crops/seeds to avoid greater risks involved in growing one or two crops (N)

2. A farmer/Seed grower should rather take more of a chance in making a big profit than to be content with a smaller but less risky profits

3. A farmer/Seed grower who is willing to take greater risks than the average farmer/Seed grower usually have better financial condition

4. It is good for a farmer/Seed grower to take risks when he knows his chance of success is high

5. It is better for a farmer/Seed grower not to try new farming/seed production methods unless most other farmers have used them with success (N)

6. Trying an entirely new method in farming/seed production by a farmer/Seed grower involves risk, but it is worth

5. LEADERSHIP ABILITY

Farmer/Seed grower has to take decisions for getting the things done, initiate the action, motivate the followers. The statements related to this aspect are given below. Please indicate your response on a three points continuum.

Sl.

No.

Statements

Always

Sometimes

Never

1. Did you participate in group discussions on

new farm/seed production practice

2. Whenever you see/hear a new farm/seed production practice did you initiate discussion about it with your colleagues

3. Do village people regard you as good source of information on new farm/seed production practice

4. Do you assign the farm work to your family

Members

5. Do you offer new approaches to problems

6. MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION

Following are the statements to measure the degree of management orientation, please indicate whether you agree or disagree to each of the following statements in the appropriate columns provided.

Response

Sl.

No.

Statements

Agree Disagree

Planning orientation

1. Each year one should think a fresh plan about crops/seeds to be grown in each type of land

2. It is not necessary to make prior decision about

the variety of crops/seeds to be grown

3. The amount of seed, fertilizer and plant/seed protection chemicals needed for raising a crop/seed should be assessed before cultivation

4. It is not necessary to think a head of the cost

involved in raising crop/seed

5. One need to consult an agriculture expert for crop/seed planning

6. It is possible to increase the yield through farm/seed

production plan

Production orientation

1. Timely sowing of crops/seeds ensures good yield

2. It is a good practice to use recommended

quantities/qualities of seed

3. One should use as much fertilizers as he likes

4. One should use plant/seed protection chemicals at

regular intervals irrespective of pests

5. One should use as much as irrigation water as

possible when it is available

Marketing orientation

1. Market news is not much useful to the farmer/Seed grower

2. A farmer/Seed grower can get good price by grading his products

3. One should purchase his inputs from the shop

where his other relatives purchases

4. One should grow those crops/seeds which have more market demand

Source consultancy pattern of Commercial seed growers

Please state the frequency of contact with different information sources to get information on seed management practices.

Extent of contact Sl.

No.

Sources consulted

Regularly Occasionally Never

A. Formal Sources

1 Package of practices

2 ADA

3 AO

4 AAO

5 AA

6 Seed certification officer

7 Officials of input agencies

8 UAS scientists

B. Informal sources

1 Family members

2 Relatives

3 Friends

4 Neighbours

5 Progressive farmers

C. Mass media sources

1 TV

2 Radio

3 News paper

4 Agriculture/Farm magazines

Constraints faced by commercial seed growers

Sl.

No.

Constrains/Problems Yes

No

1 Non-availability of inputs in time

2 High cost of inputs

3 Shortage of labours

4 High labour wages

5 Financial constraints

6 Lack of timely advisory services

7 Lack of knowledge about disease control

8 Lack of knowledge about pest control

A STUDY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR OF COMMERCIAL SEED GROWERS OF DHARWAD DISTRICT

ARCHANA K. N. 2013 Dr. K. V. NATIKAR Major Advisor

ABSTRACT

The present study was conducted in the year 2012-13 in Dharwad district of Karnataka state with a sample size of 180 farmers, constituting 90 seed growers and 90 other farmers. Random sampling procedure was used to select the sample. The data was collected with the help of structured interview schedule.

The socio-economic profile of the respondents revealed that, majority (53.33%) of the seed growers belonged to middle age group, 36.67 per cent educated up to PUC, 42.22 per cent belonged to medium land holding category, 38.89 per cent belonged to high income category, 56.67 per cent had high level of farming experience, 77.78 per cent had low experience in seed production, whereas, majority of other farmers (62.22%) belonged to middle age group, followed by high level of farming experience (71.11%).

Most of the seed growers (48.89%) and 40.00 per cent of the other farmers belonged to high and low entrepreneurial behaviour categories respectively. Further, entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics such as innovativeness was high (40.00%) in seed growers and low (44.44%) in other farmers, achievement motivation was high (41.11%) in seed growers and low (35.56%) in other farmers, 46.67 per cent of the seed growers and 50.00 per cent of the other farmers belonged to intermediate and less rational decision making ability category respectively, risk orientation was high (43.33%) in seed growers and low (42.22%) in other farmers, leadership ability was high (45.55%) in seed growers and low (41.11%) in other farmers, management orientation was high (44.44%) in seed growers and low (35.56%) in other farmers respectively.

Majority of the seed growers consulted the formal sources like package of practice booklet (66.67%), informal sources like progressive farmers (86.67%) and mass media sources like television (94.45%) regularly. Major constraints faced by seed growers were shortage of labourers, high labour wages and financial problems.

Documents

A STUDY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR OF ......CERTIFICATE LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDIX 1 INTRODUCTION 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Entrepreneur – Definitions 2.2