Upload
nguyenbao
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER – V
219
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the contents of previous chapter were used as a raw
material. The findings were looked at and interpreted in relation to the
relevant findings of other researcher investigations and discussed so as to
throw light on possible causes for the results obtained and presented
under the following heads.
5.1. To study the profile characteristics of practicing IPM and non-IPM
farmers.
5.2. To identify relationship between adoption and profile of the
respondents.
5.3. To know the extent of adoption of IPM practices by farmers.
5.4. To measure pod borer incidence and economics of IPM and non-
IPM fields.
5.5. To find the constraints faced by farmers in both IPM and non- IPM
villages
5.6. To elicit the suggestions to overcome the constraints.
220
5.1 Profile characteristics of practicing IPM and non-IPM farmers.
5.1.1 Education
There was significant difference between IPM villages and Non- IPM
villages according to Education at 1% Level of significance (Table 2 and
figure 7). Though there was significant difference, majority of the
respondents of IPM and non-IPM villages were illiterates and had primary
school education and majority could not go for high school and college
education due to non-availability of educational facilities in the village. It is
therefore, necessary to establish education centers in villages to improve
their literacy level. When compared to non-IPM villages, literacy level in
IPM villages was better. This result might be due to fact that unawareness
of respondents in non-IPM villages about importance of education. This
was in line with the findings of Shinde et al ((1998), Swaroopa Rani(2000),
Nirmala and Hiremath (2005), Gangaiah et al., (2006), Santha Govind
(2006), Venkata Shiva Reddy (2006) and not with Manoz et al (2009).
5.1.2 Farm Size
A close examination of the Table 3 and Fig.8 revealed that there was no
significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages
regarding farm size at 0.05 level of probability. This trend might be due to
the fact that majority of the respondents of IPM and non-IPM villages
were small farmers had medium land holdings and they would have been
221
deriving their sustenance from these lands and agricultural labour. This
trend was also witnessed by Reddy (1998), Raja Ratnam (2000),
Ravishankar (2000),Prasanth Kumar (2007), Sarada et al.,(2007), Manoz
et al (2009).
5.1.3 Social Participation
A perusal of the data from Table 4 and Fig.9 inferred that there was a
significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages
regarding social participation at 0.01 level of probability. This indicates that
the farmers of IPM villages had participated socially higher than the
farmers of non-IPM villages because in IPM villages farmers were being
invited to the training programmes conducted by K.V.K, Darsi, like off-
campus and on-campus, this involvement lead them to participate in other
social organizations like primary agricultural co-operative societies,
panchayats, youth clubs and milk co-operative societies for getting some
social status. Low social participation of farmers of non-IPM villages was
because of their hand to mouth situation would have a little time to
participate in social activities of the village, even if they were interested in
them. This could be the reason for the significant difference between the
farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding social particiation. This
result was in line with the results of Azazulislam and Quali (1999), Maha
222
Lakshmi (2003), Manoz et al (2009). and not with Manjunatha (2002),
Gaikwad & Gunjal (2000), Swaroopa Rani (2000), Islam et al., (2001).
5.1.4. Mass Media Exposure
A cursory look from the Table 5 and Fig.10 vividly presented that there
was a significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages
regarding mass media exposure at 0.01 level of probability. It was clear
from these results that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of
exposure to mass media than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This was
due to fact that majority of the respondents of IPM villages possessed own
radio, television and subscription of agricultural magazine viz., Annadata,
Padipantalu, Rythu Nestham and books like vyavasaya panchangam for
more update information with their high social participation and scientific
orientation might help them to be aware of new ideas and practices.This
type of favourable conditions would have made them to be able to expose
more towards mass media.
The farmers of non-IPM villages because of their scarce financial
sources were not in a position to get information from mass media. They
had limited time to expose to mass media. Sometimes if they had time,
they could not give preference to hear and see the mass media to get new
agricultural information. This might be the reason for the significant
difference between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding
223
mass media exposure. This finding was in conformity with the findings of
Tharajabin and Manoharan (2001), Mahalakshmi (2003), Ramya (2005),
Manoz et al (2009) and not with Pandey and Mehta (2002).
5.1.5 Extension Contact
Findings incorporated in Table 6 and Fig.11 revealed that there was a
significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages
regarding extension contact at 0.01 level of probability. From these results,
it is inferred that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of extension
contact than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This would have been due to
fact that the immediate and long term needs of farmers would force them
to have more contacts quantitatively and qualitatively with scientists of
KVK, ARS and extension workers. Whereas the farmers of non-IPM
villages were being isolated may not have an opportunity to meet
extension agents and the scientists in the villages or at office except at the
time of distributing the subsidies, because they depend on personal
localize source of information. This could be the reason for the significant
difference between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding
extension contact. Similar findings were in tune with the results of Ramya
(2005), Prasanthakumar (2007), Manoz et al (2009). These findings were
not coinsided with the findings of Manjunatha (2002), Maraty and Srinivas
(2003).
224
5.1.6 Risk Orientation
A bird’s eye view at Table 7 and Fig.12 of results brings to notice that
there was a significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM
villages regarding extension contact at 0.01 level of probability. This result
indicates that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of risk
orientation than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This might be due to the
fact that the large sized land holding, coupled with financial resources to
absorb any possible loss in future may be the reason for more risk making
ability of farmers of IPM villages. Whereas the farmers of non-IPM villages
with their insufficient land holdings and unavailable financial resources
may not venture to try something new as new agricultural technology
involves some risk. This would have made farmers to become less risk
taking ability. This might be the reason for the significant difference
between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding risk
orientation. This result was in confirmity with the results of Subramanyam
(2002), Sridevi(20030, Sajit Kumar(2004), Prasanth Kumar (2007), Manoz
et al. (2009).But Manjunatha (2002) reported contrast results.
5.1.7 Scientific Orientation
A glance at Table 8 and Fig.13 inferred that there was a significant
difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding
scientific orientation at 0.01 level of probability. From these results, it was
225
concluded that the majority of the farmers of IPM villages had higher level
of scientific orientation than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This might be
due to their application of new ideas in a systematic manner with high risk
orientation too would help them to analyze the ideas before putting them
into practice. This was the possible reason for the farmers in IPM villages
to develop with high scientific orientation. Whereas the farmers of non-IPM
villages on the other hand get information about new ideas in agriculture at
a later time and may not find time to systematically analyze the ideas and
put the ideas in haphazardly. More over low risk orientation among them
would have been a limiting factor to develop scientific attitude towards
agriculture, which might be leading to low scientific orientation. This is the
reason for the significant difference between the farmers of IPM and non-
IPM villages regarding scientific orientation. This similar finding was
reported by Bhosle et al.,(2000), Mahalakshmi (2003), Ramya(2005),
Chaudari (2006), Manoz et al. (2009).
5.1.8 Economic Orientation
An analytical look at Table 9 and Fig.14 of results inferred that there
was a significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages
regarding economic orientation at 0.01 level of probability. This result
indicates that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of economic
orientation than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This might be due to their
226
desire to stabilize and improve economically with clear cut understanding
of the innovations in farming. This would have caused high economic
orientation on the part of the farmers of IPM villages than the farmers of
non-IPM villages. This was the reason for the significant difference
between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding economic
orientation. These findings were on par with the results of Mahalakshmi
(2003), Mahalakshmi (2007), Manoz et al. (2009). Contrast findings were
reported by Ramya (2005), where maximum number of farmer had high
level of economic orientation.
5.1.9 Achievement Motivation
It was evident that there was no significant difference between
farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding achievement motivation at
0.05 level of probability (table 10 and figure 15). In both the IPM and non
IPM villages majority of the respondents had medium level of achievement
motivation. This result was in agreement with the results of Sreedevi
(1996), Ravishankar (1998), Ravichandra prasad (2002), Subramanyam
(2002), Prasanthkumar (2007) and not with Manoz et al (2009). This might
be due to the continuous guidance from the KVK scientists, ARS
scientists, Agricultural officers, Agricultural Extension officers to farmers
keen to get the goal seeking behaviour and their high scientific orientation
was also given additional support to acquire knowledge towards
227
achievement motivation. Mass media especially Television also played a
greater role in obtaining achievement motivation in both the groups. This
was due to the reason for not having the significant difference between the
farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding achievement motivation.
5.1.10. Innovativeness
A glance at Table 11 and Fig.16 of results made it clear that
innovativeness is the another character where farmers of IPM and non-
IPM villages not differ significantly. It was observed that majority of the
farmers of IPM villages and non-IPM villages had medium level of
innovativeness. Similar results were reported by Chowdary (1997),
Reddy(1998), Mahith Kiran (2000),Ravichandra Prasad(2002),
Subramanyam (2002 and Prasanthakumar (2007). Contrast to this
possessment of high level of innovativeness was reported by Karpagan
(2005), Parthasaradhi (1997) and Manoz et al. (2009). This was due to
the continuous guidance from the KVK scientists, Agricultural officers,
Agricultural Extension officers to farmers keen to get the goal seeking
behaviour and their high scientific orientation was also given additional
support to acquire knowledge towards innovativeness. .Mass media
especially Telivision also played a greater role in obtaining innovativeness
in both the groups. Apart from all these, personal interest and adventurous
mentality to adopt new things also played a vital role. This could be the
228
reason for not having the significant difference between the farmers of IPM
and non-IPM villages regarding achievement motivation.
5.2 Relationship between adoption and profile of the respondents
5.2.1 Relationship between selected independent variables of
farmers of IPM villages and their adoption
That the correlation-coefficient (‘r’ values)of education, farm size,
extension contact, risk orientation, scientific orientation, economic
orientation, achievement motivation and innovativeness of farmers of IPM
villages with their adoption were positively significant at 0.01 per cent level
of probability except social participation, mass media exposure, which
were non-significant with adoption. Extension contact and risk orientation
were positively significant at 0.05 per cent level of probability (Table 12).
From this study it could be concluded that higher the education, numerous
extension contact, high risk taking ability, higher the economic orientation,
superior the scientific orientation, greater the achievement motivation and
higher the innovativeness, the higher would be the adoption.
5.2.1.1 Education versus Adoption.
It was evident from table 12 that there was a positive and significant
relationship (0.05 per cent) between education and adoption of farmers of
IPM villages. Education not only improves the adoption, but also widens
229
horizons of the individual .Higher the education wider will be the
interaction of the individuals with different sources and increase the ability
to grasp facts, analyse and interpret them in proper way. Hence the above
trend was noticed. This result was in agreement with the result of Raji et
al., (1996), Vijaya Lakshmi (1998), Roja Rani (2000), Saxena and Singh
(2000), Sujatha and Annamali(1998) and Ramesh Babu (2002), Raja
(2004), Sivanarayana et al. (2008) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.1.2 Farm size versus Adoption
A perusal of table 12 revealed that there was significant relationship
(0.01 per cent) between farm size and adoption of farmers of IPM villages.
It implied that there were direct changes with the increase or decrease of
land holding. There was a greater difference in the yields of IPM and non-
IPM fields. The farmers of adopted village in the study area were high in
media exposure which effected the adoption to get more profits due to
increase in land holding. . Similar results were reported by Borkar et
al.(2000), Manjunadha (2002), Ramesh Babu (2002) and non related with
results of Tasneem (2001) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.1.3 Social Participation versus Adoption
A bird’s eye view at Table 12 of results brings to notice that there
was no relationship between social participation and adoption of farmers.
It is a common feature that respondents who actively participated in social
230
activities through social organizations come across different types of
people, exchange views and experiences to get reliable solutions for their
troubles and problems. These farmers also participated the pre-seasonal
training, off and on- campus training programmes and exposure visits
conducted by Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Darsi, Prakasam district to gain
more knowledge about improved farm technology. Though the farmers
undergo more social participation, it will not influence the adoption
because their will also play a key role. Hence the above trend was
observed. This results was in conformity with the results of Shinde et al.,
2000) and not with Raji et al.(1996) and Swaroopa Rani (2000),
Sivanarayana et al. (2008) and not with Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.1.4 Mass Media Exposure versus Adoption
It was noticed from the Table 12 that there was no relationship
between mass media exposure and adoption of farmers. The results
support that the general view that high mass media consumption
enhances the farmer’s adoption of several practices of IPM technology.
Now a day’s newspapers, farm publications, television, radio and other
mass media are considered to be the acceleratory for diffusion of
agricultural innovations. Farmers who keep in touch with mass media are
likely to have better knowledge and adoption on the current advances in
agriculture. But this was also influenced by personal interest and will. This
231
finding was not in tune with the results of More et al.(2000) and Raja
(2004) and Manoz et al.(2009).
5.2.1.4 Extension contact versus Adoption
A close observation of the Table 12 denoted that there was a
positive and significant (0.05%) relationship between extension contact
and adoption of farmers. The reason could be that, the farmers meet the
extension agents and KVK scientists at the time of demonstrations,
training programmes, rythu sadassu, study tours and exhibitions for
reliable information regarding the improved technologies. Extension
personnel are the best and reliable source of information for the
respondents. Hence those who got more extension contacts will have
more changes about agricultural practices of different crops recommended
to their area. So they adopt new technology or practice very easily. This
might be the reason for above trend. The result was in agreement with the
results of Raja Ratnam (2000) & Manjunadha (2002), Sivanarayana et al.
(2008) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.1.6 Risk Orientation versus Adoption
Table 12 enlightened that the correlation between risk taking ability
and adoption of farmers was positive and significant (0.05%). It could be
stated from the findings that the higher the risk taking ability of individual,
the higher would be the adoption occurred. This might be due to the fact
232
that the farmers who take greater risk, more the adoption would occur. As
a result of use of new ideas, the improvement in crop production and
revenue could be expected. That is why such type of relation existed in the
study. This result was in conformity with the results of Sujatha and
Annamali(1998) and Jondhale et al.(2000), Manjunadha (2002) and
Ramesh Babu (2002) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.1.7 Scientific Orientation versus Adoption
There was a positive and significant (0.01%) relationship between
scientific orientation and adoption of farmers (Table 12). It could be
inferred from the findings that higher the scientific orientation on the part of
farmers, the more would be adoption occurred. This trend might be due to
fact that farmers with progressive ideas are more receptive towards new
scientific innovations. Therefore, they show keen interest in trying to know
about the latest farm technology towards higher yields. In this process
they might have acquired more adoption towards scientific innovations.
Hence the findings support that the scientifically oriented people will cause
rapid changes in their adoption. This result was in conformity with the
results of Raji et al.(1996), Vennila et al.(2000), Ramesh Babu (2002),
Raja (2004) and Manoz et al. (2009).
233
5.2.1.8 Economic Orientation versus Adoption
It was seen from the Table 12 that there was a positive significant
(0.01%) relationship between economic orientation and adoption. The
reason could be that, the farmers with more economic orientation would
be oriented towards more mass media exposure and extension contacts,
which helped them to get more information about cultivation. This result
was in agreement with the results of Raji et al.(1996), Chatterjee (2000)
and Jondhale et al.(2000), Manjunadha (2002) and Manoz et al.(2009)
and non agreement with Raja(2004).
5.2.1.9 Achievement Motivation versus Adoption
It could be inferred from the Table 12 that there was a positive and
significant (0.01%) relationship between achievement motivation and
adoption. This indicates greater the achievement motivation, the changes
like knowledge and adoption, yield and income would also increases. This
would be due to the fact that high achievers like to take somewhat difficult
goals which are attainable and take calculated risk and aim for specific
standard of excellence. This would have been pre-disposing them to get
useful and additional information than the low achievers in improving their
knowledge over others. This result was in agreement with the results of
Reddy (1995), Raja (2004), Adiseshaiah (1995) and Manoz et al. (2009)
and not in confirmation with the Sivanarayana and Jaya rami Reddy
(1994).
234
5. 2.1.10 Innovativeness versus Adoption
A perusal of Table 12 inferred that there was a positive and
significant relationship (0.01%) between innovativeness and adoption.
That means more the innovativeness on the part of farmer, higher would
be their perception towards direct changes. It might be due to fact that
farmers who are relatively earlier in adopting new agricultural innovations
would oriented towards more risk taking, more educated, maintain higher
social status, and consequently use the new ideas before most of the
farmers of the system adopt it. Their response to invention would have
resulted in many direct changes in adoption. This result was in conformity
with the results of Vijayalakshmi (1998), Manjunadha (2002), Damodaran
(2007) and Ramesh Babu (2002), Manoz et al. (2009) and not with Roja
Rani (2000).
5.2.3 Relationship between selected independent variables of non-
IPM villages farmers and their adoption
Table 13 indicated that the correlation –coefficients of education,
social participation, extension contact, achievement motivation and
innovativeness of farmers of non-IPM villages with their adoption were not
significant except mass media exposure and economic orientation. The
farm size and risk orientation were negatively correlated. Mass media
exposure and economic orientation showed positive significant values at
235
0.01 and 0.05 levels of probability respectively. From this study it could be
concluded that higher the education, higher the social participation, high
exposure to mass media, more extension contacts, higher the economic
orientation, superior the scientific orientation, greater the achievement
motivation and higher the innovativeness, the higher would be the
adoption.
5.2.3.1 Education versus Adoption.
It was evident from table 13 that there was positive relationship
between education and adoption of farmers of non-IPM villages. Education
is a requirement for better perception and comprehension. Their education
might be helping them to understand and decide correctly when they listen
to radio or watch television programme on agriculture. Hence the above
trend was noticed. This result was in agreement with the results of Raji et
al., (1996), Saxena and Singh (2000) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.3.2 Farm size versus Adoption
A cursory examination from the table 13 indicated that there was
negative relationship between farm size and adoption of farmers of non-
IPM villages. It indicates that there was no increase or decrease of
changes pertaining to adoption with the increase or decrease of land
holding. This would have been the reason for farmers with less land
holdings resulted not to adopt more number of recommended practices to
236
get more yields. This finding was in line with the finding of Shinde et
al.(2000), Tasneem (2001).
5.2.3.3 Social Participation versus Adoption
A bird’s eye view at Table 13 of results brings to notice that there
was a positive relationship between social participation and adoption of
farmers. It might be due to the fact that the farmers who experienced more
adoption through their participation in cooperatives and welfare
associations as a member are likely to have more information gathered
regarding farm activities than the farmers with less social participation. It
would have been the reason for such a relationship existed between social
participation and adoption. This results was in conformity with the results
of of Sujatha and Annamali (1998), Sivanarayana et al. (2008) and Manoz
et al. (2009).
5.2.3.4 Mass Media Exposure versus Adoption
It was noticed from the Table 13 that there was positive and
significant relationship between mass media exposure and adoption of
farmers (0.01% level). It might be due to the fact that increased mass
media exposure enhanced the ability of farmers to get more information,
which might have helped them to set benefits of new technology and it
leads to widen the mental horizon of the farmers to accept and adopt the
practices. Mass media provide reinforcement as experiences of successful
237
farmers are also narrated on radio and news papers. These findings were
in tune with the results of Borkar et al.(2000) and Ravichandraprasad
(2002) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.3.5 Extension contact versus Adoption
A close observation of the Table 13 denoted that there was a
positive and non significant relationship between extension contact and
adoption of farmers. This there by shared that greater extension contact,
greater would be the adoption. This might be the reason due to fact that
farmers approach to change agents like Horticulture Officer, Agriculture
officer, Agriculture Extension Officer etc., when they need solution of
problems in farming to get better yields. This extension contact had
caused more variation in their adoption, presenting this type of relations.
This result was in agreement with the results of Raja Ratnam (2000),
Sivanarayana et al .(2008) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.3.6 Risk Orientation versus Adoption
Table 13 enlightened that the correlation between risk taking ability
and adoption of farmers was negative. Farmers who are willing to take risk
and able to face uncertainties in adoption of innovations keen to get more
changes in adoption in terms of higher yields and income compared to
others who are less willing to take risk, farmers have not taken greater
risks in the adoption of improved practices. Hence, the findings support
238
that the less risk oriented people will not take risk associated with adoption
of IPM practices in their farms. This result was in line with the findings of
Pallavi (2006) and not in line with the result of Ramesh Babu, (2002) and
Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.3.7 Scientific Orientation versus Adoption
An over view of the Table 13 reported that there was a positive and
non significant relationship between scientific orientation and adoption of
farmers. The possible reason for this might be due to that farmers with
high level of scientific orientation might have evaluated the applicability
and feasibility of recommended cultivation practices more objectively by
following scientific crieteria. Thus the above relationship was noticed. This
result was in conformity with the results of Raji et al.(1996), Ramesh Babu
(2002) and Manoz et al.(2009).
5.2.3.8 Economic Orientation versus Adoption
It was seen from the Table 13 that there was a positive and
significant (0.05% level) relationship between economic orientation and
adoption. The farmers with more economic orientation might be trying to
fulfill with goals namely children’s education, welfare and better standard
of living, which require many and and one of the means to increase yields
and income. The less economic oriented farmers on the other hand might
be maintaining similar attitude to the past resulting in low yield and income
239
compared to high economic oriented farmers. This could be one of the
reasons for such type of relationship existed between social participation
and adoption of farmers. Similar result was reported by Manjunatha (2002)
and Manoz et al.(2009).
5.2.3.9 Achievement Motivation versus Adoption
It was clear from the Table 13 that there was a positive and non
significant relationship between achievement motivation and adoption. It
could be inferred that higher the achievement motivation on the part of
farmers, the more would be the changes in adoption occurred might be
due to their enthusiasm and zeal to become economically sound. It is
assumed that achievement motivation makes the individual to get changes
in terms of increasing yield, income, adoption and knowledge towards
reaching the goals which one has set for oneself. This could be one of the
reasons for such type of relationship existed between achievement
motivation and adoption of farmers. This result was in agreement with the
results of Adiseshaiah (1995) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.2.3.10 Innovativeness versus Adoption
A perusal of Table 13 inferred that there was a positive and non
significant relationship between innovativeness and adoption. That means
more the innovativeness on the part of farmer, higher would be their
perception towards positive changes with regard to adoption have
240
occurred. It might be due to fact that farmers who have higher education
and high exposure towards mass media lead to get high scientific
orientation towards adoption of new methods and techniques before most
of the farmers of the system adopt it. Their response to invention would
have resulted in many direct changes in the way of increasing yields and
income. This could be one of the reasons for such type of relationship
existed between innovativeness and adoption of farmers. Hence, the
findings support that the people who have high innovativeness will cause
rapid positive changes in their farms. This result was in conformity with the
results of Vijayalakshmi (1998) and Manoz et al. (2009).
5.3. To know the extent of adoption of IPM practices by farmers.
From the table 14, it is striking to notice that in the IPM villages
equal numbers of the farmers have adopted IPM techniques like
Application of FYM/ Neem cake at pre-sowing, using bird perches. These
are followed by other techniques like growing of trap crop, summer deep
ploughing, using pheromone traps, growing of guard crops , timely sowing
. Application of organic manures, using 5% neem seed kernel extract,
using light traps, seed treatment, foliar sprays, crop rotation, wider spacing
occupied the next positions. Next comes using tri chogramma card as well
as collection and destruction of grown up larvae at equal proportion.
241
Shaking of plants, using NPV solution, poison baiting, inter cropping
occupied next places, in descending order.
From the table 15, on Extent of Adoption of Recommended IPM
practices on red gram in IPM villages, it is apparent to see that in the non
IPM villages majority of the farmers have adopted IPM techniques like
application of FYM/neem cake at pre sowing. Next comes the timely
sowing followed by application of oragic manures, poison baiting ,
collection and destruction of grown up larvae, seed treatment, Wider
spacing, installation of bird perches. Next occupied techniques were
summer deep ploughing, inter cropping and crop rotation. Growing of trap
crops and growing of guard crops. Other techniques were followed at very
minimal proportions like – using 5% neem seed kernel extract, using
pheromone traps, using light traps, shaking of plants, using NPV solution,
Foliar sprays, using trichogramma cards.
The observations in the present study denote that adoption of
various IPM practices were more in IPM villages. This is because of
favourable factors responsible to achieve this like acivities of KVK in IPM
villages, higher educational level, numerous extension contacts, high risk
taking ability, higher economic orientation, superior scientific orientation,
greater achievement motivation and higher innovativeness of IPM farmer.
The effect of all these might have led to adopt more number of practices.
242
These results were coincided with Rajagopalan, 1983; Ajaykumar, 1989;
Jagadal, 1989; Patil,1990; Hanchinal et al., 1991; Juliana et al., 1991;
Koppad, 1991; Kulakarniet al., 1994; Dolli and Swamy, 1997; Patel and
Patel 1997; Balikai.et al.,1997; Vijayalakshmi, 1998; Veluswamy and
Manoharan, 1998; Patil, 1998; Gadageri, 1998; Rajinder Peshin et al.,
1998; Sriram and Paliniswamy, 1999; Amtul Waris et al., 1999; Sudha
Rani,1999; Rajendra, 2000; Saxena and Singh,2000; Sumati and
Alagsan, 2000; Nuzaman et al.,2000; Raja Ratnam,2000; Jondhale et al.,
2000; Bhople et al., 2001; Ranganatha, 2001; Jin et al., 2001; Sudhakar
and Kanagasabhapathy, 2002; Kale et al.,2003; Chauhan et al., 2003;
Vazquez and Moreno, 2003; Brodt et al., 2004; Bhosle et al., 2004; Darling
and Vasanth Kumar, 2004; Hegde et al., 2004; Mahmoud and Shively,
2004; Gundannavar et al., 2004; Blanco and Metzler,2004; Christian et al.,
2005; Chauhan et al., 2005; Rao et al., 2005; Gajanana et al., 2006;
Venkata Shiva Reddy, 2006; Opolot et al., 2006; Maraddi et al., 2007;
Venkatesh et al., 2007; Prasanth Kumar, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2007;
Santosh, 2008; Stoddard et al., 2010; Paudel and Khadka, 2010 and
Walter and Andrea, 2011.
From table 16, it is obvious that there was a significant difference
between the farmers of IPM and non IPM villages with number of IPM
practices adopted. High adoption was noticed in IPM villages. Out of 20
practices more than 60 farmers had adopted 65% of practices. Medium
243
adoption 25% was farmers by the number of 31 to 60 whereas low
adoption was taken by below 30 farmers. There are differences in the non
IPM villages. Only 10% of the practices were adopted by more than 60
farmers. 15% of the practices were under medium adoption where as 75%
of the practices were under low adoption. This difference might be due to
trainings, on farm demonstrations, frontline demonstrationsn and method
demonstrations organized by KVK in IPM villages
5.4. To measure pod borer incidence and economics of IPM and non-
IPM fields.
From the table 17, Pod borer incidence and economics of IPM and
non-IPM fields, it is clear that, the average number of good pods per plant
in IPM villages were more. Whereas, in non-IPM villages these were
reduced. The average number of damaged pods was more in non IPM
villages compared to IPM villages. Total cost of cultivation including cost of
Agronomic practices, cost of Plant protection is also more in non- IPM
villages comparatively with IPM. It is also perceived from the table 20 that,
average seed yield in quintols per hectare was more in IPM villages
.Whereas, in non-IPM villages the yields were less. Net profit in IPM
villages over non IPM villages was also more. This is because of adoption
of more number of IPM techniques in IPM villages.This higher adoption
was resulted due to activities of KVK and ARS, Darsi, Prakasm District.
244
Owing to adoption of IPM technologies pod borer incidence was
reduced and there was a great impact over yields. Good yields were
recored. Same reslts were reported by Hiremath et al., 1984; Dolliand
Swamy, 1997; Balappashivaraya et al., 1998; Khan et al., 1998; Nagrare
and More, 1998; Balappashivaraya et al., 1998; Rajinder Peshin et al.,
1998; Sudha Rani, 1999; Roja Rani, 2000; Rao et al., 2002; Gowda et
al., 2002; Patel et al., 2002; Ramesh Babu, 2002; Sandeep, 2002;
Ramanjaneyulu et al., 2003; Agarwal et al., 2003; Agarwal and Prasad,
2003; Singh et al., 2003; Deshmukh et al., 2003; Nagaraj et al., 2004;
Benagi et al., 2004; Siddhhabhatti et al., 2004; Benagi et al., 2004;
Gundannavar et al., 2004; Bhushan and Nath, 2005; Chauhan et al.,
2005; Nirmala and Hiremath, 2005; Sehgal, 2005; Raghavendra et al.,
2006; Francesca Mancini et al., 2007; Santosh et al., 2007; Biradar, 2007;
Biradar, 2007; Pavankumar et al., 2008 and Chanderkanth Patil, 2008.
5.5 CONSTRAINTS FACED BY THE FARMERS
It was found from the Tables 18-21, that several constraints were
encountered by respondents in different activities were discussed below.
5.5.1 Personal Constraints
from the Table 18, it was observed that, lack of decision making ability ,
lack of self confidence less outside contacts, less exposure to mass
media, Lack of awareness about training programmes, not willing to take
245
risk were the personal constraints perceived by the farmers of IPM and
non-IPM villages. For variation in adoption in IPM and non IPM villages,
the reason might be due to the fact that the respondent farmers may
accept the recommended practices, but their poor economic status may
not permit them to adopt the practices. Therefore, it could be necessary to
provide sufficient credit facilities to those who were in need and also show
positive results of recommended technology through result and method
demonstration in the farmer’s field. These findings were in agreement with
the results of Sangram, 1997; Rajanish Sharma et al., 2002; Anjani Kumar
and Jha, 2001;Ramya, 2005 and Joseph Kumar, 2006 .
5.5.2. Socio-Economic constraints
Table 19 inferred that, that total number of the (100.0%) farmers in
both IPM and non IPM villages expressed that high wage rate of labour as
the main constraint. Less Social Participation, Lack of exposure were the
other constraints perceived by the farmers, High cost of organic manures,
High cost of Pesticides, were the constraints faced by the farmers of non-
IPM villages. The possible reason was that necessary steps to be taken by
the Government to supply fertilizers on subsidy and affordable cost to the
farmers. Department of Agricultural and Rural Development should
organize the awareness camps at villages level to encourage the farmers
to participate into more social organizations. These results were in line
246
with the results of Ananad Singh,1995, Sangram,1997; Rajanish Sharma
et al., 2002; Anjani Kumar and Jha, 2001; Morales,2002; Dharmindra
Singh and Ravinder Kaur, 2004; Raja, 2004; Christian et al., 2005;
Ramya, 2005 and Joseph Kumar, 2006.
5.5.3. Technical Constraints
Table 20 enlightened that , Non-availability of labour, Lack of proper
technical guidance , Lack of sufficient technical staff , Lack of knowledge
about about IPM technology, Lack of skill were the technical constraints
expressed by the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages. Government
should recruit the sufficient technical staff to guide the farmers at field level
and also to maintain the regular contacts with the farmers for providing
proper technical guidance according to their problems, which motivate the
farmers to practice new technologies. These findings were in concurrence
with the findings of Ananad Singh, 1995; Sudha Rani, 1999; Sangram,
1997; Krishna Murthy et al., 1999; Ravishankar, 2000; Anjani Kumar and
Jha, 2001; Morales, 2002; Dharmindra Singh and Ravinder Kaur, 2004;
Raja, 2004; Christian et al., 2005; Ramya, 2005; Joseph Kumar, 2006 and
Morales and Perfecto, 2007.
5.5.4. Organizational constraints
Results obtained from the table 21 indicated that Improper distribution of
inputs, lack of field visits by officers , insufficient stipend during training
247
programmes , Training centers are far , Less training periods training
programmes were the organizational constraints expressed by the
farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages. The reason might be due to the
multiplicity of the needs of the farmers have to be filled. For which, the
encouragement has to be given through selection of the farmers to the
trainings and also provide moral support at the time of adoption of
innovations. Off campus training programmes should be conducted in the
villages before commencement of the season to avoid the absence of the
farmer and more exposure visits need to be organized to mould the
farmers into advanced farming. These findings were in accordance with
the findings of Ananad Singh,1995; Sangram,1997; Rajesh kumar et al.,
1998; Sudha Rani, 1999; Ravishankar, 2000; Anjani Kumar and Jha,
2001; Morales, 2002, Dharmindra Singh and Ravinder Kaur, 2004, and
Ramya, 2005.
Despite these, adoption of IPM is low owing to a number of
institutional and policy constraints. On the supply side, lack of commercial
availability of biopesticides and inappropriate institutional technology
transfer mechanisms are the critical impediments to increased application
of IPM. The presence of private sector in biopesticide production and
marketing is marginal, and needs to be improved through economic
incentives. On the demand side, farmers though are aware of
technological failure of pesticides to control pests, and their negative
248
externalities to environment and human health, pest risk is too high to
experiment with newer approaches to pest management. IPM is a
complex process and farmers lack understanding ofbiological processes of
pests and their predators and methods of application of new technology
components. The socio-economic environment of farming is also an
important factor in adoption of IPM. There are a number of IPM practices
that work best when applied by the entire community and in a
synchronized mode. This is unlikely to happen without demonstrating
benefits of group approach, and external motivation and support to the
farmers.
Though many technology programs are based on community approach,
although, IPM has been accepted as the most attractive option for
protection of crops from the ravages of pests, implementation at the
farmers level hasbeen limited. Pesticides continue to dominate and their
injudicious use represents the greatest threat to IPM. For an effective
implementation strategy, it is necessary to identify the obstacles to its
dissemination, some of which are:
Low awareness and innovativeness of extension personnel and target
groups
Inadequate interaction between research and extension agencies
249
Problem of timely and adequate supply of quality inputs, including
biocontrol agents and Biopesticides.
Complexity of IPM vs simplicity of chemical pesticides
The dominant influence of pesticide industry
Non-availability of location-specific IPM modules for many crops
Essentials for implementation
o Availability of location-specific IPM modules, which are ecologically
sound, economically viable and socially acceptable
o High level of target group participation
o Area-wide dissemination strategy
o Removal of obstacles in dissemination of IPM
o Measuring, evaluating and publicizing the impacts of IPM.
Conservation of natural enemies of pests and their augmentation is of
prime importance. Besides, the intrinsic property of renewability,
reversibility and resilience of botanicals and biopesticides make them most
dependable tools for sustainable IPM. Hence, to maintain ecological
balance and to manage the pests, the use of bio-agents and
biopesticides/botanicals must receive priority attention.
250
5.6. To elicit the suggestions to overcome the constraints.
As seen from the Table 22, it was indicated that suggestions like
Awareness training programmes should be conducted about advanced
techniques before commencement of the season, Selection of participants
for training without any bias, Conduct more exposure visits, Method
demonstrations should be organized in farmers fields to give firsthand
experience, Inputs should be distributed without political intervention., Off
campus training programmes should be conducted frequently, Agricultural
officers, Agricultural Extension officers and K.V.K. Scientists should
maintain continuous contact with the farmers, More availability should be
provided for bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides, Provision of sufficient
stipend to the farmers during training programme, Proper follow-up
activities need to be undertaken were suggested by the farmers of IPM
practiced villages. These findings were on par with the finding of
Ravishankar (2000).
Thus, it could be inferred that it was the responsibility of the ICAR,
Zonal coordination units, department of Agriculture and Rural development
and welfare schemes for the overall development of the farmer.
From the table 23, it was observed that suggestions such as
Awareness training programmes should be conducted about advanced
techniques before commencement of the season by Agricultural Officers,
Provision of required fertilizers on subsidy rates, Provision of good quality
251
seed, Agricultural officers should conduct exposure visits, Inputs should be
distributed without political intervention, Agricultural officers should
conduct method demonstrations to give firsthand experience., Agricultural
officers, Agricultural Extension officers should maintain continuous
contact with the farmers., More availability should be provided for bio-
fertilizers and bio-pesticides, Provision of credit facilities, KVK should
extend its activities to more number of villages in the district were the
suggestions given by the farmers in order of their importance in non-IPM
villages. The results got backing from the studies conducted by
Satyannarayana (2004).
Thus, it is the responsibility of State Department of Agriculture, State
Agricultural universities to extend its activities through kvks to adopt more
number of villages and Government of India to see that the above
suggested facilities are provided to the farmers to overcome the
constraints in adoption of recommended practices in cultivation.
Same results were coded by Geier,1998, Saxena et al., 1998;
Sharma,1998; Kareem et al., 1998; Waage, 1998; Yudelman et al., 1998;
Uhm Ki Baik and Uhm, 1999; Bergamin et al.,1999; Kalariya et al., 1999;
Nortan et al., 1999; Proost, 1999; Sankaram, 1999; Ravishankar, 2000;
Burth et al., 2001; Saurabharma et al., 2001; Thrupp, 2001; Maumbe et
al., 2003; Satyanarayana, 2004 and Cuperus et al., 2004. In the present
dynamic time nearly everything is changing rapidly including process of
252
agriculture development and the role of extension agencies is to support
this development. With the globalization of Agriculture in the post WTO
era, Indian agriculture Extension strategies have been changed. Today’s
agriculture extension mainly focuses on location specific, need based
technology development with farmer’s participatory mode. The farmers’
ideas must be taken into account by the scientists to develop technology
suitable to their farming situation for promoting better adoption. Their
problems as well as suggestions should be considered while planning,
developing the new IPM technologies and recommending them for
ensuring effective results.
5.7. Empirical Model of the study
Fig.30 indicated that the profile characteristics of farmers of IPM
villages viz., education, farm size, extension contact, risk orientation,
scientific orientation, economic orientation, achievement motivation and
innovativeness has significant correlation with adoption. Social
participation and mass media exposure were not correlated significantly.
Fig.31 indicated that the profile characteristics of farmers of non
IPM villages viz., economic orientation and scientific orientation have
significant correlation with adoption. Education, farm size, extension
contact, risk orientation, achievement motivation and innovativeness were
not correlated significantly.
253
254