A STUDY ON ADOPTION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT … · 2018-12-12 · a study on adoption of...
127
A STUDY ON ADOPTION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY CHICKPEA GROWERS IN DURG DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH STATE M.Sc. (Ag) Thesis by Manish Kerketta DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh) 2015
Transcript of A STUDY ON ADOPTION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT … · 2018-12-12 · a study on adoption of...
A STUDY ON ADOPTION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES BY CHICKPEA GROWERS IN DURG
DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH STATE
M.Sc. (Ag) Thesis
by
Manish Kerketta
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)
2015
A STUDY ON ADOPTION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES BY CHICKPEA GROWERS IN DURG
DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH STATE
Thesis
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
by
Manish Kerketta
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
Master of Science
in
Agriculture (Agricultural Extension)
VVID No.20131418485 ID No. 120113125
AUGUST, 2015
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Research is an evolving concept. It implies the testing of nerves. It brings
to light our patience, understanding and dedication. My work in the same spirit is
just a step in the ladder. It is a drop in an ocean.
First of all I would like to thank, and praise almighty “God”, the most
beneficent and merciful, for all his love and blessings conferred up on mankind.
I give my cordial thanks to my Major Advisor Dr. H. K. Awasthi,
Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension, Indira Gandhi Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) for his valuable and inspiring guidance, interest,
research insight, unique supervision, constructive criticism and advices
throughout the investigation and preparation of this thesis.
I owe sincere regards and indebtedness to the members of my Advisory
Committee, Dr. K. L. Nandeha, Principal scientist (Dept. of Agronomy), Dr .M. A.
Khan, Associate Professor,(Deptt. of Agril. Extension) and Dr. (Smt.) S. Shukla,
Professor (Agricultural Statistics and Social Science L.) IGKV Raipur for their
kind supervision, motivation and support by which I was pushed toward hard work
and punctuality. Without their kind co-operation it would not have been easy to
complete this Thesis.
I am heartly thankful to Dr. M. L. Sharma, Professor and Head (Agril.
Extension), Dr. J. D. Sarkar, (professor), Dr. R.S. Sengar,(professor), Dr. D. K.
Suryavanshi, (Associate profesor) Shri M. K. Chaturvedi (Assistant Professor)
and Shri P.K. Sangode (Assistant Professor) for their unforgettable support and
kind help during the course of the study.
I owe my grateful thanks to Dr. S. K. Patil, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Dr.
S. S. Shaw Director of Instructions, Dr. S. S. Rao, Dean, College of Agriculture,
Dr. S. S. Sengar, Dean Student Welfare, Dr. J. S. Urkurkar, Director Research
Services, and, Dr. M. P. Thakur, Director Extension Services, IGKV, Raipur for
providing necessary facilities to conduct the present investigation.
I have immense pleasure in expressing my whole hearted sense of
appreciation to my school teacher Shri S. K. Dubey and my seniors Shri. Yogendra
Shriwas, Shri Sunil Narbaria, Shri. Subodh Pradhan, Shri. Virendra Painkra and
Shri. Yuvraj Singh, shri. Hemant patra, Shri. P.K. Netam, Shri. Dilip Kumar
Bande, (Ph.D Scholars), Dr. Kedarnath Yadaw (S.M.S) for their timely help and
advice during the tenure of research work.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATION xii
ABSTRACT xiv
I INTRODUCTION 1
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6
2.1 Social profile 6
2.1.1 Education 6
2.1.2 Caste 7
2.1.3 Social participation 8
2.1.4 Size of Land holding 9
2.1.5 Occupation 10
2.1.6 Annual Income 11
2.1.7 Credit Acquisition 12
2.1.8 Contact With Extension agencies 12
2.1.9 Source of Information 13
2.1.10 Level of knowledge 14
2.1.11 Scientific Orientation 16
2.2 Extent of adoption 17
2.3 Constraints 19
2.4 Suggestions 21
2.5 Correlation coefficient 22
2.6 Multiple regression 24
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 27
3.1 Location of the study area 29
vi
3.2 Sample and Sampling Procedure 29
3.2.1 Selection of districts 29
3.2.2 Selection of blocks 29
3.2.3 Selection of villages 29
3.2.4 Selection of respondents 30
3.2.5 Collection of data 30
3.2.6 Statistical methods 30
3.3 Variables of the study 30
3.3.1 Independent variables 30
3.3.2 Dependent variable 30
3.4 Operationalization of independent variables and their
measurement.
33
3.4.1 Social profile of the respondents 33
3.4.1.1 Education 33
3.4.1.2 Caste 33
3.4.1.3 Social participation 34
3.4.1.4 Size of Land holding 34
3.4.1.5 Occupation 35
3.4.1.6 Annual Income 35
3.4.1.7 Credit Acquisition 35
3.4.1.8 Contact With Extension agencies 36
3.4.1.9 Source of Information 36
3.4.1.10 Scientific Orientation 37
3.4.1.11 Knowledge level of the respondents
regarding IPM practices
38
3.5 Operationalization of dependent variable and its
measurement
39
3.5.1 Adoption of Integrated Pest Management
practices by chickpea growers
39
3.6 Constraints faced by chickpea growers in adoption of
Integrated Pest Management practices
40
3.7 Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome
the constraints faced by them during adoption of IPM
40
vii
practices
3.8 Types of data 40
3.9 Developing the interview schedule 41
3.9.1 Validity 41
3.9.2 Reliability 41
3.10 Method of data collection 42
3.11 Statistical analysis 42
3.11.1 Frequency and percentage 42
3.11.2 Mean and Standard Deviation 42
3.11.3 Pearson’s coefficient of correlation 43
3.11.4 Multiple regression 43
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 45
4.1 Independent variables 45
4.1.1 Social profile of the respondents 45
4.1.1.1 Education 46
4.1.1.2 Caste 46
4.1.1.3 Social participation 48
4.1.2.4 Size of Land holding 50
4.1.2.5 Occupation 50
4.1.2.6 Annual income 51
4.1.2.7 Credit Acquisition 53
4.1.2.8 Contact With Extension Agencies 54
4.1.3.9 Source of Information 57
4.1.3.10 Scientific Orientation 61
4.1.3.11 Knowledge level of the respondents
regarding Integrated Pest Management
practices of chickpea
63
4.2 Dependent variable 66
4.2.1 Adoption of Integrated Pest Management
practices by chickpea growers
66
4.3 Use of common pesticides regarding Integrated Pest
Management practices of chickpea
71
4.4 Correlation analysis of independent variables with
adoption of Integrated Pest Management practices in
72
viii
chickpea
4.5 Multiple regression analysis of independent variables
with adoption of Integrated Pest Management
practices in chickpea
73
4.6 Constraints faced by chickpea growers in adoption of
Integrated Pest Management practices
74
4.7 Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome
the constraints faced by them during adoption of IPM
practices
75
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 77
REFERENCES 84
APPENDICES 89
Appendix A 89
Appendix B 90
VITA 101
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
4.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their level of
education
46
4.2 Distribution of the respondents according to their caste 48
4.3 Distribution of the respondents according to their social
participation
48
4.4 Distribution of the respondents according to their size of
land holding
49
4.5 Distribution of the respondents according to their
occupation
51
4.6 Distribution of the respondents according to their annual
income
51
4.7 Distribution of the respondents according to their credit
acquisition
53
4.8 Distribution of the respondents according to their extent
of contact with extension agencies
54
4.9 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall
contact with extension agencies:
55
4.10 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall
source of information
57
4.11 Distribution of the respondents according to their source
of information
59
4.12 Distribution of the respondents according to their
scientific orientation
61
4.13 Distribution of the respondents according to their practice
wise level of knowledge regarding Integrated Pest
Management of chickpea
63
4.14 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall
knowledge level regarding Integrated Pest Management
of chickpea
66
4.15 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall
extent of adoption regarding Integrated Pest Management
of chickpea
66
4.16 Distribution of the respondents according to practice wise
adoption regarding Integrated Pest Management of
68
x
chickpea
4.17 Distribution of the respondents according to their use of
common pesticides regarding Integrated pest
management of chickpea
71
4.18 Coefficient of correlation of independent variables with
adoption of Integrated Pest Management practices in
chickpea
72
4.19 Multiple regression analysis of independent variables
with adoption of Integrated Pest Management practices in
chickpea
73
4.20 Constraints faced by chickpea growers in adoption of
IPM practices
75
4.21 Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome the
constraints faced by them during adoption of IPM
practices
76
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
3.1 Map of the study area 28
3.2 Researcher interacting with farmer 31
3.3 Researcher interacting with farmer at field 31
3.4 Field of chickpea crop 32
3.5 Pheromone trap at chickpea field 32
4.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their level of
education
47
4.2 Distribution of the respondents according to their caste 47
4.3 Distribution of the respondents according to their social
participation
49
4.4 Distribution of the respondents according to their size of land
holding
49
4.5 Distribution of the respondents according to their occupation 52
4.6 Distribution of the respondents according to their annual income 52
4.7 Distribution of the respondents according to their extent of contact
with extension agencies
56
4.8 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall contact
with extension agencies
56
4.9 Distribution of the respondents according to their sources of
information
58
4.10 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall use of
information sources
60
4.11 Distribution of the respondents according to their scientific
orientation
62
4.12 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall extent of
adoption regarding Integrated Pest Management of chickpea
65
4.13 Distribution of respondents according to their overall knowledge
level regarding Integrated Pest Management of chickpea
67
4.14 Distribution of respondents according to their practice wise level
of knowledge regarding Integrated Pest Management practices of
chickpea
69
4.15 Distribution of respondents according to practice wise adoption
regarding Integrated Pest Management of chickpea
70
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
% Per cent
IPM Integrated Pest Management
NCIPM National center for integrated pest management
ICRICAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
Agril.
AI
Agricultural
Adoption Index
DAC Department of Agriculture and Cooperation
Deptt. Department
DES Directorate of Economics and Statistics
et al. Et alii (And Others/co-workers)
f Frequency
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
Fig. Figure
GDP Gross domestic product
Govt. Government
Ha Hectare
i.e. That is
Kg. Kilo gram
Km.
KI
Kilo meter
Knowledge Index
mha Million hectares
MT Metric Tonnes
NS Non – Significant
q/ha Quintal per hectare
RAEO
RAWE
Rural Agriculture Extension Officer
Rural Agriculture Work Experience
SADO Senior Agriculture development officer
ADO Agriculture development officer
xiii
SD
SMS
Standard Deviation
Subject Matter Specialist
TV Television
Viz. Namely
KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra
KCC Kisaan Call Center
xv
respondents (61.66%) were having contact with extension agencies in medium level and 70.84
per cent having medium level of scientific orientation.
The overall knowledge index about IPM practices in chickpea was found as 63.83 per
cent among the respondents whereas overall adoption index was 50.83 per cent. Maximum
(95.41%) adoption of IPM practices like seed treatment and field sanitation was observed among
the chickpea growers.
Correlation analysis reveals that the variables viz size of land holding, annual income,
contact with extension agencies, and knowledge level about IPM practices in chickpea were
having positive and highly significant correlation value with adoption at 0.01 per cent level of
significance. While, education was found positively and significantly correlated with the
adoption at 0.05 per cent level of significance.
The variables like castes, social participation, occupation, credit acquisition, sources of
information, scientific orientation were having no relationship with adoption. These findings
clearly indicate that most of the selected independent variables had positive and highly
significant relationship with adoption regarding IPM practices of chickpea.
Multiple regression analysis reveals that out of total 11 variables under study only two
variables namely contact with extension agencies and knowledge level showed highly significant
and positive contribution towards adoption at 0.01 per cent level of significance. While only a
variable namely source of information had positive significant contribution towards adoption at
0.05 per cent level of significance and remaining 8 variables viz. education, caste, social
participation, size of land holding, occupation, annual income, credit acquisition, and scientific
orientation had no significant contribution towards adoption of IPM practices of chickpea.
As far as constraints in adoption of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation are concerned,
most of the respondents highlighted lack of technical knowledge, non-availability of bio-agents,
non availability of inputs (bio-pesticides, traps, herbicide etc.), Lack of proper training, and lack
of knowledge about use of inputs at proper time as the common constraints.
The suggestions like ; availability of inputs at proper time, training by extension
agencies about IPM practices and technical information & knowledge to the farmers about IPM
practices should be provided by RAEOs at village level were given by most of the chickpea
growers to manage the relevant constraints as faced by them during chickpea production.
lcls vf/kd ¼70-00%½ mÙkjnkrkvksa }kjk 7&10 lwpuk Jksrksa dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k ,oa 61-66
izfr”kr mÙkjnkrkvksa usa izlkj laLFkkvksa ls lEcfU/kr tkudkjh ysus gsrq laidZ fd;kA vf/kdre ¼70-84%½
mÙkjnkrkvksa ds oSKkfud –f"Vdksa.k dk Lrj e/;e ik;k x;kA
mÙkjnkrkvksa dk pus esa lefUor dhV izca/ku ds ckjs esa lexz Kku Lrj 63-87% ik;k x;k] ogha
lefUor dhV izca/ku ds lexz vaxhdj.k dk Lrj 50-83% ik;k x;k] ftlesa vf/kdre ¼95-41%½
mÙkjnkrkvksa }kjk pus ds lefUor dhV izca/ku esa ls chtksipkj ,oa [ksrksa dh lQkbZ dks ik;k x;kA
lglca/k fo”ys"k.k ¼dksfjys”ku dkWfQfl,saV½ esa ik;k x;k fd] Hkwfe dk jdck] okf’kZd vk;] izlkj
laLFkkvksa ds lkFk laidZ ,oa pus esa lefUor dhV izca/ku ds Kku dk Lrj] ;s pkjksa pj 0-01 izfr”kr~ Lrj
ij LkkdkjkRed #i ls vR;kf/kd lglacfU/kr ik, x;s] ogha f”k{kk dh Hkwfedk 0-05 izfr”kr Lrj ij
LkkdkjkRed lglacfa/kr ikà x;hA
pus ds lefUor dhV izca/ku ds vaxhdj.k esa cps gq, pjksa tkfr] lkekftd Hkkxhnkjh] O;olk;]
_.k dh miyC/krk] lwpuk ds Jksrksa vkSj oSKkfud nf̀"Vdksa.k esa dksb Hkh laca/k ugh ik;k x;kA vr% bu
fu"d"kksZa ls Li"V #i ls p;fur Lora= pjksa esa lcls vf/kd pus esa lefUor dhV izca/ku ds vaxhdj.k
okys pj ds lkFk lkdkjkRed vkSj vR;f/kd egRoiw.kZ laca/k dk ladsr feyrk gSA
bl v/;;u esa lHkh 11 pjksa ds lkFk cgqi zfr”ker fo’ys"k.k ¼efYViy fjxzs”ku½ djus ij dsoy
2 pj vFkkZr~ izlkj laLFkkvksa ds lkFk laidZ vkSj Kku ds Lrj dks 0-01 izfr”kr~ ij vR;ar egRoiw.kZ vkSj
lkdkjkRed ;ksxnku dk irk pyrk gS ,oa dsoy ,d pj vFkkZr~ lwpuk ds Jksrksa dks 0-05 izfr”kr~ Lrj
ij lkdkjkRed vkSj pus esa lefUor dhV izca/ku ds vaxhdj.k dh fn”kk esa egRoiw.kZ ik;k x;kA tcfd
“ks"k 8 pj vFkkZr~ f”k{kk] tkfr] lkekftd Hkkxhnkjh] Hkwfe dk jDck] O;olk;] okf’kZd vk;] _.k dh
miyC/krk] oSKkfud nf̀"Vdksa.k esa pus dh lefUor dhV izca/ku xfrfof/k;ksa dks viukus esa ;ksxnku ugha
ik;k x;kA
tgka rd pus esa lefUor dhV izca/ku ds vaxhdj.k esa vkus okyh lkekU; leL;kvksa esa vf/kdre
mÙkjnkrkvks usa tSo&dkjd dh vuqiyC/krk] vknkuksa dh vuqiyC/krk tSls] tSfod dhV uk”kd] iziap ,oa
'kkduk”kd] mfpr izf”k{k.k dk vk;kstu] mfpr le; esa vknkuksa ds mi;ksx ds ckjs esa Kku dh deh
rduhdh Kku dh deh vkfn dks crk;kA
lefUor dhV izca/ku ds vaxhdj.k esa vkus okyh lkekU; leL;kvksa ds funku ds ckjs esa
mÙkjnkrkvksa }kjk izkIr lqÖkko bl izdkj gSa] lgh le; esa fdlkuksa dks vknku miyC/k gks] mfpr izf”k{k.k
dk vk;kstu] d`f’k foLrkj vf/kdkjh Onkjk lefUor dhV izca/ku dks viukus ds ckjs esa rduhdh tkudkjh
vkSj Kku iznku fd;k tk,A
Introduction
CHAPTER –I
INTRODUCTION
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the third most important food legume crop in
the world. It is an important grain legume in many developing countries. Chickpea
probably originated in southern eastern turkey and spread west and south. It is grown
and consumed in large quantities from South-East Asia to India and in the Middle-East
and Mediterranean countries. It ranks second in area and third in production among
the pulses worldwide.
Chickpea is an important source of energy, protein and soluble and insoluble
fiber. Mature chickpea grains contain 60-65% carbohydrates, 6% fat, and between
12% to 31% protein – higher than any other pulse crop. Chickpea is also a good source
of vitamins (especially B vitamins) and minerals like potassium and phosphorus.
Chickpea is most important pulse crop of India in terms of both area and
production. India is the largest producer of chickpea in the world sharing 65.25 and
65.49 per cent of the total area (11.97 m ha) and production (10.89 mt), respectively.
In India, chickpea cultivation was done on 5.91 million hectares with the production of
4.24 million tonnes of the grain yield during 2002-2003. During 2010-11, chickpea
production reached to record 8.25 million tonnes. Estimated area, production and
productivity during 2011-12 is 9.01 m ha, 7.58 m tones and 841 kg/ha, respectively.
(Anonymous 2012)
Chickpea is grown in the drier areas of the country as they are best suited for
its production. Chickpea producing states in India are Madhya Pradesh (29.37%),
Maharashtra (20.03%), Andhra Pradesh (15.48%), Rajasthan (9.73%), Karnataka
(9.63%), Uttar Pradesh (6.42%) & Gujarat (3.57%) and Chhattisgarh in ninth position.
(Anonymous, 2011)
In Chhattisgarh, the area, production and productivity of chickpea in 2010-
2011 was 2.519, 2.415 and 891, respectively (000ha. 000mt, kg/ha.). Major districts of
Chhattisgarh where chickpea is being cultivated are Durg, Kabirdham, Bilaspur,
1
Rajnandgaon, Raipur, Sarguja, Dhamtari, Kanker, Jashpur, Jagdalpur & Raigarh.
During 2011-2012 Durg district having 1st position in cultivating area of chickpea
102.46 thousand ha with production of 110.99 thousand metric tons, Kawardha
accounts 65.88 thousand ha., 58.30 thousand metric tons production, followed by
Rajnandgaon 47.03 thousand ha and production 45.21thousand metric tons,
respectively. But the productivity of Durg district is less than other districts.
(Anonymous, 2007-2012).
Chickpea is one of the important rabi pulse and alternative crop for
diversification but the productivity of Chickpea is low due to various reasons i.e.,
particularly incidence of diseases and insect pests causing substantial yield reduction.
Farmers follow mainly the chemical pesticidal approach under plant protection system
to suppress these pests which is often uneconomical and leads to pesticide resistance
problem as observed in Helicoverpa armigera (gram pod borer). Besides, it disturbs
ecological balance and leads to environmental pollution resulting in to human health
hazards. A holistic approach is needed to combat these pest and other problems
effectively in a sustainable manner.
Integrated pest management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means a pest management system that, in
the context of the associated environment and the population dynamics of the pest
species, utilizes all suitable techniques and methods in a compatible manner as
possible and maintains the pest populations at levels below those causing
economically unacceptable damage or loss (FAO, 1967).
"IPM is a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological,
cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and
environmental risks."
Tools of IPM
Cultural pest control: It includes crop production practices that make crop
environment less susceptible to pests. Crop rotation, cover crop, row and plant
spacing, planting and harvesting dates, destruction of old crop debris are a few
examples. Cultural controls are based on pest biology and development.
2
Mechanical control: These are based on the knowledge of pest behaviour.
Hand picking, installation of bird perches, mulching and installation of traps are a few
examples.
Biological control: These include augmentation and conservation of natural
enemies of pests such as insect predators, parasitoids, and pathogen and weed feeders.
In IPM programmes, native natural enemy populations are conserved and non-native
agents are released with utmost caution.
Chemical control: Pesticides are used to keep the pest population below
economically damaging levels when the pests cannot be controlled by other means. It
is applied only when the pests’ damaging capacity is nearing to the threshold.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approaches have been globally accepted
for achieving sustainability in agriculture and maintaining the agro-eco-system. It has
more relevant due to a number of advantages like safely to environment, pesticide-free
food commodities, low input based crop production.
In order to minimize the indiscriminate and injudicious use of chemical
pesticide, IPM has been enshrined as cardinal principle of plant protection in over all
crop production programmers under national agriculture policy of the government of
India. IPM is a broad eco-friendly approach of managing pest and disease problem
below economic injury level encompassing available method and techniques of pest
management such as cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical in harmonious,
compatible and scientific manner with minimum use of chemical pesticide. Hence, for
increasing the yield of chickpea, it is necessary to accelerate the level of adoption of
recommended Integrated Pest Management Practices amongst chickpea growers. On
this ground, it is imperative by them in adoption of IPM practices by chickpea growers
and identifies the constraints perceived by them in adoption of IPM practices.
IPM is the best strategy in crop production programme, but this practice could
not reach to the farmers’ field. The extent of adoption of IPM practices among farmers
is not very encouraging. Keeping the above point in mind, present investigation
entitled “A Study on Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices by
3
Chickpea growers in Durg district of Chattisgarh State” was undertaken with the
following specific objectives.
Objectives:
1. To study the social profile of chickpea growers,
2. To assess the knowledge level of IPM practices by chickpea growers,
3. To measure the extent of adoption of IPM practices by the chickpea growers,
4. To find out the relationship between independent and dependent variables ,
5. To identify the constraints faced by the chickpea growers in adoption of IPM,
6. To obtain the suggestions from the chickpea growers to overcome the
constraints faced by them during adoption of IPM.
Significance of the study:
In order to minimize the indiscriminate and injudicious use of chemical
pesticide, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approaches have been globally accepted
for achieving sustainability in agriculture and maintaining the agro-eco-system. The
study will provide the information about adoption of Integrated Pest Management
practices by chickpea growers, association with adoption of Integrated Pest
Management practices and selected socio personal characteristics of the chickpea
growers and constraints perceived by them in adoption of Integrated Pest Management
practices. On the basis of the results of the study the extension strategy may further be
improved to prevail over the constraints affecting the rate of adoption of IPM practices
in chickpea crop.
Limitations of the study
The findings of this study are based on the opinion expressed by the farmers
hence; the objectivity of data would be limited to the real opinion of the respondents.
Since the study has been carried out in only three blocks of Durg district of
Chhattisgarh state, the findings may be applicable to this area and other area with
similar conditions. Limitation of time has set up a barrier for probing into more
dimensions of the research. However, considerable care and thought have been
exercised in selecting variables, so that all the objectives could be fulfilled. Physical
and functional limitations sighted during the present study are narrated below:
4
1. The study area was restricted to only twelve typical representative villages in Durg,
Dhamdha and Patan blocks of Durg district.
2. Only 120 respondents were selected for the investigation from the twelve selected
villages.
3. The study largely relied on the responses of the farmers according to their memory.
5
Review of Literature
CHAPTER - II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A review of past research literature is necessary while conducting any research
work as it helps the researcher to know the subject matter and help him to channelize
his efforts towards desirable direction. The main purpose of this chapter is to present
some of the findings of research studies, which are related to the adoption of IPM
practices by chickpea growers and other relevant works carried out in India and
abroad.
2.1. Social profile:
2.1.1 Education
Raghuwanshi (2005) found that, about 33.75 per cent of the respondents were
educated up to primary school level, followed by 26.25 per cent of the respondents
found middle school level where as 20.00 per cent who had high school and higher
secondary education only. About 13.75 per cent respondents were illiterate and only
6.25 per cent of the respondents were having education upto college level and above.
Shrivastava (2005) revealed that, maximum percentage of the respondents
were educated upto high school and higher secondary (50.63%), followed by 16.87 per
cent of the respondents were found up to middle school, whereas 15.63 per cent of the
respondents were educated up to college and above level while 12.50 and 4.37 per
cent of the respondents were under primary school and illiterate categories,
respectively.
Sarthi (2013) described that, the majority of the Farmer Field School did have
trained farmers (33.33%) were having higher secondary level of education, followed
by 26.67 per cent were found under the category of high school level of education,
18.34 per cent were above higher secondary level of education, 13.34 per cent have
middle level of education, 6.66 per cent were having primary level of education and
only 1.66 per cent were illiterate.
6
Singh (2013) found that, 23.45 per cent of the respondents were illiterate and
21.09 per cent were educated up to middle school level, followed by 17.96 per cent of
the respondents who were educated up to primary school level. Whereas, 17.96 per
cent respondents had education up to higher secondary level, 10.95 per cent of the
respondents were educated up to high school level and only 9.37 per cent respondents
had education up to college level and above.
Kumar et al. (2013) indicated that, large numbers of respondents were
educated up to middle school (24.4%) followed by primary education (22.22%) and
functional literates (20%) and illiterates 15.5 percent.
Rai (2014) indicated that, 47.50 per cent of the respondents were educated up
to primary school level followed by 20.83 per cent were educated up to middle school
level. Illiterate respondents constituted 10.83 per cent, however 9.17 per cent
respondents had educated up to higher secondary level, and 6.67 per cent of the
respondents were educated up to high school, whereas 5.00 per cent were educated up
to college and above, respectively.
2.1.2 Caste
Raghuwanshi (2005) indicated that, the majority of respondents (61.80 per
cent) belonged to other backward caste, followed by 25.00 per cent respondents
belonged to scheduled tribes category, 11.87 per cent respondents were from
scheduled caste and only 1.25 per cent respondents belonged to the general. It can be
concluded from the data that majority of the respondents belonged to other backward
classes.
Shrivastava (2005) indicated that, three-fourth of the respondents (78.12%)
were found under the category of other backward classess, followed by 11.88 per cent
of the respondents belonged to scheduled caste, while 10.00 per cent of the
respondents were belonging to scheduled tribe category.
Shori (2011) found that, the majority of respondents (59.37%) belonged to
other backward classes, followed by 25.00 per cent belonged to scheduled tribe, 9.38
per cent respondents were from scheduled caste and only 6.25 per cent respondents
belonged to general caste category.
7
Soni (2012) concluded that, maximum number of the respondents (33.13%)
belonged to other backward classes, followed by 31.87 per cent who belonged to
scheduled tribes, 25.63 per cent of the respondents belonged to scheduled caste and
only 9.37 per cent of the respondents belonged to general category.
Rai (2014) founded that, majority of the respondents (85.83%) were other
backward classes, followed by 10.84 per cent belonged to general and only 3.33 per
cent of the respondents belonged to schedule castes and none of the respondents had
scheduled tribes.
2.1.3 Social participation
Raghuwanshi (2005) observed that, maximum number of respondents
(36.25%) were having no membership in any organization, followed by 33.75 per cent
of respondents were having membership in one organization, whereas 23.75 per cent
of respondents having membership in two organizations and only 6.25 per cent of the
respondents having membership in more than two organizations.
Patel (2006) reported that, two- fifth (40.00 %) of the pigeon pea growers had
membership in one organization, followed by 33.33 per cent and 16.67 per cent had no
membership in any organization and membership in more than one organization,
respectively. Only 10.00 per cent of the respondents were office bearers in the
organization.
Kumar et al. (2010) revealed that, 20 per cent of the respondents were the
members of social organization like Panchayati Raj institutions and village education
committee.
Lakra (2011) showed that, the most of the respondents (40.00%) had no social
participation, while only 28.76 per cent of the respondents were member of one
organization, 23.12 per cent of the respondents were in the category of member of
more than one organization and 8.12 per cent of the respondents were office bearers of
the organization.
Shori (2011) indicated that, the majority of respondents (80.00%) had no
membership in any organization, followed by 19.38 per cent of respondents were
8
having membership in one or more than one organization and only very few (0.62%)
of the respondents belonged to executive/office bearer category.
Singh (2013) concluded that, the majority of respondents (78.90%) had no
membership in any organization, followed by 14.06 per cent of respondents belonged
to executive/office bearer category and only very few (7.04%) of the respondents were
having membership in one or more than one organization.
Kumar et al (2013) observed that, majority of respondents had low (64.44)
level of social participation followed by medium (24.44%) and high level (11.11) of
social participation.
Rai (2014) concluded that, the majority of the respondents had no membership
in any organization.
2.1.4 Size of land holding
Raghuwanshi (2005) indicated that, maximum number of the respondents
(28.75%) had small size (1.1 to 2.0 ha), of land holding, followed by 27.50 per cent
had semi- medium (2.1 to 4.0 ha), whereas, 21.87 per cent of the respondents were
having medium size of land holding (4.1 to 10 ha), while 13.75 per cent of the
respondents belonged to marginal (up to 1.0 ha) size of land holding. However, 8.13
per cent of the respondents having large size of land holding (10.1 ha and above).
Shrivastava (2005) found that, majority of the respondents (41.25%) had
medium size of land holding (4.01 to 10 ha), followed by 35.00 per cent of the
respondents had semi-medium size of land holding (2.01 to 4.00 ha). About 13.75 per
cent of the respondents had small size of land holding (1.1 to 2.0 ha), whereas 9.37 per
cent of the respondents had large size of land holdings (above 10.00 ha).
Lakra (2011) indicated that, 49.37 per cent of the selected hybrid rice growers
had 2.1 to 4 ha of land holdings (medium land holdings), followed by 33.12 per cent
of the respondents had 1.1 to 2 ha of land holdings (small land holdings), 15.62 per
cent had more than 4 ha land holdings (large land holdings) and only 1.89 per cent of
the respondents had less than 1 ha of land holdings (marginal land holdings).
Shriwas (2011) found that, the maximum number of respondents (50.85%) had
small size of land holding (1.1 to 2 ha), followed by 26.66 per cent of the respondents
9
belonged under medium size of land holding (2.1 to 4.0 ha), 13.33 per cent of the
respondents were found in marginal size of land holding (up to 1 ha) and only 09.16
per cent of the respondents were found in large size of the land holding (above 4.0 ha)
category.
Shori (2011) revealed that, the maximum number of the respondents (31.25%)
had medium size of land holding (2.1 to 4.0 ha), followed by 28.76 per cent
respondents who belonged to small size of land holding (1.0 to 2.0 ha), whereas 23.12
per cent of the respondents were having marginal size of land holdings (up to 1.0 ha)
however only 16.87 per cent respondents belonged to large size of land holding
category (above 10.0 ha).
Sarthi (2013) found that, the majority of the Farmers Field School trained
farmers (51.66%) were having medium size of land holding (5.1 to 10 acre), followed
by 21.66 per cent belonged under small size of land holdings (having 2.51 to 5 acre),
18.34 per cent had marginal category of Farmers Field School trained farmers (having
up to 2.50 acre land holdings), 8.34 per cent were big farmers (above 10 acre) and no
Farmers Field School trained farmers were under the land less category.
2.1.5 Occupation
Kumar et al. (2010) observed that, Agriculture constituted the primary
occupation of 62 per cent of respondents.
Singh (2013) indicated that, maximum number of the respondents (50.78%)
were involved in agriculture +animal husbandry, followed by agriculture + labour
work (14.06%), agriculture + animal husbandry + service (10.16%), agriculture
(9.37%), agriculture + business (6.25%), agriculture + other (5.47%) and agriculture +
Service (3.91%).
Sarthi (2013) showed that, the majority (43.33%) of the Farmers Field School
trained farmers were involved in agriculture, followed by 23.33 per cent in agriculture
and labor, while 15.00 per cent of Farmers Field School trained farmers were involved
in agriculture and animal husbandry, 10 per cent had adopted agriculture and
horticulture, 6.67 per cent were involved in agriculture and business and only 1.67 per
cent of Farmers Field School trained farmers were involved in other occupation .
10
Kumar et al. (2013) observed that, the respondents were normally distributed
having agriculture as their main occupation (95.5%) while remaining having
subsidiary occupation (4.5%). This might be due to agriculture is the only enterprise in
the village which is source of their livelihood.
Upadhayay et al. (2014) revealed that, Exactly half of the (50.00%) of the
respondents had farming as their occupation being adopted as traditional occupation,
followed by farming+ animal husbandry (30.00%), farming+ animal husbandry +
business (15.00%) and very few were observed to have farming+ animal husbandry +
business + Service/ labour
2.1.6 Annual Income
Shrivastava (2005) found that, 68.12 per cent of the respondents were having
their annual income up to Rs.60,001 and above, followed by 25.00 per cent
respondents were having their annual income up to Rs.30,001 to 60,000 only 6.88 per
cent of the respondents were under the category of very low income group i.e. up to
Rs.30,000 annually.
Raghuwanshi (2005) found that, 37.50 per cent respondents were having their
annual income of Rs. between 60,001 and above, followed by 31.88 per cent
respondents were having their annual income up to Rs. 30,001 to 60,000. whereas,
30.62 per cent respondents were having their annual income up to Rs.30000 annually.
Shori (2011) found that, majority of the respondents (87.50%) were having
their annual income between Rs. 23001 to Rs. 173000, followed by 0.62 per cent of
respondents were having their annual income below Rs 23000. whereas, 11.88 per
cent of respondents were having their annual income above Rs 173000.
Narbaria (2013) noticed that the higher percentage of the respondents (52.39%)
were having their income in the range of Rs. 1, 00001 to Rs. 2, 00000, followed by
20.63 per cent of respondents had their annual income in the range between Rs. 2,
00001 to Rs. 4, 00000, while 15.08 per cent of the respondents had obtained income
up to 1, 00000 and only 11.90 per cent of respondents had very high income above Rs.
400000.
11
Sarthi (2013) indicated that, the majority of the Farmers Field School trained
farmers belonged to Rs. 30,001 to Rs. 50,000 (High category) annual income group as
compare to FFS untrained farmers earned Rs. 20,001 to Rs. 30,000 (Medium category)
2.1.7 Credit aquistion
Shriwas (2011) revealed that, the majority of the respondents (87.50%) had not
acquired the credit, whereas only 12.50 per cent respondents had acquired the credit.
Out of the credit acquiring respondents (total 15) the majority of the respondents
(60.00%) had taken the short term credit, followed by 40.00 per cent of the
respondents who had taken medium term credit, whereas none of the respondents had
taken long term credit.
Shori (2011) found that, 70.62 per cent of the respondents had taken loan from
co-operative society, followed by 24.37 per cent of the respondents had taken loan
from regional rural bank, 6.25 per cent of the respondents had taken loan from
nationalised bank, whereas, 5.00 per cent of the respondents had taken loan from
relative and only 4.37 per cent of the respondents had taken loan from money lenders.
Sahu (2013) showed that, the majority of the DIF (70.32%) acquired short term
credit, followed by 26.56 per cent DIF did not acquire credit, 3.12 per cent DIF had
taken medium term loan, whereas, the majority of (92.12%) non-DIF acquired short
term credit, followed by 7.8 per cent non-DIF did not acquired any credit.
Narbaria (2013) observed that, the majority of respondents (93.65%) had
acquired credit for rice cultivation and only 6.35 per cent of respondents had not
acquired credits. Out of total credit acquired respondents, the majority of the
respondents (97.46%) had taken credit from cooperative society and only 2.54 per cent
of respondents took credit from nationalized bank.
2.1.8 Contact with extension agencies
Chandra and Reddy (2002) observed that, there was positive and significant
relationship between extension contact and tele-viewing behaviour.
Padekar (2004) reported that, majority of the respondents (62.50%) had
medium level of extension contact followed by 21.26 per cent of the respondents had
12
high level of extension contact and 16.24 per cent of the respondent had low level of
extension contacts.
Vathsala (2005) revealed that, 51.1 per cent of the respondents had medium
level of extension contacts followed by 27.8 percent with high level of extension
contact and 21.1 per cent of the respondents had low extension contact.
Raghuwanshi (2005) indicated that, more than half of the respondents
(59.38%) had medium level of extension contacts; followed by 21.87 per cent
respondents had low level of extension contacts while only 18.75 per cent respondents
had high level of extension contacts.
Shrivastava (2005) indicated that, majority of the respondents 71.25 per cent
had medium level of extension contacts, followed by 21.88 per cent of the respondents
had low level of extension contacts and 6.87 per cent of the respondents had high level
of extension contacts.
Patel (2006) revealed that, majority (75.00 %) of the respondents were having
medium extension contacts, followed low (14.17 %) and high (10.83 %) levels of
extension contacts.
2.1.9 Sources of information
Raghuwanshi (2005) revealed that majority of the respondents (59.30%)
utilized medium level of information sources; followed by 23.12 per cent respondents
utilized low level of information sources, while 17.50 per cent respondents did utilize
high level of sources of information.
Shrivastava (2005) observed that, 63.75 per cent of the respondents were
having medium degree of source of information, followed by 20.00 per cent of the
respondents were with high degree and 16.25 per cent of the respondents belonged to
low degree of source of information.
Lakra (2011) observed that, out of all the selected i.e. 160 respondents
majority farmers (58.75%) viewed television on all days, followed by 10.00 per cent
twice a week, 8.75 per cent once in a week, 6.25 per cent once in a fortnight, 6.25 per
cent once in a month, 5.00 per cent thrice in a week, as much as 5 per cent of the
respondent rarely viewed television. Television established a potent channel for
13
disseminating information to a large number of farmers simultaneously and quickly.
Owing to medium level of literacy prevalent in Surguja district, television forms a
credible a medium for transferring new and improved agricultural technology among
farmers in Surguja district.
Shori (2011) concluded that, majority of the respondents (60.00%) had
medium level of exposure to various sources of information for getting the
information about control measure practices of various weeds of rice crop, followed
by 35.00 per cent of the respondents were found to have low level and 5.00 per cent of
the respondents were found to have high level of exposure regarding use of sources of
information.
Rai (2014) indicated that, maximum number 64.17 per cent of the respondents
had medium level of overall utilization sources of information, followed by 20.83 per
cent of the respondents who had high level of overall utilization sources of
information, while only 15 per cent of the respondents had low level of overall
utilization sources of information regarding recommended management practices of
key insect pests of brinjal and tomato crops by the brinjal and tomato growers
2.1.10 Level of knowledge
Nithyashree and Angadi (2001) indicated that, 58 per cent of the respondents
had low knowledge level of IPM practices of cotton crop while 34 per cent of them
had medium knowledge about the IPM practices. The overall mean knowledge score
was found to be 8.5.
Vathsala (2005) revealed that, 26.67 per cent of the vegetable growers had
higher knowledge level with respect to IPM practices. Nearly 48.89 per cent of the
respondents had medium level of knowledge and only 24.44 per cent of the
respondents had low knowledge level with respect to IPM practices on cabbage.
Raghuwanshi (2005) observed that, majority of the respondents (57.50%) had
medium level of knowledge regarding control measures of various insect pests in rice
crop. followed by 24.38 per cent of respondents had high level of knowledge, while
only 18.12 per cent of the respondents were having low level of knowledge regarding
control measures of various insect pests in rice crop.
14
Shrivastava (2005) indicated that, majority of the respondents (60.00%)
belonged to medium category of knowledge level regarding various diseases of rice
crop; it was followed by 26.25 per cent of respondents who had low level of
knowledge. Only 13.75 per cent of the respondents were having high level of
knowledge regarding various diseases of rice crop. The farmers in general, were thus
found to be meagre in possession of knowledge about use of control measures of
various practices of rice disease. It indicated that there is a wide scope to improve the
knowledge of farmers about control measure practices of various rice diseases.
Patel (2006) reported that, slightly more than three- fifth (62.40 %) of the
pigeon pea growers were found with medium level of knowledge about recommended
IPM technology in pigeon pea, while nearly equal number (19.6% and 18.00 %) of
pigeon pea growers had high and low levels of knowledge, respectively.
Raghavendra et al. (2006) revealed that, a majority of the respondents
(70.66%) had medium knowledge level about cultivation practices, followed by low
(18%) and high (11.34%) levels of categories, respectively.
Tripathi et al. (2006) showed that, majority of the respondents (67%) were
found possess medium level of knowledge followed by 19 per cent and 14 per cent
respondents had low and high levels of knowledge respectively.
Chandranna et al. (2009) revealed that, 49 per cent of the groundnut growers
had medium level knowledge where as 26.50 per cent had high knowledge followed
by 24.50 per cent had low knowledge with respect to integrated pest Management
(IPM) practices in groundnut crop.
Rajpoot (2011) indicated that, out of 57 soybean growers had low knowledge
level, 73.67 per cent had low adoption level, 17.55 per cent had medium and 08.78 per
cent had high adoption level, whereas out of 42 soybean growers who had medium
knowledge level, 11.90 per cent had low, 71.72 per cent had medium and 16.68 per
cent had high adoption of integrated pest management practices. Similarly, in case of
21 soybean growers who had high knowledge level, 28.58 per cent had low adoption
of IPM practices, 23.80 per cent had medium and 47.62 per cent had high adoption of
integrated pest management practices.
15
Shori (2011) indicated that, the majority of respondents (78.12%) had
medium level of knowledge regarding adoption of control measure practices of
various weeds of rice crop, whereas, 14.37 and 7.51 per cent of the respondents were
having low and high level of knowledge, respectively.
Singh (2013) indicated that, out of total respondents majority (56.25%) of
them had medium level of knowledge regarding control measure practices of
Parthenium weed, whereas, 35.93 and 7.82per cent of the respondents were having
high and low level of knowledge, respectively.
Sarthi (2013) concluded that, majority 91.66 per cent of Farmers Field School
trained farmers had full knowledge about the recommended soil treatment/summer
ploughing and majority 70.00 per cent of Farmers Field School untrained farmers had
full knowledge about the recommended soil treatment/summer ploughing in Integrated
Pest Management.
Upadhayay et al. (2014) depicted that, that nearly 61.67 per cent of the farmers
had medium level of knowledge about integrated pest management practices, followed
by low level of knowledge (25.00%), whereas 13.33 per cent of respondents have high
level of knowledge.
2.1.11 Scientific oriention
Nithyashree and Angadi (2001) indicated that, majority of the respondents had
obtained high scientific orientation score with 30 per cent of the respondents coming
in the score group 7-8 and 40 per cent of the respondents coming in the score group 9-
10 while only 13 per cent of the had low scientific orientation.
Shrivastava (2005) revealed that, 65.63 per cent of the respondents had
medium level of scientific orientation, followed by 19.37 per cent of respondents had
low level of scientific orientation, while 15.00 per cent respondents belonged to high
level of scientific orientation category regarding control measure practices of various
rice diseases.
Patel (2006) indicated that, slightly more than half (51.60 per cent) of the
pigeon pea growers had medium scientific orientation, followed by 32.80 per cent and
15.60 per cent of them had high and low scientific orientation, respectively.
16
Shori (2011) showed that, majority of the respondents (76.87%) had medium
level of Scientific–orientation, followed by 16.26 per cent of the respondents had low
level of scientific–orientation, while, 6.87 per cent of respondents had high level of
scientific-orientation regarding adoption of control measure practices of various weeds
of rice crop. It can be concluded that majority of the respondents came under the
medium level of scientific–orientation category.
Lakra (2011) showed that, majority of the respondents (73.75%) had medium
level of scientific–orientation, followed by 20.00 per cent of the respondents had high
level of scientific–orientation while only 6.25 per cent of respondents had low level of
scientific–orientation.
Shriwas (2011) revealed that, the majority of the respondents (84.17%) had
medium level of scientific orientation, followed by 10.00 per cent had low level of
scientific orientation while, 05.83 per cent of respondents had high level of scientific
orientation regarding brinjal production technology.
Rajpoot (2011) revealed that out of total soybean growers, 40.00 per cent had
low scientific orientation, followed by 30.84 per cent had medium and 29.16 per cent
had high scientific orientation towards IPM practices.
Singh (2013) showed that, majority of the respondents (75.00%) had medium
level of Scientific–orientation, followed by 16.41 per cent of the respondents who had
low level of scientific–orientation, while, 8.59 per cent of respondents had high level
of scientific-orientation regarding adoption of control measure practices of Parthenium
weed.
Rai (2014) indicated that out, of the total respondent, 80.00 per cent had
medium level of scientific orientation, whereas 13.33 per cent had low and only 6.67
per cent respondent were found in high scientific orientation.
2.2 Extent of adoption
Vathsala (2005) revealed that, majority of the respondents (60.00%) were
high adopters, 28.9 per cent of the respondents were medium adopters and 11.1 per
cent of the respondents were low adopters of integrated pest management practices in
cabbage.
17
Shrivastava (2005) found that, majority of the respondents (63.75%) had
medium level of adoption regarding control measure practices of various rice diseases,
whereas 18.13 per cent and 18.12 per cent of the respondents had low and high level
of adoptions, respectively.
Raghuwanshi (2005) observed that, the highest numbers of respondents
(63.75 per cent) were having medium level of adoption regarding control measures of
various insect pests in rice crop, followed by low level of adoption category which
comprised of 20.00 per cent respondents, while only 16.25 per cent of the respondents
were found in high level of adoption category.
Patel (2006) revealed that, more than half (56.00 per cent) of the pigeon pea
growers had medium level of adoption, followed by low and high level of adoption
with 24.00 and 20.00 per cent of the pigeon pea growers, respectively.
Reddy (2006) indicated that, 59.17 per cent of farmers were noticed in
medium adopter group of IPM practices of cabbage crop. whereas 15.00 per cent of
them farmers were noticed in high adoption category only.
Gandhi et al. (2008) observed that, 34.67 percent of farmers were under low
adopter group of IPM practices of tomato crop with mean score of 17.3 whereas 42
per cent of farmers were under medium adopters group with mean score of 19.2.
However, only 23.33 per cent of the respondents were of high adopter category with
mean score of 21.04.
Dadheech et al. (2009) revealed that, 103 (51.50 per cent) respondents had
medium level of adoption about recommended pod borer management practices.
Whereas, 36 (18.00 per cent) of them observed in high adoption level and remaining
61 (30.50 per cent) of the total had low adoption level regarding pod borer
management practices in gram.
Shori (2011) found that, the majority of respondents (71.25%) had medium
level of adoption about control measure practices of various weeds of rice crop,
whereas 16.25 and 12.50 per cent of them had low and high level of adoption
respectively.
18
Rajpoot (2011) showed that out of total soybean growers, 41.17 per cent had
low adoption level, followed by 37.50 per cent had medium and only 18.33 per cent
had high adoption level of integrated pest management practices.
Dayaram et al. (2012) indicated that, 60 per cent respondents had medium
level of adoption of IPM practices while equal per cent of respondents (20%) had high
and low level of adoption, respectively.
Rai (2014) concluded that, maximum number of the respondents 66.67 per
cent showed medium level of adoption regarding management practices of key insect-
pests of brinjal and tomato crops. Whereas 10.00 per cent of the respondents reported
high level of adoption. Medium to high adoption may be due to the fact that the
respondents were educated, belonged to higher income group and better utilization of
information sources and better orientation towards scientific technologies etc.
2.3 Constraints
Sharma et al. (2003) revealed that, the majority of farmers were medium aged
(41.67%). Majority of the respondents were having medium family size (58.34%),
resided in nuclear family system (66.67%) and belonged to small and medium
category (40.00 and 30.00%,respectively) of farmland. They also observed that, lack
of knowledge and non-availability of chemicals at proper time were reported as major
constraints with 74 .67 and 69, 80 MPS, respectively for the insect pest management
in chickpea growers.
Vathsala (2005) revealed that, non-availability of IPM materials, lack of
technical guidance, non-availability of bio-pesticides, non-availability of pheromone
traps, non-availability of NPV, lack of knowledge about trap crop system, price
fluctuation, high cost of labour, lack of subsidy, lack of labour and lack of interest by
the farmers about IPM were the constraints faced by the farmers.
Kumari (2012) revealed that, the respondents were facing number of
constraints that restricted their action towards adoption of IPM practices. Lack of
knowledge, lack of skill, the laborious and complex nature of IPM practices and non-
availability of inputs and tools of IPM were the major constraints reported by the
respondents. Small farm size and lack of information about recent pest management
19
strategies, extension services, involvement of IPM experts, community participation
were also reported by respondents as the major constraints.
Sarthi (2013) revealed that, the highest percentage of respondents (85%) were
of the opinion that lack of technical knowledge regarding IPM practices were the
major constraints ranked 1st, followed by lack of co-operation among farmers for
adopting IPM (81.66) IInd, lack of proper training conducted for adopting improved
IPM practices (60.00%) IIIrd in ranked, scarcity of labour in peek period of operation
(60%) IVth in ranked, higher cost of pheromone traps ranked Vth.
Singh (2013) found that, majority of the respondents (79.56%) reported high
cost of herbicides as the most important problem, followed by lack of information
about Parthenium weed (62.50%), lack of information regarding control methods of
Parthenium weed (61.71%), lack of information regarding harmful effects of
Parthenium weed (50.78%), Lack of knowledge about appropriate doses of herbicides
(46.87%), lack of labours for weeding, herbicides application etc. (35.15%), lack of
good quality of herbicides (28.90%), high wage rate of labours for agricultural
activities (28.12%), lack of technical guidance from RAEO's and other agriculture
officers and lack of skill in preparing herbicides solution (27.34%), lack of knowledge
about appropriate selection of herbicides (24.21%), non-availability of herbicides
locally on time (23.43%), lack of money for purchasing herbicides (22.65%), lack of
weed control equipments (21.09%) and non availability of pure seed and manure
(6.25%).
Kumar et al. (2013) reported that, twenty per cent considered non availability
of bio-pesticides and fungicides as another constraint in adoption of IPM technologies.
Satya Gopal et al. (2014) indicated that, lack of knowledge was perceived as
the major constraint in adoption of IPM technologies in rice and was ranked first by
the rice farmers. Trichogramma, Pheromone traps, Light traps, Clipping of leaf tips,
dipping of nursery bundles in insecticidal solution were the major technologies being
not adopted or discontinued by the rice farmers because of Lack of proper knowledge
in those technologies. This might be due to fact that the above technologies require
more comprehension for its adoption by the farmers.
20
2.4 Suggestions
Raghuwanshi (2005) reported that, majority of the respondents (78.75%)
suggested that the facility of training should be given regarding different control
measure of various insect pests in rice crop, followed by 78.12 per cent suggested that
the proper precaution should be taken during the use of insecticides, subsidy facilities
should be increased on plant protection aspects.
Shrivastava (2005) reported that the main suggestions given by the
respondents were training should be given regarding different control measure
practices of various rice diseases, fungicides should be available at subsidized rate
locally, spurious agro-chemicals selling should be strictly banned, proper precaution
should be taken during the spraying of fungicides.
Shori (2011) observed that, weedicides should be made available at low cost
at village level which emerged as the main suggestion as reported by 75.00 per cent of
the respondents.
Singh (2013) observed that, herbicides should be available at low cost at
village level which emerged as the main suggestion as reported by 75.34 per cent of
the respondents. The other suggestions were free distribution of herbicides for
Parthenium weed control (67.96%), labour problems should be managed timely
(53.12), increase knowledge in village level about harmful effects of Parthenium weed
(50.78), training should be given to farmers regarding different control measure
practices of Parthenium weed (35.15), RAEO's and other agricultural officers should
frequently visit the villages for giving appropriate guidance to the farmers (32.03),
modern agriculture equipments should be provided for weed control and other
agricultural operations (28.12), certified seeds and fertilizer should be made available
on time at village level (23.43), good quality herbicides should be provided on time
(21.09), selling of expired herbicides etc. should be banned by admistration (15.62)
and biological weed control method should be increased for controlling the
Parthenium weed (6.25).
Sarthi (2013) revealed that, the majority of the FFS trained farmers (83.33%)
suggested that extension agent or agency should convey right information at right time
21
and technical knowledge regarding use of IPM materials like Neem Seed Kernal
Extract (NSKE) and pheromone traps etc.
2.5. Correlation coefficient
Raghuwansi (2005) concluded that out of all selected profile characteristics
correlation coefficient between age, education, caste, social participation, land
holding, occupation, annual income, source of information, extension contact, mass
media exposure, scientific orientation, knowledge, attitude, adoption were found to be
positive and highly significant at 0.01 level of probability.
Shrivastava (2005) indicated that the correlation coefficient between education,
social participation, land holding, credit facilities, source of information, knowledge,
scientific orientation and attitude were found to be positive and highly significant at
0.01 level of probability with adoption whereas, size of family, occupation, annual
income, extension contact is significant at 0.05 level of probability with adoption of
control measure practices of various rice diseases. The variables age, caste and mass
media exposure were found to be non significant in relation to adoption of control
measure practices of various rice diseases.
Shori (2011) found that the variables education, size of family, social
participation, land holding, annual income, contact with extension personnel, sources
of information, scientific orientation and knowledge were found positively and
significantly related with attitude. The significant relationship shows that when the
level of the above variables viz. education, size of family, social participation, land
holding, contact with extension personnel, sources of information, scientific
orientation and knowledge increases then the attitude of the respondents will be more
positive regarding use of control measure practices of various weeds of rice crop.
Khare et al. (2013) observed that education (0.5403), land holding (0.8800),
annual income (0.8636), extension contact (0.6992), scientific orientation (0.4191),
subscription of farm literature (0.5871), area under gram (0.8177), availability of input
(0.5065) were positively and significantly correlated with the adoption level of the
respondents. The relationship was significant at 0.01 level of probability. Age (-
0.4095) was found to be negatively and significantly related with the adoption level of
22
the respondents. However, relationship of source of information (-0.049), economic
motivation (-0.0348) and cropping pattern (0.1711) was found to be non-significant
with adoption level of respondents.
Sarthi (2013) revealed that out of 13 independent variables, 5 variables i.e. age,
education, Source of information, opinion about IPM and knowledge about IPM were
found to be positive and highly significantly correlated at 0.01 level of probability, and
4 variables i.e. land holding, annual income, contact with extension personnel and
cosmopoliteness were found to be positive and significantly correlated at 0.05 level of
probability with the adoption of Integrated Pest Management. The other variables like
experience about IPM, occupation and irrigation availability showed statistically non
significant relationship and only 1 variable i.e. family size is negatively correlated
with the adoption of Integrated Pest Management.
In case of FFS untrained farmers out of 13 independent variables only 2
variables i.e. sources of information and contact with extension personnel were found
to be positive significantly correlated at 0.05 level of probability and family size is
negatively correlated with the adoption of Integrated Pest Management. However,
remaining 10 independent variables i.e. age, education, experience about IPM,
occupation, land holding, annual income, irrigation availability, cosmopoliteness,
opinion about IPM and knowledge about IPM could not indicated any significant
relationship with the adoption of Integrated Pest Management.
Singh (2013) revealed that, the variables occupation, scientific orientation,
level of knowledge, and source of information were found positively and highly
significantly related with adoption at 0.01 per cent level of significance, whereas
education, social participation had positive and significant correlation with adoption at
0.05 per cent level of significance. The significant relationship shows that when the
level of the above variables viz. education, social participation, occupation, scientific
orientation, level of knowledge, and sources of information, increase then the adoption
of the respondents will increase.
The variable size of family and land holding were found non significantly
related with adoption.
23
Upadhyay et al. (2014) observed that out of nine characteristics studied, three
characteristics viz., education, social participation, extension participation had positive
and significant relationship with the knowledge level of farmers about IPM practices.
The probable reason is that educated farmers have greater reception power, owing to
their ability to understand, read and write than less educated farmers. As more social
and extension participation encourage them to find more knowledge regarding use of
new practices as compare to traditional methods.
Rai (2014) observed that, the variables education, credit acquisition, scientific
orientation, occurrence of key insect-pests of crops and variety were found positively
and highly significantly related with adoption at 0.05 per cent level of significance,
whereas occupation, awareness about management practices of key insect-pests of
crops and source of information had positively and significantly related with adoption
at 0.01 per cent level of significance. The significant relationship shows that when the
level of the above variables viz education, credit acquisition, scientific orientation,
occurrence of key insect-pests of crops, variety, occupation, awareness about
management practices of key insect-pests of crops and source of information increases
then the adoption of the respondents will increase.
The variable family sizes, caste, social participation, size of land holding and
annual income were found no relationship with adoption.
2.6. Multiple regression
Raghuwansi (2005) revealed that, out of 16 independent variables studied,
three viz., knowledge, attitude and adoption contributed highly significant towards the
variation in adoption behaviour of rice growers regarding control measures of various
insect pests in rice crop. As evident from the significant “t” values of these variables.
All the three variables i.e. knowledge, attitude and adoption would cause 0.933, 0.873
and 1.101 unit changes, respectively in adoption behaviour of rice growers regarding
control measures of various insect pests in rice crop.
Shrivastava (2005) revealed that out of 15 independent variables studied, six
viz education, size of family, credit facilities, knowledge, scientific orientation and
attitude contributed significantly towards the variables in adoption of the respondents
24
as evident from the significant “t” values of these variables. Educations, size of
family, credit facilities were significant at 0.05 level of significance whereas,
knowledge, scientific orientation and attitude were highly significant at 0.01 level of
significance.
Shori (2011) revealed that out of the thirteen variables two variables viz. size
of family and knowledge had positive and highly significant contribution towards the
attitude at 0.01 per cent level of significance and six variables viz. education, social
participation, land holding, annual income, sources of information and scientific
orientation had positive and significant contribution towards the attitude at 0.05 per
cent level of probability. The remaining variables age, caste, occupation, credit
acquisition and contact with extension personnel had non- significant contribution
towards attitude.
Soni (2012) revealed that, selected 13 independent variables only 8 variables
i.e. education, social participation, occupation, credit acquisition, scientific orientation,
source of information, contact with extension agencies, and knowledge about
recommend cauliflower production technology showed positive and significant
contribution in the adoption of recommended cauliflower production technology.
Remaining 5 variables caste, family size, land holding, annual income and irrigation
facility did not.
Khare et al. (2013) indicated that out of twelve variables the regression
coefficient of land holding and Extension contact were positively significant with 0.01
and 0.05 level of probability, respectively.
Sarthi (2013) revealed that, out of 13 independent variables, the 3 variables viz.
source of information, contact with extension personnel and knowledge about IPM
contributed positively and highly significantly toward adoption of IPM at 0.01 per cent
level of probability in FFS trained farmers. The 5 variables age, education, land
holding annual income and opinion about IPM contributed positively and significantly
at 0.05 per cent level of probability toward FFS trained farmers and 1 variable family
size is negatively contributed with the adoption.
25
Singh (2013) revealed that out of the eight variables under study only three
variables namely occupation, scientific orientation and knowledge had highly
significant and positive contribution towards adoption at 0.01 per cent level of
significance and one variable namely education had positive and significant
contribution towards adoption at 0.05 per cent level of significance.
26
Materials and Methods
CHAPTER - III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This chapter covers precise method and procedure followed during the course
of research work as well as preparation of manuscript. The blueprint used in carrying
out investigation has been outlined in this chapter. The bifurcation of research
methodology adopted is given under following heads:
3.1 Location of the study area
3.2 Sample and sampling procedure
3.2.1 Selection of districts
3.2.2 Selection of blocks
3.2.3 Selection of villages
3.2.4 Selection of respondents
3.2.5 Collection of data
3.2.6 Statistical methods
3.3 Variables of the study
3.3.1 Independent variables
3.3.2 Dependent variable
3.4 Operationalization of independent variables and their measurement
3.5 Operationalization of dependent variable and its measurement
3.6 Constraints faced by chickpea growers in adoption of IPM practices
3.7. Suggestions given by the chickpea growers to overcome the constraints faced by
them during adoption of IPM practices
3.8 Type of data
3.9 Developing the interview schedule
3.9.1 Validity
3.9.1 Reliability
3.10 Method of data collection
3.11 Statistical analysis
27
Fig: 3.1 Map of the study area
28
3.1 Location of the study area
Durg district is located in South Western part of Chhattisgarh state. In agro
climatic zone this district is comes under the Chhattisgarh plain zone. The location of
the Durg district is at 21° 10’ 59” North latitude and 81° 20’59” Eastern longitude.
The annual rainfall in Durg district is having 1027mm.
3.2 Sample and sampling procedure
3.2.1 Selection of districts
The study was conducted in Durg district of Chhattisgarh state during the year
2014-15. Chhattisgarh state is divided into 27 districts i.e., Sarguja, Balrampur,
Surajpur, Koria, Bilaspur, Mungeli, Korba, Jashpur, Kawardha (Kabirdham), Durg,
Balod, Bemetara, Raipur, Balodabazar, Gariyaband, Janjgir-Champa, Raigarh,
Rajnandgoan, Dhamatari, Mahasamund, Kanker, Bastar, Kondagaon, Sukma,
Dantewada, Narayanpur and Bijapur. Out of these, Durg district was selected
purposively because this district having maximum area and production of chickpea in
the state.
3.2.2 Selection of blocks
There are total three blocks in Durg district namely, Dhamdha, Durg and
Patan. All three blocks were selected for the study.
3.2.3 Selection of villages
From each selected block, 4 villages were selected purposively on the basis of
maximum coverage of area under chickpea cultivation. Thus, the total 12 villages
(Total 4x 3 = 12) were selected for the study. The details about villages selected for
the study are as follows:
Durg block- Dhaba, Anjora, Karanjabhilai, Daandeshara
Dhamda block- Litiya, Ahiwara, Chicha, Barhapur
Patan block- Pandar, Tulsi, Bathena,Changori.
29
3.2.4 Selection of respondents
Ten chickpea growers were selected randomly from each selected village.
Thus, the total 120 chickpea growers (10X12=120) were considered as respondents for
the study.
3.2.5 Collection of data
The data was collected through personal interview with the help of well
structured and pre-tested interview schedule.
3.2.6 Statistical methods
Collected data was tabulated and processed by using appropriate statistical
methods.
3.3. Variables of the Study
3.3.1. Independent variables
S.N. Independent variables
1. Education
2. Caste
3. Social participation
4. Size of land holding
5. Occupation
6. Annual income
7. Credit Acquisition
8. Contact with extension agencies
9. Sources of information
10. Level of Knowledge
11. Scientific orientation
3.3.2 Dependent variable
Adoption of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation.
30
Fig.3.2: Researcher interacting with farmer
Fig.3.3: Researcher interacting with farmer at field
31
Fig.3.4: Field of chickpea crop
Fig.3.5: Pheromone trap at chickpea field
32
3.4 Operationalization of Independent variables and their
measurement
3.4.1. Social profile of the respondents
Socio personal characteristics namely; education, caste, social participation,
size of landholding, occupation, annual income, credit acquisition, contact with
extension agencies, sources of information, level of knowledge and scientific
orientation of the chickpea growers were considered as socio profile of the
respondents. The details about the socio personal profile of the respondents are
presented as under:-
3.4.1.1. Education
It is globally established fact that education is the process of imparting or
acquiring knowledge and skill through instructions or study. Hence the level of
education obtained by the respondent may influence their social status, attitude,
knowledge and adoption level. The level of education of the respondents was decided
on the basis of scores as categorized in the following manner:
Categories Score
Illiterate 0
Primary school (1st to 5th) 1
Middle school (6th to 8th) 2
High School (9th to 10th) 3
Higher Secondary School (11th to 12th) 4
College and above 5
3.4.1.2. Caste
It refers a social category whose members are assigned a permanent status
within a given social hierarchy and whose contacts are restricted. (Lundberg, 1968). It
may influence the behavior of the respondents. It was categorized and scored as
follows:
Categories Score
Scheduled castes (SC)
Scheduled tribe (ST)
Other backward castes (OBC)
General castes (GEN)
1
2
3
4
33
3.4.1.3. Social participation
The term social participation in this study refers to the degree of involvement
of the respondents in formal/informal organizations as member or executive/office
bearer or both.
The social participation of chickpea growers may influence their adoption
behavior. Through social participation, farmer may get an opportunity for more
learning/exposure towards new ideas and may be motivated for adoption.
A social participation score was computed for each respondent on the basis of
their membership and position in various formal/informal organizations. it was
categorized by following manners:
Categories Score
No social participation
Member of only one organization
Two or more than two organization
Member-cum-office bearer
0
1
2
3
3.4.1.4. Size of land holding
The amount of land is an important indicator economic parameter to assess the
economic standing of that person in the society.
It refers to a tract of land possessed by an individual respondent for the
purpose of obtaining agricultural production. It was measured by the actual number in
hectare land owned and cultivated by them at the time of interview. it was categorized
as follows:
Categories Score
Marginal (up to 1 ha)
Small (1.1 to 2 ha)
Medium (2.1 to 4 ha)
Large (above 4.1 ha)
1
2
3
4
34
3.4.1.5. Occupation
The occupation of a person is an important indicator to determine the
economic status of that person in a society.
The occupation was the primary source of income which contributes most
towards the upkeep of the family of the respondent. It was categorized by following
manners:
Categories Score
Agriculture 1
Agriculture + animal husbandry 2
Agriculture + poultry 3
Agriculture + labour 4
Agriculture + service 5
Agriculture + others 6
3.4.1.6. Annual income
It refers total annual income from all the available sources of respondents in a
year were calculated and the respondents were categorized in the following manner:
Annual income
(Rs. in lakh)
Score
(up to 1.4) 1
(1,41 to 3) 2
(3.01 to 4 ) 3
(above 4.1 ) 4
3.4.1.7. Credit acquisition
The availability of credit needed to purchase the required inputs may influence
the extent of adoption of the farmers. The adoption of improved agricultural
technology requires more investment of capital in farming to purchase the inputs like;
fertilizers, pesticides, improved seed, implements etc. availability, period and Source
of credit were identified on the basis of farmers response and categorized as under :-
35
Categories Score
Credit availability
Not acquired
Acquired
Period of credit
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Source of credit
Co-operative
Nationalized bank
Friends/neighbours/relatives
Acquired with difficulty
Acquired easily
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3.4.1.8. Contact with extension agencies
This is operationally defined as the ―frequency with which a respondents
comes in contact with extension agencies i.e. Government Agriculture Department,
KVK, Agriculture College/University, Krishi Sewa Kendra, Kissan Call Centre” for
getting information about IPM practices of chickpea. The extent of contact was
measured by four point continuum scale viz., never, rare (once or twice in a year),
often (once or twice in a month) and regularly (once or twice in a week) with a score
of 0, 1, 2 and 3, respectively. On the basis of mean and SD, the respondents were
grouped in to three categories in the following way:
Categories Score
Low
Medium
High
up to 2 score
3 to 4 score
5 & above
3.4.1.9. Source of information
Source of information are supposed to directly associate with the adoption of
integrated pest management in chickpea cultivation. These information sources
provide various information to the respondents regarding integrated pest management
in chickpea cultivation. For assessing this variable, different 16 sources of information
36
were identified. To determine the extent of utilization of each information source, the
responses of the farmers were recorded and assessed by three point continuum scale
viz., never use, often use (once or twice in a year) and regular use (once or twice in a
week) with a score of 0, 1 and 2 respectively and presented in frequency and
percentage. The respondents were also categorized on the basis of mean and SD in to
three categories in the following way:
Categories Score
Low utilization (up to 6 scores)
Medium utilization (7 to 10 scores)
High utilization (above 10 scores)
3.4.1.10. Scientific orientation
It refers to the degree to which an individual is inclined to use scientific
method in farming and decision-making. The scientific orientation scale developed by
Supe (1975) was used for the measurement of scientific orientation of respondents.
The statements of the original scale were suitably modified to measure the
scientific orientation of respondents. The scale has six items. Out of these six items,
number 1, 3, 4, and 6 were positive items and number 2 and 5 were negative items.
The score for positive item were 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 and for negative items scores were 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5 for the response categories strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree
and strongly disagree, respectively. The sums of scores of all the six statement were
worked out. The respondents were categorized into following group:
Categories Score
Low level (up to 21 Score)
Medium (22 to 26 Score)
High level (above 26 Score)
37
3.4.1.11. Knowledge level of the respondents regarding IPM practices
Knowledge about innovation may be an important factor affecting the adoption
behavior of farmers. Bloom (1979) defined knowledge as “those behavior and best
situation which emphasized the remembering either by recognition or recall of ideas,
materials on phenomenon.” Operationally knowledge was used in this study as actual
knowledge of farmers regarding selected practices i.e. cultural practices, mechanical
practices, biological practices, and chemical practices of IPM in chickpea cultivation.
The knowledge test composed of items called questions covering
various aspects of selected IPM practices. The set of questions developed were
discussed with the subject matter specialists in different disciplines who were
members of advisory committee. A total of 20 questions were finalized.
A device based on teacher made scale was developed and used to measure the
knowledge level of farmers regarding various aspect of selected IPM practices, with
due modifications. The responses of respondents regarding knowledge were obtained
into three point continuum scale as under:
Categories Score
Nil 0
Partial 1
Complete 2
A procedure was also followed to assess the knowledge index with the help of
following equation:
O
K.I. = _____ x 100
S
Where,
KI = Knowledge index of respondent
O = Total obtained score by respondent
S = Total obtainable score
38
Further, the respondents were classified into three categories of knowledge
level on the basis of mean and S.D. as follows:
Categories Score
Low level of knowledge (< 21 score)
Medium level of knowledge (22 to 30 score)
High level of knowledge (> 30 score)
3.5 Operationalization of dependent variable and its measurement
3.5.1 Adoption of integrated pest management practices by chickpea growers
It refers to a mental process through which an individual passes from hearing
about an innovation to final adoption (Rogers, 1995).
It was operationalized as the degree of the use of recommended practices of
Integrated pest management. Extent of adoption of IPM practices in chickpea
cultivation by the respondents was assessed on the basis of responses given by
chickpea growers during personal interview by introducing a set of 18 questions
covering cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical practices of IPM on three
point continuum scale viz “nil”, “partially adopted” and “fully adopted” with the score
of 0, 1 and 2 respectively. The responses of the respondents for adoption of each
practice were recorded and further adoption index was also obtained by using
following formula:-
Sum of adoption score actually obtained by the respondents
A.I = X 100
Maximum possible adoption score obtainable by the respondents
A.I= adoption index
For assessing level of adoption of IPM practices, the respondents were
categorized on the basis of mean and S.D. as given below:
39
Categories score
Low level of adoption (< 18 score)
Medium level of adoption (18 to 23 score)
High level of adoption (> 23 score)
3.6 Constraints faced by chickpea growers in adoption of Integrated
pest management practices.
Reading (1977) defined constraints as use of forces to influence or prevent an
action on state or quantity of being compelled to do or not to do something.
Thakre (1980) defined constraint as the quality of sense of being restricted to a
given course of action or inaction. For the present study constraints refers to the
difficulties encountered by chickpea growers in use of IPM practices for crop
cultivation.
Efforts were made to identify the constraints faced by the respondents
pertaining to use of IPM practices. The respondents were asked to indicate the
difficulties they have faced. Regarding the various aspects connected with the use of
IPM practices such as cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical practices. The
difficulties reported by the respondents were listed out and frequencies and percentage
to each were worked out and ranked.
3.7. Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome the
constraints faced by them during adoption of IPM practices.
Considering the constraints faced by the chickpea growers in adoption of IPM
practices, and to overcome the same, the respondents were asked to give their valuable
suggestions. The suggestions offered were summed and converted into percentage and
then ranked on the basis of number and percentage of respondents who reported for
the respective suggestions.
3.8. Types of data
The data pertaining to selected characteristics about social profile, knowledge
level, adoption, constraints perceived in terms of adoption and suggestions of
40
respondents were collected as per objectives of the study as primary data. The official
information and records were also consulted from the concerning departments as
secondary data.
3.9. Developing the interview schedule
The interview schedule was designed on the basis of objectives and
independent and dependent variables in the present investigation. To facilitate the
respondents, the interview schedule was framed in “Hindi”. Each question was
thoroughly examined and discussed with the experts before presenting the interview
schedule. Adequate precautions and care were taken into consideration to formulate
the questions in a manner that they were well understood by the respondents and
would find it easier to respond.
The prepared interview schedule was used in the study area for collecting the
data. On the basis of experience gained in pre-testing, the necessary modifications and
suggestions were incorporated before giving a final touch to interview schedule.
3.9.1. Validity
Validity refers to “the degree to which the data collection instruments
measures what it is supposed to measure rather than something else”. Taking the
following steps validity of interview schedule used for this study was maximized:
1. The interview schedule was thoroughly discussed with the scientists and their
suggestions were incorporated.
2. Pre-testing of interview schedule provided an additional check for improving the
instruments.
3. The relevancy of each question in terms of objectives of study, logical order and
wording of each question were checked carefully.
3.9.2 Reliability
Reliability of an interview schedule refers to “its consistency or stability in
obtaining information from respondents”.
The test-retest method of estimating reliability of an interview schedule was
followed in this study. Twenty respondents of the study area were randomly selected
41
and were re-interviewed after 2 to 3 weeks using the same interview schedule
followed at the time of first interview. Since same responses were observed, the
reliability of the interview schedule was ensured.
3.10. Method of data collection
Respondents were interviewed through personal interview. Prior to interview,
respondents were taken into confidence by revealing the actual purpose of the study
and also full care was taken to develop good rapport with them. They were assured
that the information given by them would be kept confidential. The interview was
conducted in the most formal and friendly atmosphere without any complications.
3.11. Statistical analysis
The data collected during the course of investigation was tabulated into the
coding sheet and then appropriate analysis of data was made according to objectives as
suggested by Cochran and Cox (1957). The statistics applied were percentage,
frequency, ranking, mean, standard deviation, coefficient of correlation, multiple
regression etc. the analysis was carried out with help of Computer Section of IGKV,
Raipur.
3.11.1 Frequency and percentage
Frequency and percentage were used for making simple comparison.
3.11.2 Mean and standard deviation
(i) Mean
Mean of sample was calculated by using the following formula:
x
X =
n Where,
x = Mean of the variable
x = Sum of score (observation) of variable
n = Total number of respondents
42
(ii) Standard deviation
Standard deviation was calculated by using following formula:
SD =
21 ( )
( 1)
x
n
Where,
SD = Standard deviation
x = Deviation obtained from mean
n = Number of observations
3.11.3 Pearson’s coefficient of correlation
This technique was used to find out the relationship between two variables.
The formula used was as follows:
2 2 2 2r
( ) ( )
n xy x y
n x x n y y
Where,
r = Correlation coefficient
x = Score of independent variable
y = Score of dependent variable
n = Number of observation
3.11.4 Multiple regressions
This technique was used to know the partial and complete influence of
independent variables. For the present study linear model of regression equation was
used which is as follows:
43
Y1 = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + ………. + bnxn
Where,
Y1 = Dependent variable
x1…xn = Independent variables
a = Constant value
b1…bn = the regression coefficient for respective independent variables
44
Results and Discussion
CHAPTER – IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the results obtained from various aspects of the study
and supported with suitable discussion on each findings. The data was collected
through the personnel interview on the basis of objectives of the study. The data
collected was classified, tabulated, analyzed, presented, interpreteted and discussed
systematically. The findings of the study are presented and discussed under the
following heads:
4.1 Independent variables
4.1.1 Social profile of the respondents
4.2 Dependent variable
4.2.1 Adoption of IPM practices by chickpea growers
4.3 Correlation coefficient analysis of independent variables with adoption of IPM
practices of chickpea
4.4 Multiple regression analysis of independent variables with adoption of IPM
practices of chickpea
4.5 Constraints faced by the chickpea growers in adoption of IPM practices
4.6 Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome the constraints faced by them
during adoption of IPM practices
4.1 Independent variables
4.1.1 Social profile of the respondents
Socio personal characteristics of the chickpea growers like education, caste,
social participation, occupation, size of landholding, annual income, credit acquisition,
source of information, contact with extension agencies, scientific orientation and
knowledge about IPM practices of chickpea were considered as social profile of the
respondents. These characteristics were analyzed and presented as given below:
45
4.1.1.1 Education
Regarding education level, the data (table.4.1 and fig 4.1) shows that, most of
the respondents (50.84%) had higher secondary level of education, followed by 25.00
per cent of the respondents were having high school level of education and 15.00 per
cent had graduation and above level of education. However, very low percentages of
the respondents were observed in case of middle school level (6.66%), primary level
(1.66 %) of education and only 0.84 per cent respondents were illiterate.
Table: 4.1: Distribution of the respondents according to their level of education:
(n=120) Sl.
No.
Education level Frequency Percentage
1 Illiterate 1 0.84
2 Primary 2 1.66
3 Middle 8 6.66
4 High school 30 25.00
5 Higher secondary 61 50.84
6 Graduate and above 18 15.00
This finding reveals that, the maximum respondents were found educated up to
higher secondary level (50.84%) due to the highest position of Durg district in C.G as
far as literacy status is concerned.
The finding is supported by Shrivastava (2005) and Sarthi (2013) who were
reported that maximum respondents having education up to higher secondary level.
4.1.1.2 Caste
In case of caste of the respondents, the data given in table.4.2 and fig4.2 shows
that, majority of the respondents (89.16%) were belonged to other backward class,
followed by 7.50 per cent schedule caste, 2.50 per cent of the respondents were
belonging to general caste and only 0.84 per cent of the respondents were scheduled
tribes.
46
0.84% 1.66%
6.66%
25%
50.84%
15%
Education level
Illiterate
Primary
Middle
High school
Higher secondary
Graduate and above
0.84%
7.50%
89.16%
2.50%
Caste
Schedule Tribe
Schedule caste
Other backward class
General
Fig: 4.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their level of education
Fig: 4.2 Distribution of the respondents according to their caste
47
Table: 4.2: Distribution of the respondents according to their caste:
(n=120)
Sl.
No.
Caste Frequency Percentage
1 Schedule caste 09 7.50
2 Schedule Tribe 01 0.84
3 Other backward class 107 89.16
4 General 03 2.50
These findings are similar to Shori (2011), Soni (2012) and Rai (2014), who
reported that majority of the respondents, belonged to other backward class.
4.1.1.3 Social participation
Table: 4.3: Distribution of the respondents according to their social participation:
(n=120)
Social participation gives an idea about the respondent’s participation in social
activities. In these findings social participation shows (table.4.3 and fig 4.3) that
majority of the respondents (71.65%) had no membership in any organization,
followed by 21.65 per cent of the respondents having membership in one organization,
4.15 per cent of the respondents having membership in two or more organization,
however only 2.55 per cent of the respondents had member cum office bearer
category.
whereas, Social participation is indicated as an important parameter in the
formation of favourable attitude towards adoption of IPM practices of chickpea.
Hence the extension workers should be motivated, encouraged and aware the farmers
to involve themselves actively in rural development activities i.e. village development
through Gram Panchayat, Kisan Club, Yuva Mandal, Rural Cultural Clubs, Mahila
Mandal, School Janbhagidari Samiti, Cooperative Society and other Samities etc.
Sl.
No.
Social participation Frequency Percentage
1 No Membership 86 71.65
2 Membership in one
organization
26 21.65
3 Membership in two or more
organization
05 4.15
4 Member cum office bearer 03 2.55
48
71.65
21.65
4.15 2.550
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No participation Membership in one organization
Membership in two or more organization
Member cum office bearer
Axi
s Ti
tle
social participation
Percentage
10.84%
10.84%
44.16%
34.16%
Marginal (less than 1 ha)
Small (1.1 to 2 ha)
Medium (2.1 to 4 ha)
Large (above 4 ha)
Size of land holdings
Fig: 4.3: Distribution of the respondents according to their social participation
Fig: 4.4 Distribution of the respondents according to their size of land holding
49
It can be concluded that the majority of the respondents had no membership in
any organization (Fig. 4.3). Because maximum respondents had large size of land
holdings and they were busy in all season in cultivating crops and some respondents
are in service and other occupation. This finding is similar to Shori (2011), Singh
(2013) and Rai (2014) who reported that maximum no. of respondents had no
membership in any organization.
4.1.1.4 Size of Land holding
The data incorporated in Table 4.4 shows that, out of 120 respondents, most of
the respondents (44.16%) had large land holding (above 4 ha.), followed by 34.16 per
cent respondents had medium land holding size (2.1 to 4 ha.), 10.84 per cent
respondents were having small land holding (1.1 to 2 ha.) and only 10.84 per cent
came under the category of marginal farmers (up to 1 ha.) Fig-4.4.
Table: 4.4: Distribution of the respondents according to their size of landholding:
(n=120) Sl.
No.
Size of landholding Frequency Percentage
1
Marginal (up to 1 ha) 13 10.84
2
Small (1.1 to 2 ha) 13 10.84
3
Medium (2.1 to 4 ha) 41 34.16
4 Large (above 4.1 ha) 53 44.16
These finding related to medium level of land holding size was similar to
Shrivastava (2005) and Shori (2011) revealed that, the maximum number of the
respondents (31.25%) had medium size of land holding.
4.1.1.5 Occupation
Regarding the occupation, Table 4.5. indicates that, maximum number of the
respondents (60.00%) were involved in agriculture, followed by 15.84 per cent
involved in agriculture + others (shops and business), 7.50% per cent in agriculture +
service, 6.66 per cent in agriculture + labour, and also involved in agriculture +
poultry, 3.34 per cent in agriculture + animal husbandry. (Fig.4.5.)
50
Table: 4.5: Distribution of the respondents according to their occupation:
(n=120)
Sl.
No.
Occupation Frequency Percentage
1 Agriculture 72 60.00
2 Agriculture + animal husbandry 04 3.34
3 Agriculture + poultry 08 6.66
4 Agriculture + labour 08 6.66
5 Agriculture + service 09 7.50
6 Agriculture + others 19 15.84
On the basis of results about occupation of the respondents, it can be
concluded that, maximum number of the respondents were involved in agriculture.
These results were similar to Kumar et al. (2010), Sarthi (2013), Kumar et al. (2013)
and Upadhayay et al. (2014).
4.1.1.6 Annual income
Annual income of family helps to project the overall economic position and it
is an indicator of the economic stability of the family. The distribution of the
respondents according to their annual income is presented in Table 4.6.and Fig-4.6.
Table: 4.6 Distribution of the respondents according to their annual income:
(n=120)
Sl.
No.
Annual income
(₹ in lac)
Frequency Percentage
1 Up to 1.4 65 54.16
2 1.41 to 3.0 46 38.34
3 3.01 to 4.0 05 4.16
4 Above 4.01 04 3.34
Table 4.6 shows that, most of the respondents (54.16%) were having annual
income up to Rs 1.4 lakh, followed by 38.34 per cent were in the annual income
category of Rs 1.41 to 3.0 lakh, whereas, 4.16 per cent respondents found in category
of Rs 3.01 to 4.0 lakh and 3.34 per cent were in the category of annual income above
Rs 4.01 lakh.
The finding of annual income was found similar to Shori (2011) and Narbaria
(2013).
51
60
3.346.66 6.66 7.5
15.84
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Agriculture Agriculture
+ animal
husbandry
Agriculture
+ poultry
Agriculture
+ labour
Agriculture
+ service
Agriculture
+ others
Occupation
Percentage
54.16%
38.34%
4.16% 3.34%annual income
Up to 140000
140001 to 300000
300001 to 400000
400001 to above
Fig:4.5 Distribution of the respondents according to their occupation
Fig: 4.6 Distribution of the respondents according to their annual income
52
4.1.1.7 Credit acquisition
The findings regarding credit acquisition are presented as availability of credit
in the Table 4.7. It is clear that, the maximum no. of respondents (54.16%) had not
acquired the credit for chickpea production while, 45.84 per cent of respondents had
acquired the credit for chickpea cultivation.
Table: 4.7: Distribution of the respondents according to their credit acquisition:
(n=120)
Sl.
No.
Credit acquisition Frequency Percentage
Credit availability
1
2
Acquired
Not acquired
55
65
45.84
54.16
Duration of credit (n=55)
1
2
3
Short term
Mid -term
Long term
47
3
5
85.45
5.45
9.10
Source of credit (n=55)
1
2
4
Co-operative society
Nationalized bank
Friends/neighbors/ relatives
50
03
02
90.90
5.45
3.65
Availability of credit (n=55)
1
2
Easy
Difficult
47
08
85.45
14.55
*Data based on multiple responses
As regards to duration of credit, the maximum respondents (85.45%) had
taken credit short term and only 9.10 per cent of respondents had taken credit for long
term of duration and 5.45 per cent of respondents had taken credit for mid-term
duration.
Out of total credit acquiring respondents, the majority of them (90.90%) had
taken credit from cooperative societies, followed by 5.45 per cent of respondents had
taken credit from nationalized bank and 3.65 per cent of the respondents had taken
credit from friends/neighbours/relatives for the purpose like seed, fertilizer, pesticides,
machinery etc.
53
As far as the availability of the credit is concerned, most of the respondents
(85.45%) had got the credit easily whereas 14.55 per cent respondents felt some
difficulties in getting the credit facilities.
These finding is also reported by Shriwas (2011).
4.1.1.8 Contact with extension agencies
The data regarding contact with extension agencies is presented in Table 4.8. It
shows that, 77.50 per cent of the respondents made contacts rarely with Government
Agriculture Department, followed by 7.50 per cent of them had contact often and 6.66
per cent of the respondents had regular contacts with Government Agriculture
Table: 4.8: Distribution of the respondents according to their extent of contact with
extension agencies:
(n=120)
Sl.
No.
Extension agencies Never Rarely Often Regular
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
1 Govt. Agriculture
Deptt.
10
(8.34)
93
(77.50)
09
(7.50)
08
(6.66)
2 KVK 69
(57.50)
49
(40.84)
02
(1.66)
00
(0.0)
3 Agricultural
college/university
96
(80.00)
21
(17.50)
03
(2.50)
00
(0.0)
4 Krishi Sewa Kendra 33
(27.50)
86
(71.66)
01
(0.84)
00
(0.0)
5 Kisan Call Center 67
(55.84)
36
(30.00)
17
(14.16)
00
(0.0)
F*=frequency %=percentage
Department however, 8.34 per cent of the respondents never made contact with
Government Agriculture Department. (Fig-4.7)
As regards to KVK, 57.50 per cent of the respondents reported no contact with
KVK staff, while 40.84 per cent of them rarely contacted with KVK staff, 1.66 per
cent of the respondents often made contacts with KVK staff.
As regards to college/university, 80.00 per cent of the respondents did never
make contact with college/university, followed by 17.50 per cent of the respondents
54
rarely made contacts with college/university, 2.50 per cent of the respondents often
made contacts with college/university.
As regards to Krishi Sewa Kendra, 71.66 per cent of the respondents rarely
contacted with Krishi Sewa Kendra, followed by 27.50 per cent of the respondents
never made contact with Krishi Sewa Kendra, 0.84 per cent of the respondent often
made contact with Krishi Sewa Kendra and none of the respondents regularly made
contacts with Krishi Sewa Kendra.
As regards to Kisan Call Center, 58.84 per cent of the respondents did never
make contact with Kisan Call Center, followed by 30 per cent of the respondents made
rare contact with Kisan Call Center and 14.16 per cent of the respondents often made
contacts with Kisan Call Center and none of the respondents had regularly contact
with Kisan Call Center.
Table: 4.9: Distribution of the respondents according to their overall contact with
extension agencies:
(n=120)
Contact with extension agencies Frequency Percentage
Low (up to 2 score)
Medium(3 to 4 score)
High (5& score)
34
74
12
28.34
61.66
10
X = 3.1 S.D.= 1.13
So far as overall contact with extension agencies (Government Agriculture
Department, Agriculture College/university, KVK, Krishi Sewa Kendra, Kisan Call
Center, N.G.Os, and others) the data are compiled in table 4.9. The data reveals that,
the majority of respondents (61.66%) had medium level of contact with extension
agencies, followed by 28.34 per cent of them had low contacts with extension
agencies, while only 10 per cent of respondents had high level of contacts with
extension agencies.(Fig- 4.8).
Similar findings were also supported by Chandra and Reddy (2002), Padekar
(2004), Raghuwanshi (2005) and Patel (2006).
55
8.3
4
80
57
.5
27
.5
55
.84
77
.5
17
.5
40
.84
71
.66
30
7.5
2.5
1.6
6
0.8
4
14
.16
6.6
6
0 0 0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Govt. agriculture Agricultural college/university
KVK Krishi sewa Kendra Kissan call center
Never (%) Once or twice in a year, (%)
Once or twice in a month, (%) Once or twice in week, (%)
28.34%
61.66%
10%
overall contact with extension agencies
Low (up to 2 score)
Medium(3 to 4 score)
High (above 5 score)
Fig:4.8 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall contact with extension
agencies
Fig: 4.7 Distribution of the respondents according to their extent of contact with
extension agencies
agencies
56
4.1.1.9 Source of information
The findings of source of information, (Table 4.10.) indicates that, maximum
number (70.00%) of the respondents had medium level of overall utilization of sources
of information, followed by 20.84 per cent of the respondents had low level of overall
utilization sources of information, while only 9.16 per cent of the respondents had
high level of overall utilization sources of information regarding adoption of IPM
practices by chickpea growers (Fig.4.10)
Table: 4.10: Distribution of the respondents according to their overall source of
information:
(n=120)
Sources of information Frequency Percentage
Low utilization (up to 6 score)
Medium utilization (7 to 10 score)
High utilization (above 10 score)
25
84
11
20.84
70.00
9.16
= 8.05 S.D.= 2.18
The frequencies of use of various sources of information for obtaining the
information about IPM practices of chickpea by the respondents.
It has been reported from the table- 4.11.and Fig-4.9. that majority (75.00%)
of the respondents had regular contact with progressive farmers, followed by, friends
(68.34%), RAEOs/AEOs (10.83%), village leaders (5.84%), neighbours and use of
newspaper (5.00%), relatives and Agriculture magazines (1.66%), no regular use of
some sources for getting valuable information regarding IPM practices in chickpea
cultivation i.e. Panch/Sarpanch, bank agents, scientists, T.V, radio, exhibition,
trainings, other (Krishi Sewa Kendra)etc.
While in case of often use of sources of information it has been seen that
majority (78.34%) of the respondents had often contact with RAEO/ADO, followed
by others (Krishi Sewa Kendra 72.50%), neighbours (65.00%), agricultural scientist
(40.83%), relatives (39.17%), exhibition (35.00%), magazines (33.34%), training
X
57
20
.84
%
70
%
9.1
6%
ove
rall
sou
rce
of
info
rmat
ion
Low
uti
lizat
ion
(up
to
6 s
core
)
Med
ium
uti
lizat
ion
(7 t
o 1
0 s
core
)
Hig
h u
tiliz
atio
n(a
bo
ve 1
0 s
core
)
Fig
: 4.9
Dis
trib
uti
on o
f th
e re
sponden
ts a
cco
rdin
g t
o t
hei
r over
all
use
of
info
rmat
ion
sourc
es
58
Table: 4.11: Distribution of the respondents according to their source of information:
(n=120)
Sl.
No.
Sources of information Regular use Often use Never use
F (%) F (%) F (%)
1 Neighbour 06
(5.00)
78
(65.00)
36
(30.00)
2 Friends 82
(68.34)
26
(21.66)
12
(10.00)
3 Relatives 02
(1.66)
47
(39.17)
71
(59.17)
4 Progressive farmers 90
(75.00)
30
(25.00)
00
(0.0)
5 Village leaders 07
(5.84)
21
(17.50)
92
(76.66)
6 Punch/sarpanch 00
(0.0)
21
(17.50)
99
(82.50)
7 Bank agent/officers 00
(0.0)
02
(1.66)
118
(98.34)
8 Agriculture magazines 02
(1.66)
40
(33.34)
78
(65.00)
9 Newspaper 06
(5.00)
14
(11.66)
100
(83.34)
10 RAEO’s/ADO’s 13
(10.83)
94
(78.34)
13
(10.83)
11 Exhibition 00
(0.0)
42
(35.00)
78
(65.00)
12 Trainings 00
(0.0)
37
(30.84)
83
(69.16)
13 Radio 00
(0.0)
15
(12.50)
105
(87.50)
14 Television 00
(0.0)
15
(12.50)
105
(87.50)
15 Agriculture scientist 00
(0.0)
49
(40.83)
71
(59.17)
16 Others(Krishi Sewa
Kendra)
00
(0.0)
87
(72.50)
33
(27.50)
F*= frequency %= percentage
(30.84%), progressive farmers (25.00%), friends (21.66%), village leaders and panch
sarpanch (17.50%), T.V and radio (12.50%), read newspapers (11.66%), bank agents
and magazines (1.66%), All types of sources of information are used often for seeking
information regarding adoption of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation.
59
5
68.34
1.66
75
5.84
0
0
1.66
5
10.83
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
21.66
39.17
25
17.5
17.5
1.66
33.34
11.66
78.34
35
30.84
12.5
12.5
40.83
72.5
30
10
59.17
0
76.66
82.5
98.34
65
83.34
10.83
65
69.16
87.5
87.5
59.17
27.5
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
Re
gula
r (
%)
Oft
en
(%
)N
eve
r (
%)
Fig
: 4.1
0 D
istr
ibuti
on o
f th
e re
sponden
ts a
ccord
ing t
o t
hei
r so
urc
e of
info
rmat
ion
60
In case of no use of the sources of information it has been observed that
majority (98.34%) of the respondents have never contacted with bank agents for
obtaining information of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation followed by, use radio
and T.V. (87.50%), read newspaper (83.34%), village leaders (76.66%), attend
trainings (69.16%), exhibition and agricultural magazines (65.00%), relatives and
agricultural scientist (59.17%), others (Krishi Sewa Kendra) (40.84%), read magazines
(65.00%), neighbours (30.00%), RAEO (10.83%), friends (10.00%).
These finding were found similar to Lakra (2011) and Rai (2014).
4.1.1.10. Scientific orientation
Regarding scientific orientation of the respondents, data compiled in Table
4.12 depicts that 70.84 per cent respondents had medium level (22 to 26 score) of
scientific orientation, followed by 19.16 per cent respondents had low level (up to 21
score) of scientific orientation and only about 10 per cent respondents had high level
(above 26 score) of scientific orientation. Fig-(4.11).
Table: 4.12: Distribution of the respondents according to their scientific orientation:
(n=120)
Scientific orientation Frequency Percentage
Low (up to 21)
Medium(22 to 26)
High (above 26)
23
85
12
19.16
70.84
10
= 23.3 S.D.= 2.62
These findings were found similar to Nithyashree and Angadi (2001), Patel
(2006), Shori (2011), Shriwas (2011) and Singh (2013) who revealed that 40.00 per
cent soybean growers had low scientific orientation.
X
61
19
.16
%
70
.84
%
10
%
scie
nti
fic
ori
en
tati
on
Low
(u
p t
o 2
1)
Me
diu
m(2
2 t
o 2
6)
Hig
h (
abo
ve 2
6)
Fig
: 4.1
1 D
istr
ibuti
on o
f th
e re
sponden
ts a
ccord
ing t
o t
hei
r sc
ienti
fic
ori
enta
tion
62
4.1.1.11 knowledge level of the respondents regarding to integrated pest
management practices of chickpea
Table: 4.13: Distribution of the respondents according to their practice wise level of
knowledge regarding integrated pest management of chickpea: (n=120) Sl.
No
IPM practices Nil Partial Complete Knowledge
Index %
F (%) F (%) F (%) (KI %)
Cultural practices
1 Summer ploughing 00
(0.0)
14
(11.66)
106
(88.34)
94.16
2 Field sanitation 00
(0.0)
16
(13.33)
104
(86.67)
92.50
3 Crop rotation 00
(0.0)
35
(29.16)
85
(70.84)
85.41
4 Resistant varieties 16
(13.33)
85
(70.84)
19
(15.83)
51.25
5 Intercropping 00
(0.0)
40
(31.67)
82
(68.33)
85.00
6 Seed treatment 00
(0.0)
23
(19.16)
97
(80.84)
90.41
7 Sowing time 00
(0.0)
45
(37.50)
75
(62.50)
81.25
8 Line sowing 00
(0.0)
41
(34.16)
79
(65.84)
82.91
9 Intercultural 00
(0.0)
45
(37.50)
75
(62.50)
81.25
10 Irrigation 00
(0.0)
80
(66.66)
40
(33.34)
66.66
Mechanical practices
11 Bird perches 02
(1.66)
25
(20.84)
93
(77.50)
87.91
12 Light trap 04
(3.33)
42
(35.00)
74
(61.67)
79.16
13 Pheromone trap 05
(4.16)
42
(35.00)
73
(60.84)
78.33
Biological practices
14 Parasites 105
(87.50)
13
(10.83)
02
(1.67)
7.08
15 N.P.V 75
(62.50)
42
(35.00)
03
(2.50)
20.00
Chemical practices
16 ETL level 76
(63.33)
40
(33.33)
04
(3.34)
20.00
17 EIL level 112
(93.34)
08
(6.66)
00
(0.0)
3.33
18 Insecticides 00
(0.0)
72
(60.00)
48
(40.00)
70.00
19 Herbicide 00
(0.0)
73
(60.84)
47
(39.16)
69.58
20 Side effects to
Chemicals
47
(39.16)
73
(60.84)
00
(0.0)
30.41
Overall knowledge index = 63.87%
F*=frequency %= percentage
63
The data presented in Table 4.13 and Fig 4.12 reveals that, the respondents had
complete level of knowledge regarding selected cultural practices of IPM in chickpea
cultivation included summer ploughing (88.34%), field sanitation (86.67%), seed
treatment (80.84%), crop rotation (70.84%), intercropping (68.83%), line sowing
(65.84%), sowing time and intercultural (62.50%), irrigation (33.34%), resistant
varieties (15.83%), mechanical practices-bird perches (77.50%), light trap (61.67%),
pheromone trap (60.84%), biological practices-NPV(2.50%), parasites (1.67%),
chemical practices-insecticides (40.00%), weedicides (39.16%), and ETL(3.34%).
The respondents, who had partial level of knowledge regarding selected
cultural practices of IPM in chickpea cultivation included resistant varieties (70.84%),
irrigation (66.66%), sowing time and intercultural (37.50%), line sowing (34.16%),
intercropping (31.67%), crop rotation (29.16%) seed treatment (19.16%), field
sanitation (13.33%), and summer ploughing (11.66). In mechanical practices included
light trap and pheromone trap (35.00%), bird perches (20.84%), biological practices
NPV (35.00%), parasites 10.83 per cent. Chemical practices, side effects of chemicals
(60.84%), insecticide (60.00%), weedicide (60.84%), and ETL (33.33%), and EIL
(6.66%).
In case of incomplete level of knowledge regarding selected cultural practices
of IPM in chickpea cultivation i.e. resistant varieties (13.33%),. mechanical practices
pheromone trap (4.16%), light trap (3.33%), bird perches (1.66%),. biological
practices parasites (87.50%), NPV (62.50%),. Chemical practices ETL (63.33%), EIL
(93.34%), and side effects of chemicals (39.16%).
The data regarding overall level of knowledge of respondents about IPM
practices of chickpea are presented in Table 4.14 which indicates that the majority of
the respondents (65.00%) had medium level of knowledge regarding IPM practices of
chickpea , whereas, 15.00 and 20.00 per cent of respondents were having low and high
level of knowledge, respectively.(Fig-4.13)
Thus it can be concluded that, most of the respondents (65.00%) had medium
level of knowledge regarding IPM practices of chickpea.
64
0
0
0
13.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.66
3.33
4.16
87.5
62.5
63.33
93.34
0
0
39.16
11.66
13.33
29.16
70.84
31.67
19.16
37.5
34.16
37.5
66.66
20.84
35
35
10.83
35
33.33
6.66
60
60.84
60.84
88.34
86.67
70.84
15.83
68.33
80.84
62.5
65.84
62.5
33.34
77.5
61.67
60.84
1.66
2.5
3.34
0
40
39.16
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
0
Inco
mp
lete
%P
arti
al%
Co
mp
lete
%
Fig
:4.1
2 D
istr
ibuti
on o
f re
sponden
ts a
ccord
ing t
o t
hei
r pra
ctic
e w
ise
lev
el o
f know
led
ge
regar
din
g
inte
gra
ted p
est
man
agem
ent
pra
ctic
es o
f ch
ickp
ea
65
Table: 4.14: Distribution of the respondents according to their overall knowledge level
regarding integrated pest management of chickpea
(n=120)
Knowledge level Frequency Percentage
Low (< 21 score)
Medium (22 to 30 score )
High (> 30 score)
18
78
24
15.00
65.00
20.00
Total 120 100
= 26.2 S.D.= 4.79
These findings were found similar to the Patel (2006), Tripathi et al. (2006),
Raghvendra et al. (2006) and Chandranna et al. (2009) who reported that most of the
farmers were medium level of knowledge.
4.2 Dependent variable
4.2.1 Adoption of Integrated pest management practices by chickpea growers:
Over all extent of adoption is clearly indicated that the data presented in Table
4.15.and Fig- 4.14, Out of total respondents, maximum number 70.84 per cent of them
had medium level of adoption of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation. whereas, 19.16
per cent and 10 per cent of them had low and high level of adoption respectively.
Table: 4.15: Distribution of the respondents according to their overall extent of
adoption regarding integrated pest management of chickpea:
(n=120)
Extent of adoption Frequency Percentage
Low (< 18 score)
Medium (18 to 23 score)
High (> 23 score)
23
85
12
19.16
70.84
10.00
= 20.26 S.D.= 3.39
The data presented in Table 4.16 and Fig-4.15 reveals that, the respondents had
complete adoption level regarding selected cultural practices of IPM in chickpea
cultivation like, field sanitation and seed treatment 90.84 per cent, followed by crop
rotation (62.50%), summer ploughing 60.00 per cent, resistant varieties and
X
X
66
Fig:4.13 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall knowledge level
regarding integrated pest management of chickpea
15%
65%
20%
knowledge level
Low (< 21 score)
Medium (22 to 30 score )
High (> 30 score)
19.16%70.84%
10 % Adoption level
Low (< 18 score)
Medium (18 to 23 score)
High (> 23 score)
Fig: 4.14 Distribution of the respondents according to their overall extent of adoption
regarding integrated pest management of chickpea
67
Table: 4.16: Distribution of the respondents according to practice wise adoption regarding
Integrated pest management of chickpea:
(n=120)
Sl.
No.
IPM practices Nil Partial Complete Adoption index
F (%) F (%) F (%) A.I.%
Cultural practices.
1 Summer ploughing 00
(0.0)
48
(40.00)
72
(60)
80.00
2 Field sanitation 00
(0.0)
11
(9.16)
109
(90.84)
95.41
3 Crop rotation 00
(0.0)
45
(37.50)
75
(62.50)
81.25
4 Resistant varieties 62
(51.66)
40
(33.34)
18
(15.00)
31.66
5 Intercropping 63
(52.50)
41
(34.16)
16
(13.34)
30.41
6 Seed treatment 00
(0.0)
11
(9.16)
109
(90.84)
95.41
7 Sowing time 30
(25.00)
76
(63.34)
14
(11.66)
43.33
8 Line sowing 93
(77.50)
20
(16.66)
07
(5.84)
14.16
9 Intercultural
operations
00
(0.0)
102
(85.00)
18
(15.00)
57.50
10 Irrigation 00
(0.0)
104
(86.66)
16
(13.34)
56.66
Mechanical practices.
11 Bird perches 19
(15.84)
58
(48.33)
43
(35.83)
60.00
12 Light trap 96
(80.00)
05
(4.20)
19
(15.80)
17.91
13 Pheromone trap 14
(11.66)
32
(26.68)
74
(61.66)
66.66
Biological practices.
14 Parasites 112
(93.84)
08
(6.16)
00
(0.0)
3.33
15 N.P.V 102
(85.00)
18
(15.00)
00
(0.0)
7.50
Chemical practices
16 ETL level 86
(71.66)
34
(28.34)
00
(0.0)
14.16
17 Insecticides 00
(0.0)
51
(42.50)
69
(57.50)
78.75
18 Herbicide 00
(0.0)
46
(38.34)
74
(61.66)
80.83
Overall adoption index = 50.83%
F*= frequency, %= percentage
68
intercultural operations 15.00 per cent, inter cropping and irrigation 13.34 per cent,
sowing time 11.66 per cent, line sowing 5.84 per cent,. Mechanical practices
pheromone trap (61.66%), bird perches (35.83%), followed by light trap 15.80 per
cent, none of the respondents were highly adopting the biological practices, Chemical
practices weedicide (61.66%), followed by insecticide 57.50 per cent, and none of the
respondents were highly adopting the ETL.
In case of partial level of adoption category in cultural practices, it was found
that, majority of the respondents were doing irrigation 86.66 per cent, intercultural
operations 85.00 per cent, sowing time 63.34 per cent, summer ploughing 40.00 per
cent, crop rotation (37.50%), intercropping 34.16 per cent, resistant varieties 33.34 per
cent, line sowing 16.66 per cent, and field sanitation and seed treatment (9.16%), In
mechanical practices bird perches (48.33%), pheromone trap 26.68 per cent and light
trap 4.20 per cent,. in biological practices NPV (15.00%), parasites 6.16 per cent, and
chemical practices, insecticides (42.50 per cent), and weedicides 38.34 per cent and
ETL 28.34 per cent, respectively.
In categories of Nil level of adoption regarding selected cultural practices of
IPM of chickpea cultivation i.e. line sowing (77.50%), intercropping (52.50 per cent),
resistant varieties (51.66 per cent), sowing time (25.00 per cent), None of the
respondents had incomplete adoption regarding cultural practices of IPM practices of
chickpea like, summer ploughing, field sanitation, crop rotation, seed treatment,
intercultural operations, irrigation,. In mechanical practices like light trap 80.00 per
cent, bird perches 15.84 per cent and pheromone trap 11.66 per cent. In case of
biological practices parasites (93.84%) and NPV 85.00 per cent, chemical practices
ETL (71.66%), none of the respondents had any idea regarding adoption of Herbicide
and insecticide.
The probable reason for medium level of adoption may be insufficient
technical information and indepth knowledge about IPM practices of chickpea. The
inadequate technical knowledge about IPM practices of chickpea might have resulted
in lack of interest and conviction. There is a need to modify the scientific attitude of
the respondents through proper guidance, persuasion and conducting skill oriented
69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
0
Summer ploughing
Field sanitation
Crop rotation
Resistant varieties
Intercropping
Seed treatment
Sowing time
Line sowing
Intercultural
Irrigation
…
Bird perches
Light trap
Pheromone trap
…
Parasites
N.P.V
…
ETL level
Insecticides
Herbicide
0
0
0
51.66
52.5
0
25
77.5
0
0
15.84
80
11.66
93.84
85
71.66
0
0
40
9.16
37.5
33.34
34.16
9.16
63.34
16.66
85
86.66
48.33
4.2
26.68
6.16
15
28.34
42.5
38.34
60
90.84
62.5
15
13.34
90.84
11.66
5.84
15
13.34
35.83
15.8
61.66
0
0
57.5
61.66
Nil
(%
)P
arti
al (
%)
Co
mp
lete
F(%
)
Fig
:15 D
istr
ibuti
on o
f th
e re
sponden
ts a
cco
rdin
g t
o p
ract
ice
wis
e ad
opti
on r
egar
din
g I
nte
gra
ted P
est
Man
agem
ent
pra
ctic
es o
f ch
ickpea
70
training programmes on different aspects of IPM practices on farmer’s field to
show their effectiveness in chickpea cultivation to the farmers. These findings were
reported
Similar to Reddy (2006), Gandhi et al. (2008), Dadheech et al. (2009) and
Dayaram et al. (2012).
4.3 Use of common pesticides regarding Integrated pest management
practices of chickpea:
Table: 4.17 Distribution of the respondents according to their use of common
pesticides regarding Integrated pest management of chickpea: (n=120)
Sl.
No.
Pesticides frequency Percentage
A Fungicides/Seed treatment
1 Carbendazim (1g) 67 55.83
2 Rhizobium(5g) 72 60.00
3 Thiram (3g) 93 77.50
4 Trichoderma (5g) 85 70.83
5 P.S.B (5g) 73 60.83
B Insecticides
1 Chloropyriphos (20E.C. 650 m.l.) 103 85.83
2 Cypermethrin (25.E.C. 125 m.l.) 77 64.16
3 Prophenophos+Cypermethrin (40+4%
E.C.)
62
51.67
4 Phenvelerate (20E.C 200 m.l. /ha.) 43 35.83
5 Prophenophos 50 E.C. 1lt/ha. 106 88.33
6 Local pesticides 14 11.67
C Herbicides
1 Pendamethlin 30 E.C. 750 m.l.-1K.g./ha. 74 61.67
2 Fluchlorin (1K.g. /ha.) 52 43.33
3 Quzolphop 40-50g (800m.l. - 1l. /ha.) 57 47.50
Data are based on multiple responses
With regards to seed treatment of chickpea (table:4.17) indicates that
maximum respondents (77.50%) were using Thiram, followed by 70.83 per cent
respondents were using Trichoderma , 60.83 per cent respondents were using
Phosphorus soluble bacteria, 60.00 per cent respondents were using Rhizobium and
55.83 per cent respondents were using Carbendazim.
In respect to insecticides of chickpea (table: 4.17) depicts that, majority
(88.33%) of the respondents were using Prophenophos 50E.C, 85.83 per cent
71
respondents were using Chloropyriphos 25E.C. 64.16 per cent respondents were using
Cypermethrin, 51.67 per cent respondents were using Prophenophos+Cypermethrin
(40+4 E.C.), 35.83 per cent respondents use Phenvelerate 20E.C, 11.67 per cent
respondents were using local pesticides.
In respects to herbicides of chickpea (table:4.17) shows that, maximum
respondents (61.67%) were using Pendamethlin 30E.C, 47.50 per cent respondents
were using Quizolphop 40-50g, and 43.33 per cent respondents were using Fluchlorin.
4.4 Correlation coefficient analysis of independent variables with
adoption of Integrated Pest Management practices in chickpea
Table: 4.18: Coefficient of correlation of independent variables with adoption of IPM
practices in chickpea:
Independent variable Coefficient of correlation
“r” value
Education 0.206 *
Caste 0.117 NS
Size of landholding 0.233 **
Social participation 0.130 NS
Occupation 0.121 NS
Annual income 0.311**
Credit acquisition 0.048 NS
Source of information 0.160 NS
Contact with extension agencies 0.431 **
Scientific orientation 0.091 NS
Knowledge level 0.667 **
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability (0.232)
* Significant at 0.05 level of probability (0.178)
NS = Non significant
It is obvious from the data in Table 4.18 shows that the variables size of land
holdings, annual income, contact with extension agencies, and knowledge level were
found positively and highly significant related with adoption at 0.01 per cent level of
significance, whereas education had positively and significantly related with adoption
at 0.05 per cent level of significance. The positive significant relationship shows that
when the level of the above variables viz land holding, annual income, contact with
72
extension agencies, knowledge level, and education increases, then the adoption of
IPM practices by the respondents will also increase.
The variables caste, social participation, occupation, credit acquisition, source
of information and scientific orientation were found no relationship with adoption.
This finding clearly indicates that most of the selected independent variables
had positively and significant correlated with adoption of IPM practices of chickpea.
The finding is supported by Raghuwansi (2005), Shrivastava (2005), Shori
(2011), Khare et al. (2013), Sarthi (2013), Singh (2013), Upadhayay et al. (2014) and
Rai (2014) as significant and non significant correlation with dependent variables.
4.5 Multiple regression analysis of independent variables with
adoption of Integrated Pest Management practices in chickpea:
Table: 4.19: Multiple regression analysis of independent variables with adoption of
IPM practices of chickpea:
Variables "t' value Regression coefficient
"b" value
Education 1.454 0.401 NS
Caste 0.586 0.522 NS
Size of landholding -0.111 -0.014 NS
Social participation 1.054 0.501 NS
Occupation 0.547 0.067 NS
Annual income 0.208 0.123 NS
Credit acquisition -0.020 0.013 NS
Source of information 2.378 0.265*
Contact with extension agencies 3.339 0.722**
Scientific orientation 0.363 0.057 NS
Knowledge level 7.952 0.410**
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability, (value=2.617), R2= 0.56
* Significant at 0.05 level of probability (value=1.98), F value of R= 12.93
NS = Non significant
The data presented in table 4.19 reveals that out of the eleven variables under
study only two variables namely contact with extension agencies and knowledge level
showed highly significant and positive contribution towards adoption at 0.01 per cent
level of significance. while only one variable i.e. source of information had positive
73
and significant contribution towards adoption at 0.05 per cent level of significance and
remaining eight variables viz. education, caste, size of land holdings, social
participation, occupation, annual income, credit acquisition, and scientific orientation
had no significant contribution towards adoption of IPM practices in chickpea
cultivation.
It is also seen that all the 11 independent variables have jointly explained the
variation to the extent of 56 per cent towards adoption of IPM practices of chickpea.
The findings state that the independent variables altogether had 56 per cent
prediction ability to adoption of IPM practices of chickpea. We have to give adequate
focus on increasing, source of information, contact with extension agencies and
knowledge level of farmers. Although other variables individually had non-significant
contribution, but it is clear from the R2 value of the multiple regression analysis that
these variables had quite impressive contribution in the adoption, particularly when
they were put together in a model.
The finding of contribution towards dependent variable is supported by
Raghuwansi (2005), Shrivastava (2005), Shori (2011), Soni (2012), Khare et
al.(2013), Sarthi (2013), Singh (2013) as significant and non significant both.
4.6 Constraints faced by the chickpea growers in adoption of
Integrated Pest Management practices:
Multiple responses were taken to ascertain the constraints faced by chickpea
growers in adoption of IPM practices which are presented in Table 4.20.
So far as the problems faced by chickpea growers in adoption of IPM practices
are concerned it was found that, majority of the respondents were reported to have non
availability of bio-agents (91.66 per cent), followed by Non-availability of inputs at a
time (90.00%), lack of proper training conduct for IPM practices by extension agent or
agencies (80.83 per cent), Lack of knowledge about use of inputs at proper time
(71.66 per cent), lack of media advertisement (70.00 per cent), Lack of technical
knowledge of IPM practices (66.66 per cent), non-availability of resistant varieties
(62.50 per cent), high costs of inputs (50 per cent), lack of knowledge about
74
appropriate selection and dose of insecticide and weedicide (41.16 per cent) as
important constraints faced by them.
Table: 4.20: Constraints faced by chickpea growers in adoption of IPM practices:
(n=120)
*Frequency based on multiple responses
4.7 Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome the
constraints faced by them during adoption of IPM practices: As regards suggestions of chickpea growers for minimizing the constraints
(table: 4.21) faced by them during adoption of IPM practices of chickpea includes
inputs which should be easily available at the time in market (bio-agents, bio-
pesticides, resistant varieties and traps 90.00 per cent). The other suggestions made by
respondents include Extension agencies should conduct training about IPM practices
of chickpea (80%), Extension agent or agency should convey information at right time
and technical knowledge regarding use of IPM materials like bio-agents and
pheromone traps etc. (69.16%), Technical information and knowledge to farmers
about IPM practices should be provided by RAEOs at village level (66.66%).
Knowledge should be increased in various aspects of IPM practices of chickpea i.e.
Sl.No Constraints Frequency Percent Rank
1
Non–availability of inputs at a time (bio-
pesticides and traps). 108 90.00 II
2 High cost of inputs. 60 50.00 VIII
3 Lack of proper training conduct for IPM
practices by extension agencies 97 80.83 III
4
Lack of knowledge about use of inputs at
proper time. 86 71.66 IV
5 Lack of media advertisement. 84 70.00 V
6
Lack of technical knowledge of IPM
Practices. 80 66.66 VI
7 Non-availability of bio-agents.(N.P.V and
practices) 110 91.66 I
8
Lack of knowledge about appropriate
selection of Insecticides and herbicides. 50 41.66 IX
9 Non – availability of resistant varieties. 75 62.50 VII
75
Table: 4.21: Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome the constraints faced
by them during adoption of IPM practices:
(n=120)
*Frequency based on multiple responses
use of proper dose of insecticide through systematic training programmes (55.83%).
Minimum support price of inputs should be fixed by the Government (50.00%),
Regular publicity of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation on TV, radio and newspaper
should be provided (49.16%). field visit should be organized by extension personnel
(45.83%).
Sl.
No Suggestions Frequency Percentage Rank
1 Inputs should be easily available at the
time in market (bio-agents, bio- pesticides,
resistant varieties and traps).
108 90.00 I
2 Minimum support price of input should be
fixed by the Government 60 50.00 VI
3 Extension agencies should conduct
training about IPM practices 96 80.00 II
4
Regular publicity of IPM on TV, radio and
newspaper should be provided.
59 49.16 VII
5
Extension agent or agency should convey
information at right time and provide
technical knowledge regarding use of IPM
material like bio-agents and pheromone
traps etc.
83 69.16 III
6
Knowledge should be increased in various
aspects of IPM practices of chickpea i.e.
use of proper dose of insecticide through
systematic training programmes.
67 55.83 V
7
Technical information and knowledge to
farmers about IPM practices should be
provided by RAEOs at village level.
80 66.66 IV
8 Field visit should be organized by
extension personnel. 55 45.83 VIII
76
Summary and Conclusions
CHAPTER - V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the third most important food legume crop
worldwide. It is an important grain legume in many developing countries. It ranks
second in area and third in production among the pulses worldwide. Chickpea is a
highly nutritious pulse and places third in the importance list of the food legumes that
are cultivated throughout the world.
In Chhattisgarh the area, production and yield of chickpea in 2010-2011 was
2.519, 2.415 and 891 (000 per ha. 000m tons, and kg/ha.) respectively. Major districts
of Chhattisgarh where chickpea is cultivating are Durg, Kabirdham, Bilaspur,
Rajnandgaon, Raipur, Sarguja, Dhamtari, Kanker, Jashpur, Jagdalpur & Raigarh.
During 2011-2012 Durg is 1st position in cultivating area of 102.46 thousand ha with
production of 110.99 thousand metric tons, 2nd
Kawardha accounts 65.88 thousand ha.
58.30 metric tons production and 3rd
Rajnandgaon 47.03 thousand ha and production
45.21 metric tons. But the productivity of Durg is less than other district.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach has been globally accepted for
achieving sustainability in agriculture and maintaining the agro-eco-system. It is more
relevant due to a number of advantages like safely to environment, pesticide-free food
commodities, low input based crop production. Integrated Pest Management,
therefore, emphasizes not only reduction in use of chemical pesticides and keeping the
level of pest causing economic injury but also facilitates the use of cultural, physical,
mechanical and biological methods of pest control. Although, IPM is the best strategy
in crop production programme, yet this practice could not reach the farmers’ field. The
extent of adoption of IPM practices among farmers is not very encouraging.
Keeping the above point in mind, it is felt necessary to study the adoption of
Integrated Pest Management Practices by chickpea growers, and constraints perceived
by them in adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices with the following
objectives:
77
Objectives:
1. To study the social profile of chickpea growers,
2. To assess the knowledge level of IPM practices by chickpea growers,
3. To measure the extent of adoption of IPM practices by the chickpea growers,
4. To find out the relationship between independent and dependent variables ,
5. To identify the constraints faced by the chickpea growers in adoption of IPM,
6. To obtain the suggestion from the chickpea growers to overcome the
constraints faced by them during adoption of IPM.
The present study was conducted during the year of 2014-2015 in all three
blocks of Durg district of Chhattisgarh state (Durg, Patan, Dhamdha), because of the
maximum area and production of chickpea. From each selected block, 4villages were
selected purposively, 10 farmers were selected randomly from each village,
(10x12=120) Total 120 farmers were selected for the present study.
The data were collected through personal interview with the help of well
prepared structured interview schedule and were analyzed by using different
appropriate statistical methods. The major findings of the study are summarized under
the following sub-heads.
Social profile of the respondents:
About education, the data shows that most of the respondents (50.84%) had
higher secondary level of education, and (89.16%) were belonged to other backward
class, Social participation gives an idea about the respondent’s participation in social
activities. Maximum no. of respondents (71.65%) had no membership in any
organization.
Maximum no. (44.16%) of the respondents were having large size of land
holdings (above 4.1 ha.), maximum number of the respondents (60.00%) were
involved in agriculture, majority (54.16%) of the respondents were having annual
income up to Rs 140000 lakh, maximum no. (54.16 %) of respondents had not
acquired credit for IPM practices of chickpea and only 45.84 per cent of respondents
had acquired credit. Out of total credit acquiring respondents the maximum no.
(90.90%) of the respondents had taken credit from cooperative society.
78
Maximum no. (77.50%) of the respondents made contacts rarely with
Government Agriculture Department, followed by 7.50 per cent of them had contact
often and 6.66 per cent of the respondents had regular contacts with Government
Agriculture Department however, 8.34 per cent of the respondents never made contact
with Government Agriculture Department. Use of various sources of information for
obtaining the information about IPM practices of chickpea by the respondents.
majority (75.00%) of the respondents had regular contact with progressive farmers,
followed by friends (68.34%), RAEOs/AEOs (10.83%), village leaders (5.84%),
neighbours and use of newspaper (5.00%), relatives and Agriculture magazines
(1.66%), no regular use of some sources for getting valuable information regarding
IPM practices in chickpea cultivation i.e. Panch/Sarpanch, bank agents, scientists,
T.V, radio, exhibition, trainings, other (Krishi Sewa Kendra) etc.
Majority of the (70.84%) respondents were medium level (22 to 26 score) of
scientific orientation. In case of knowledge level the respondents had complete level
of knowledge regarding selected cultural practices of IPM in chickpea cultivation
included summer ploughing (88.34%), followed by field sanitation (86.67%), seed
treatment (80.84%), crop rotation (70.84%), intercropping (68.83%), line sowing
(65.84%), sowing time and intercultural (62.50%), irrigation (33.34%), resistant
varieties (15.83%), mechanical practices-bird perches (77.50%), light trap (61.67%),
pheromone trap (60.84%), biological practices-NPV(2.50%), parasites (1.67%),
chemical practices- insecticides (40.00%), weedicides (39.16%), and ETL(3.34%).
Dependent variables
The study shows that adoption pattern of IPM practices of chickpea. the
respondents had complete adoption level regarding selected cultural practices of IPM
in chickpea cultivation like, field sanitation and seed treatment 90.84 per cent,
followed by crop rotation (62.50%), summer ploughing (60.00%), resistant varieties
and intercultural operations (15.00%) per cent, inter cropping and irrigation (13.34%),
sowing time (11.66%) per cent, line sowing (5.84%). Mechanical practices pheromone
trap (61.66%), bird perches (35.83%), followed by light trap (15.80%), none of the
respondents were highly adopting the biological practices, Chemical practices
79
weedicide (61.66%), followed by insecticide (57.50%), and none of the respondents
were highly adopting the ETL.
Correlation analysis:
The coefficient of correlation was found by analyzing the data with the help of
computer. The variables like size of land holdings, annual income, contact with
extension agencies, and knowledge level were found positively and highly significant
related with adoption at 0.01 per cent level of significance, whereas education had
positive and significantly related with adoption at 0.05 per cent level of significance.
The positive significant relationship shows that when the level of the above variables
viz size of land holding, annual income, contact with extension agencies, knowledge
level, and education increases, then the adoption of IPM practices by the respondents
will also increase.
The variables caste, social participation, occupation, credit acquisition, source
of information and scientific orientation were found no relationship with adoption.
Multiple regression analysis
The Multiple regression was found by analyzing the data with the help of
computer. Out of the eleven variables under study only two variables namely contact
with extension agencies and knowledge level showed highly significant and positive
contribution towards adoption at 0.01 per cent level of significance. while only one
variable i.e. source of information had positive and significant contribution towards
adoption at 0.05 per cent level of significance and remaining eight variables viz.
education, caste, size of land holdings, social participation, occupation, annual
income, credit acquisition, and scientific orientation had no significant contribution
towards adoption of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation.
It is also seen that all the 11 independent variables have jointly explained the
variation to the extent of 56 per cent towards adoption of IPM practices of chickpea.
Constraints faced by chickpea growers in adoption of IPM practices:
Multiple responses were taken to ascertain the constraints faced by chickpea
growers in adoption of IPM practices, it was found that, majority of the respondents
were reported to have non availability of bio-agents (91.66 per cent), followed by
80
Non-availability of inputs (90.00%), lack of proper training conduct for IPM practices
by extension agent or agencies (80.83 per cent), Lack of knowledge about use of
inputs at proper time (71.66 per cent), lack of media advertisement (70.00 per cent),
Lack of technical knowledge of IPM practices (66.66 per cent), non-availability of
resistant varieties (62.50 per cent), high costs of inputs (50 per cent), lack of
knowledge about appropriate selection and dose of insecticide and weedicide( 41.16
per cent) as important constraints faced by them.
Suggestions given by chickpea growers to overcome the constraints during
adoption of IPM practices:
As regards suggestions of chickpea growers for minimizing the constraints
faced by them during adoption of IPM practices of chickpea includes inputs which
should be easily available at the time in market (bio-agents, bio-pesticides, resistant
varieties and traps 90.00 per cent). The other suggestions made by respondents include
Extension agencies should conduct training about IPM practices of chickpea (80%),
Extension agent or agency should convey information at right time and technical
knowledge regarding use of IPM materials like bio-agents and pheromone traps etc.
(69.16%), Technical information and knowledge to farmers about IPM practices
should be provided by RAEOs at village level (66.66%). Knowledge should be
increased in various aspects of IPM practices of chickpea i.e. use of proper dose of
insecticide through systematic training programmes (55.83%). Minimum support price
of inputs should be fixed by the Government (50.00%), Regular publicity of IPM
practices in chickpea cultivation on TV, radio and newspaper should be provided
(49.16%). field visit should be organized by extension personnel (45.83%).
Conclusion:
The findings of the study reveal that the majority of the respondents were
educated upto higher secondary school level, belonged to other backward classes, and
maximum respondents had no membership in any organization.
Maximum respondents were having large size of land holdings with agriculture
as their main occupation and came under the income category of Rs 1.4 lakh per
annum and maximum respondents acquired short term credit from co-operative
81
societies and the credit facilities were available to them very easily. Majority of the
respondents had medium level of contact with extension agencies. Most of the
respondents use medium level of information sources about IPM practices of
chickpea.
A large number of the respondents were having medium level of scientific
orientation, and medium level of knowledge about IPM practices of chickpea. But
maximum respondents were highly knowledgeable about field sanitation followed by
summer ploughing. Overall extent of adoption was found up to medium level among
the most of the respondents, but maximum respondents were adopting seed treatment
and field sanitation.
Independent variables like, Size of land holdings, annual income, contact with
extension agencies, and knowledge level were found positively and highly significant
related with adoption at 0.01 per cent level of probability. Whereas education had
positive and significant relationship with adoption of IPM practices at 0.05 per cent
level of probability. In multiple regression analysis, contact with extension agencies
and knowledge level showed highly significant and positive contribution towards
adoption at 0.01 per cent level of significance. While only one variable i.e. sources of
information had positive and significant contribution towards adoption of IPM
practices at 0.05 per cent level.
Hence, there is an need to minimize pest incidence through proper use of IPM
practices, increase technical information, awareness, training, skill, demonstrations,
proper technical guidance etc. about IPM practices of chickpea among the chickpea
growers and to ensure the availability of bio-agents, bio-pesticides, resistant varieties
and traps at the right time.
Suggestions for future works
On the basis of results and experience gained after the completion of the
investigation the following points are suggested for further studies:
1. As the number of independent variables, were limited in the present research work a
future study can be planned with more and different independent variables to know
their contribution in the adoption of IPM practices in chickpea cultivation.
82
2. The similar study should also be conducted with more number of respondents in
other parts of the state.
3. A separate study should be framed out to determine the perception of the all crops
growing farmers with reference to IPM practices.
4. A detailed study should be conducted to determine the perception of chickpea
growers for minimizing the constraints in adoption of IPM practices in chickpea
cultivation.
.
83
References
REFERENCES
Anonymous, 2007-2012. www.agridept.cg.gov.in/agriculture.
Anonymous, 2011 Area, production and productivity of major pulses.Agropedia.
http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/
Anonymous, Status paper on pulses, (Department of Agriculture & Cooperation)
Anonymous, ICRISAT website. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
Anonymous, 2011-2012 Increasing chickpea and pigeon pea production through
Intensive application of Integrated Pest Management.NCIPM.
Anonymous, 2014 Integrated pest management package and practices. NCIPM.
Anonymous, A global agricultural research partenership. http://www.cgiar.org
Anonymous, 2012 Project coordinator’s report, All India coordinated research project
on chickpea.
Bloom, S.D. 1979. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of
educational goals. Handbook Incogetive Domin, Longman Group Ltd. London.
Cochran, W.G. and Cox, G.M. 1957. Experimental designs. Second edition. John
Willey and Sons. New York.
Chandra, K.V.S. and Reddy, D.R. 2002. Effect of the selected profile characteristics of
the televiewers of annadata-velugubata programmes their viewing behaviour.
Maha. J. Extn. Edn. 21(1): 12-14.
Chandranna, J.S., Jagadeeshwara, K. and Madhu Prasad, V.L. 2009. Knowledge of
groundnut growers about Integrated Pest Management practices for redheaded
hairy caterpillar in Chitradurga district. Legume Res., 32 (2): 125-128.
Dadheech, B.S., Dangi, K.L. and Jain, H.K. 2009. Adoption of Pod Borer
Management in Gram Cultivation among Farmers in Udaipur District of
Rajasthan. Journal of Global Communication, 2(2): 407-414.
Dayaram, Pandey, D.K., Devi, S. and Chanu, T.M. 2012. Adoption Level of IPM
Practices in Cabbage and Cauliflower growers of Manipur, Indian
res.J.Ext.Edu.12 (2).
84
Dhama, O.P. and Bhatnagar, O.P., Education and communication for development,
Oxford and IBH publishing, Newdelhi: 2nd
edn. 1985
Dhargupta, A., Goswami, A., Sen, M and Majumdar, D. 2009. Study on the effect of
socio-economic parameters on health status of the Toto, Santal, Sabar and
Lodha tribes of Westbengal, India. Stud tribes tribals. 7(1): 31-38
FAO (1967) Report of first session of the FAO panel of experts on Integrated pest
control. Food and Agriculture Organization of the united nations, Rome.
Gandhi, R., Venkatesh, Hanchimal, S. N., Shivamurthy, M. and Hittalmani, S. 2008.
Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices among Tomato Growers.
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 21 (1): 17-19.
Khare, A., Wakle, P.K., Shambharkar, Y.B., and Patil, J. 2013. Correlates of adoption
and constraints faced by the gram farmers in adoption of improved cultivation
practices. Indian journal of research. Vol 2(10)
Kumar, P., Peshin, R., Nain, M.S. And Manhas, J.S. 2010. Constraints in pulses
cultivation as perceived by the Farmers. Raj. J. Extn. Edu.18: 33-36.
Kumar, P.G., Jyosthna, M.K., and Reddy, P.L .2013. Knowledge and extent of
adoption of improved practices of chickpea through KVK interventions. J. Res.
ANGRAU. XLI (3): 1-144.
Kumari, G. 2012. Constraints in adoption of IPM practices by rice growing farmers of
Jammu Division. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, special
issue. 2:15-17
Kushwaha, D.P. 2005. A study on adoption pattern of rice cultivars among farmers in
northern hill agro climatic zone of Chhattisgarh. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis, IGKV,
Raipur (C.G.).
Lakra, P.K. 2011. A study on extent of adoption of hybrid rice production technology
by the tribal farmers of Surguja district of Chhattisgarh. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis,
IGKV, Raipur (C.G.).
Lundberg, G.A., Schrag, C.C., Lalsen, O.N. and Catton, W.R., Sociology, New York:
4th
Edn. 1968
85
Narbaria, S. 2013. A study on adoption level of System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
technology among farmers in Dhamtari district of Chhattisgarh. M.Sc. (Ag.)
Thesis, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.)
Nithyashree, D.A., and Angadi, J.G. 2001. A study on the knowledge and adoption of
IPM practices among cotton growers of Raichur district. Karnataka J.Agric.sci.
14(4): 992-995.
Padekar, B.C. 2004. Attitude of farmers regarding use of biofertilizers in raipur district
of Chhattisgarh state. Unpublished M.sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted to IGKV,
Raipur.
Patel, A. C. 2006. Adoption dynamics of pigeon pea growers in relation to Integrated
Pest Management Technology of Vadodara district Gujarat state. Ph. D. thesis,
AAU. Anand.
Raghavendra, M.R., Natikar, K.V., and Hirevenkanagoudar, L.V. 2006. Knowledge
Level of Farmers about Cultivation Practices and Post Harvest Technology in
Red gram. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 19 (4):862-866.
Raghuwanshi, H.S. 2005. Adoption behaviour of rice growers regarding control
measures of various insect pests of rice crop in Dhamtari district of
Chhattisgarh state. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur, (C.G.).
Rai, P. 2014. Study the occurrence and management practices of major insect pests of
prominent solaneceous vegetable crops adopted by the farmers of Raipur
district of Chhattisgarh State.M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur, (C.G.).
Rajpoot, A.S. 2011. A Study on Adoption of Integrated Pest Management
Practices by the soybean Growers in Rehli Block of Sagar district M.P.
M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, JNKVV, Jabalpur, (M.P.).
Rathod, G.R., and Ningshen, A. 2012. Measuring the socioeconomic status of
urban below poverty line families in Imphal city, Manipur: A livelihood
study. International journal of marketing, financial services and
management research.vol1 (12)
Reddy, V.S. 2006. Knowledge and adoption of integrated pest management practices
among vegetable growers of Gadag district in north Karnataka. M.Sc. (Ag)
Thesis, university of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
Reading, H. F. 1977. Simple Dictionary of Social Science New Delhi, India Ambika
publication.
86
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th Ed.). New York: Free Press.
Sarthi, N. 2013. Impact of farmer’s field school training program on adoption of
Integrated Pest Management practices in rice by the farmers of the Korba
district of Chhattisgarh. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.)
Satya Gopal, P.V., Sreedevi, K., Prasad, S.V., 2014. Constraint analysis of integrated
pest management (IPM) in rice and the strategies to overcome the constraints.
Current Biotica 7(4): 306-313.
Shakhya, M.S., Patel, M.M. and Singh, V.B. 2008. Knowledge Level of Chickpea
Growers about Chickpea Production Technology. Indian Research Journal of
Extension Education 8(2&3): 65-68.
Sharma, M.L., Sarkar, J.D., Pandey, P.K. and Khan, M.A. 2003. Constraints analysis
of chickpea production at farmer’s field in Chhattisgarh, India. Chickpea
Research for the millennium: proceedings of the international chickpea
conference, 20-22 January, Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, India.
Shori, R.K. 2011. Attitude of Farmers Regarding Adoption of Control Measure
Practices of Various Weeds of Rice Crop in Dhamtari District of Chhattisgarh
State. Unpublished M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur, (C.G.).
Shrivastava, R. 2005. Attitude of farmers regarding adoption of control measure
practices of various diseases of rice crop in Dhamtari district of Chhattisgarh
state. Unpublished M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur,(C.G.).
Shriwas Y. 2011. A study on knowledge and adoption of recommended brinjal
production technology among the farmer of Durg district of Chhattisgarh state.
Unpublished M. Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.).
Singh, S.N., Singh , V.K., Singh , R.K., and Singh , R.K. 2007. Adoption Constraints
of Pigeonpea Cultivation in Lucknow District of Central Uttar Pradesh. Indian
Res. J. Ext. Edu. 7 (1).
Singh, U.R. 2013. A study on knowledge and adoption of control measure practices of
parthenium (parthenium hysterophorus l.) Weed among the farmers of Surguja
district of Chhattisgarh state. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.)
Soni, M.K. 2012. A study on adoption of recommended cauliflower production
technology among the farmers of Surguja district of Chhattisgarh state.M.Sc.
(Ag.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.).
87
Supe, S.V. 1975. Project Book-Extension Teaching Methods, Dept. of Agril.
Extension, P.K.V., Akola.
Thakre, J. S. 1980. Fertilizer utilization behaviour of the farmers and constraints in
adoption. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis (Unpub.) Dr. PDKV., Akola.
Tripathi, S.K., Mishra, B., and Singh,P. 2006. Knowledge extent of farmers about
chickpea production technology. Indian Research Journal of Extension
Education. 6(3).
Upadhyay, S., Sharma, J.P., and Bhardwaj,. T. 2014. Knowledge level of farmers
about integrated pest management Practices. Journal of Community
Mobilization and Sustainable Development Vol. 9(1):01-05, Jan-Jun.
Vathsala, B.C. 2005. Knowledge and adoption of Integrated Pest Management
practices on cabbage by farmers in eastern dry zone of Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri)
Thesis (Unpub.)University of agriculture science Bangalore (Karnataka).
88
Appendices
Appendix - A
Table : State-wise Consumption of Pesticides (Technical Grade) in India during 2011-2012.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, GoI, 2013.
State/UT Metric tonnes Percentage
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 15 0.02
Andhra Pradesh 9289 17.53
Assam 160 0.30
Arunachal Pradesh 17 0.03
Bihar 655 1.23
Chandigarh - - -
Chhattisgarh 600 1.13
Dadra and Nagar Haveli - - -
Daman and Diu - - -
Delhi - - -
Goa 8 0.01
Gujarat 2190 4.13
Haryana 4050 7.64
Himachal Pradesh 310 0.58
Jammu and Kashmir 1711 3.22
Jharkhand 151 0.28
Karnataka 1412 2.66
Kerala 807 1.52
Lakshadweep - - -
Madhya Pradesh 850 1.60
Maharashtra 6723 12.68
Manipur 33 0.06
Meghalaya 9 0.01
Mizoram 4 0.007
Nagalandx 15 0.02
Odisha 555 1.04
Puducherry 38 0.07
Punjab 5625 10.61
Rajasthan 2802 5.28
Sikkim - - -
Tamil Nadu 1968 3.71
Tripura 266 0.50
Uttar Pradesh 8839 16.68
Uttarakhand 206 0.38
West Bengal 3670 6.92
India 52979 100.00
89
Appendix-B
NRrhlx<+ jkT; ds nqxZ ftys esa puk mRiknd d`’kdks }kjk lefUor dhV izca/ku
ds vaxhdj.k dk v/;;u
lk{kkRdkj vuqlwph
Øekad-------------------- fnukad--------------------
Ikjke‛kZnkrk
MkW-,Pk-ds-voLFkh
izksQslj- d`f"k foLrkj foHkkx
ba-xk-d`-fo- jk;iqj
‚kks/kdrkZ dk uke
euh"k dsjdsVzVk
,e-,l-lh-¼d̀f"k½vafre o"kZ
d`f"k foLrkj foHkkx
ba-xk-d`-fo- jk;iqj
1½ d`’kd dk uke %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2½ xzke %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3½ fodkl[k.M %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4½ ftyk %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5½ d`’kd dk mez %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o’kZ
6½ lEidZ@eks-ua %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7½ f‛k{kk dk Lrj %&
¼v½ vf‛kf{kr
¼c½ izkFkfed
¼l½ ek/;fed
¼n½ mPp ek/;fed
¼b½ mPprj ek/;fed
¼Q½ Lukrd o vf/kd
8½ vkids ifjokj ds dqy lnL; dh la[;k %&
efgyk -------- iq:’k ----------- cPps ------------ ;ksx --------------
9½ tkfr %&
¼v½ vuqlwfpr tutkfr
¼c½ vuqlwfpr tkfr
¼l½ fiNM+k oxZ
¼n½ lkekU;
10½ vki viuh dqy Hkwfe@tehu ds ckjs es tkudkjh nsa %&
¼v½ dqy Hkwfe -----------------------------------------------------------------¼,dM+½
¼c½ flafpr Hkwfe -------------------------------------------------------------¼,dM+½
¼l½ vflafpr Hkwfe ----------------------------------------------------------¼,dM+½
¼n½ Lo;a dh Hkwfe ------------------------------------------------------------¼,dM½
¼;½ jsxgk ij nh x;h Hkwfe ---------------------------------------------¼,dM+½
¼j½ jsxgk ij yh x;h Hkwfe ---------------------------------------------¼,dM+½
90
11½ vkids xk¡o esa dkSu&dkSulh laLFkk¡,s gSa] vkSj D;k vki muds lnL; ;k inkf/kdkjh gS\
¼gk¡@ugh½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
dza- lLaFkk dk uke lnL; inkf/kdkjh
gk¡ Ukgha
1- iapk;r
2- Lkgdkjh lfefr
3- ;qok e.My
4- fdlku fe=
5- ‘kkyk tuHkkxhnkjh lfefr
6- lgdkjh laxBu
7- lkaLd`frd dsUnz
8- efgyk e.My
9- vU;------------------------------------
------------------------------------
12½ vkidk O;olk; D;k gS\
1½ d`f’k
2½ Ik‛kqikyu
3½ eqxhZikyu
4½ etnqjh
5½ ukSdjh
6½ vU; O;olk;
13½ vkidh fofHkUu lzksrksa ls dqy of’kZd vk; fdruh gS\
dza- O;olk; of’kZd vk;¼:- esa½
1½ d`f’k
2½ Ik‛kqikyu
3½ eqxhZikyu
4½ Ektnqjh
5½ ukSdjh
6½ vU; O;olk;------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
dqy okf’kZd vk; ¼:-esa½
14½ vki dkSu&dkSulh izeq[k Qlysa ysrsa gSa\ d`i;k muds ckjs esa tkudkjh nsaA
dza- Qly dk uke jdck ¼,dM+½ mRiknu izfr ,dM+ fd-xzk
flafpr vflafpr dqy
1½ [kjhQ
/kku
vU;----------------------------
-----------------------------
91
2½ jch
Pkuk
vU;------------------------------
-------------------------------
15½ D;k vkius puk Qly dh [ksrh gsrq _.k fy;k gS\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsa%&
dzaa- lzksr _.k izkIr fd;k _.k vof?k C;kt _.k miyC?krk
ljyrk ls dfBukbZ ls
1½ lgdkjh lLaFkk
2½ jk’Vªh;dr̀ cSad
3½ Lkkgwdkj
4½ fe=
5½ iM+kslh
6½ fj‛rsnkj
7½ vU;------------------------
------------------------
16½ vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku rduhd ls lEcfU/kr tkudkjh fdu&fdu
lzksrksa ls izkIr gksrh gS\
dza- lzksr Tkkudkjh
ges‛kk dHkh&dHkh dHkh ugha
1½ iM+kslh
2½ fe=
3½ fj'rsnkj
4½ mUur d`‛kd
5½ xzkeh.k usrk
6½ iap@ljiap
7½ cSad dk;ZdrkZ
8½ ,u- th- vks dk;ZdrkZ
9½ d`f’k if=dk¡,
10½ Lkekpkj i=
11½ Xkzke lsod@ d̀f’k fodkl
vf?kdkjh
12½ fdlku esyk
13½ izf'k{k.k
14½ jsfM;ks
15½ Vh-oh
16½ d`f’k oSKkfud
17½ vU;------------------------------------
92
17½ D;k vki puk Qly mRiknu rduhd ls lEcfU/kr tkudkjh ds fy, fdlh d`f’k izlkj
lLaFkk ls lEidZ djrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nss%&
dza- L=ksr lEidZ dk Lrj
dHkh ugha dHkh&dHkh T;knkrj fu;fer
1½ ofj"B d̀f’k vf/kdkjh
dk;kZy;
2½ d`f’k foKku dsUnz
3½ d`f’k
egkf++|ky;@fo’ofo|ky;
4½ d`f’k lsok dsUnz
5½ fdlku dkWy lsUVj
6½ xSj ljdkjh lLaFkk¡,
7½ vU;------------------------------------
------------------------------------
18½ oSKkfud n`f‛Vdks.k %&
d`i;k fuEu dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku rduhd ds ckjs
esa vki vius oSKkfud n`f’Vdks.k ds lEcU/k esa fopkj O;Dr dhft,%&
dza- dFku iw.kZr%
lger
Lkger dqN
ugha dg
ldrs
vlger iw.kZr%
vlger
1½ puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
rduhd lkekU; fu;a=.k fof/k ls
T;knk vPNh gSA
2½ lkekU; fu;a=.k fof/k] ftlls puk
Qly esa dhV fu;a=.k fd;k tkrk
gSa] og vkt Hkh lefUor dhV izca/ku
rduhd ls T;knk vPNh fof/k gSA
3½ puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
rduhd lLrh ,ao ykHknk;d gSA
4½ puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
rduhd ds ckjs esa tkuuk gh gS]
pkgs gesa bldk mi;ksx djsa ;k uk
djsaA
5½
puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
rduhd egaxh ,oa vuqi;ksxh gksrh
gSA
6½ mUur fdlku puk Qly esa
lefUor dhV izca/ku rduhd dks
viukrk gSA
93
19½ vki puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku rduhd ds Kku ,oa mlds vaxhadj.k ds ckjs esa
fuEu tkudkjh nsosa%&
Ø
-
puk Qly esa dhV izca/ku rduhd Kku dk Lrj vaxhdj.k dk Lrj
iw.kZ vkaf'kd fujad iw.kZ vkaf'kd fujad
1 D;k vkius dHkh lefUor dhV izca/ku
rduhd ds ckjs esa lquk gS\¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn
gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 D;k vkidks tkudkjh gS] fd lefUor dhV
izca/ku rduhd esa dkSu&dkSulh fof/k;k¡
'kkfey gksrh gS\¼gk¡@ugha½;fn gk¡ rks
fooj.k nsa%&
fof/k;k¡
d"kZ.k fdz;k,¡---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;k¡f=d fdz;k¡,-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tSfod fdz;k¡,--------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jklk;fud fdz;k¡,------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 D;k vki puk Qly dks uqdlku igq¡pkus
okys dhVksa] chekjh;ksa ,oa [kjirokjksa dh
igpku dj ikrsa gSa\¼gk¡@ugha½;fn gk¡ rks
fooj.k nsaA
¼dhV& pus dh bYyh] dVqvk]
Chekjh;k¡& mdBk jksx@foYV] LrEHk laf/k
foxyu@dkyj jkWV] tM+ lM+u@:V jkWV
[kjirokj& <sduk] fpuhekjh] cFkqvk] lsath]
lkaok] ewt] ?kkl] dkal]½ -----------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d"kZ.k fdz;k¡,
4 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV
izca/ku rduhd esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa dh
tkudkjh gS\¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k
nsaA
¼xzh"edkyhu ,oa xgjh tqrkbZ] [ksrksa dh
lkQ&lQkbZ] Qlypdz] izfrjks/kh fdLeksa
dk iz;ksx] varjorhZ; [ksrh] chtksipkj]
cqvkbZ dk le;] fujkbZ xqM+kbZ] flapkbZ½---------
94
5 D;k vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV
izca/ku rduhd esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds
varxZr xzh"edkyhu tqrkbZ ds ckjs esa irk
gS] vkSj D;k vki bldk iz;ksx djrs gSa\
¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼tehu esa fNis dhVksa dh lqLkIr voLFkkvksa
,oa jksxksa ,oa [kjirokjksa dks u"V djuk½-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
6 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV
izca/ku esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr [ksrksa
dh lkQ&lQkbZ o ikS/ks ds vo’ks"kksa dks
u"V djuk\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k
nsaA
¼jksxksa ,oa dhVksa dh lqlIr voLFkkvksa dks
u"V djuk½-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
7 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV
izca/ku esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr
Qlypdz ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS vkSj D;k
bls viukrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks
fooj.k nsaA
¼puk Qly ds ckn fcuk nyguh Qlyksa
dks ysuk]½---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
8 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV
izca/ku esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr
izfrjks/kh fdLeksa ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS vkSj
D;k bls viukrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡
rks fooj.k nsaA
¼tSls] ts-th 315 mdBk fujks/kd] bafnjk
puk 1] oSHko vkfn mdBk fujks/kd½---------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95
9 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr varjorhZ; [ksrh ds
ckjs esa tkudkjh gS vkSj D;k bls viukrs gSa\
¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼tSls puk Qly ds lkFk $ /kfu;k dks yxkuk½-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
10 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr chtksipkj ds ckjs
esa tkudkjh gS vkSj D;k bls viukrs gSa\
¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
QQw¡nuk’kd Ekk=k¼xzk] fe-yh]@fd-xzk½
Fkk;je 3xzk
dUVkQ 1-5 fe-yh
VªkbZdksMekZ 5 xzk
ih-,l-ch- 5 xzk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr cqvkbZ ds le; ds
ckjs esa tkudkjh gS vkSj D;k bls viukrs gSa\
¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼mrsjk 15 ls 20 vDVwcj---------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
le; ls cqvkbZ 15vDVwcj ls 15uoEcj-------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
foyEc ls cqvkbZ 10 fnlEcj rd------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------½
12 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr drkj ls drkj
cqokbZ ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k bls
viukrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼drkj ls drkj dh nwjh 30ls-eh½-----------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
96
13 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr fujkbZ&xqM+kbZ ds
ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k vki bls viukrs
gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼igyh fujkbZ&xqM+kbZ cqokbZ ls 25&30 fnu ckn
rFkk nqljh 50&60 fnu ckn½-------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
14 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa d"kZ.k fdz;kvksa ds varxZr flapkbZ ds ckjs esa
tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k vki bls viukrs gSa\
¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼izFke flapkbZ cqokbZ ls 45 fnu ckn rFkk nqljh
flapkbZ 75 fnu ckn½-----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
;kaf=d fdz;k¡,
15 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa ;kaf=d fdz;kvks ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj
D;k vki bls viukrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡
rks fooj.k nsaA
¼T&vkdkj [kqVh;k¡] izdk’k iziap] fQjkseksu iziap½--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
16 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa ;kaf=d fdz;kvksa ds varxZr & vkdkj dh
[kqVh;ksa ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k vki
bls viukrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k
nsaA
¼[ksrksa esa 3&5ehVj dh nwjh ij ydM+h dh
yxHkx 1ehVj dh Å¡ph [kqVh;k¡ xM+k nsukA½---------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
17 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa ;kaf=d fdz;kvksa ds varxZr izdk’k iziap ds
ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k vki bls viukrs
gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼izdk’k iziap jkr esa mi;ksx djrs gSa ftlls
97
blesa yxs dVksjs esa izkS<+ dhV Q¡l tkrs gSa] vkSj
mUgsa gj fnu lqcg u"V dj fn;k tkrk gSA½--------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa ;kaf=d fdz;kvksa ds varxZr fQjkseksu iziap ds
ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k vki bls viukrs
gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼gj lqcg buesa bDVBh ia[kh;ksa dks u"V dj nsa]
,oa ,d gsDVs;j esa ik¡p fQjkseksu iziap yxkuk
pkfg,A½-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
tSfod fdz;k¡,
19 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa tSfod fdz;kvksa ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj
D;k vki bls viukrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡
rks fooj.k nsaA ¼,u-ih-Ogh- ,oa VªkbZdksxzkek½
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa tSfod fdz;kvksa ds varxZr ijthoh ,oa muds
nj ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k vki bls
viukrs gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼VªkbZdksxzek fdyksful ls ;qDr 50000 vaMks dks
izfr gsDVs;j nj ls 10 fnuksa ds varjky esa iqu%
nsaA½-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
21 D;k vkidks puk Qly ds lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa tSfod fØ;kvksa ds varxZr ,u-ih-ok;jl ds
ckjs esa tkudkjh gS] vkSj D;k vki bls viukrs
gSa\ ¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼,u-ih-Ogh- 250 bYyh ds lerqY; ?kksy dks 500
yhVj ikuh esa feykdj fNM+dko djsaA½-------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
jklk;fud fdz;k¡,
22 D;k vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa dhVksa dh vkfFkZd lhekar Lrj dh tkudkjh
gS\¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
98
¼pus dh bYyh1@5 ls 10 Qyh] pus dk
dVqvk½-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
23 D;k vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa dhVksa dh vkfFkZd {kfr Lrj dh tkudkjh
gS\¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼uk’kd dhV dh og la[;k dk og fuEure
?kuRo tks vkfFkZd {kfr igq¡pk,xkA½--------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
24 D;k vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa jklk;fud dhVuk’kh],oa uhank uk’kd ds ckjs
esa tkudkjh gS\¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
¼dhVuk’kd izksisuksQkWl] DyksjksikbjhQkWl]
lkbijesfFkzu½--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
¼uhankuk’kd is.MkesFkkyhu]D;qtksyksQksi]QY;qDyksjhu½------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
25 D;k vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
esa jklk;fud dhVuk’kh] ,oa ds ckjs esa tkudkjh
gS\¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA
dhVuk’kd Ekk=k
izksisuksQkWl 50bZ-lh- 1yh-@gsDVs;j
DyksjksikbjhQkWl
20bZ-lh-
izksisuksQkWl 40$
lkbijesfFkzu
4¾44bZ-lh
1-5yh-@gsDVs;j
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99
26 D;k vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku
esaa uhank uk’kd ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gS\¼gk¡@ugha½
;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k nsaA¼ is.MkesFkkyhu 30-bZ-lh-
750 fe-yh- ls 1 yh- lfdz; rRo dk fNM+dko
cksuh ds 3 fnuksa ds vUnj izfr gs- dh nj ls
djsaA½----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
¼ D;qtksyksQksi& 40&50 xzk- lfdz; rRo dk
fNM+dko cksus ds 15&20fnu ckn djsaA½------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
27 D;k vkidks puk Qly esa dhVuk’kd ,oa
uhankuk’kd ds vU/kk/kqUn mi;ksx ls mRiUu
nq"izHko dh tkudkjh\¼gk¡@ugha½ ;fn gk¡ rks
fooj.k nsaA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22½ vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku rduhd dks viukus esa fdu&fdu leL;kvksa
dk lkeuk djuk iM+kA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23½ vkidks puk Qly esa lefUor dhV izca/ku rduhd esa vkus okyh leL;kvksa dks nwj
djus ds fy, vius lq>ko nhft,A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
