Extension education Dharwad

8/21/2019 Extension education Dharwad

1/77

IMPACT OF FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL (FFS) ONCOTTON CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN

DHARWAD DISTRICT

Thesis submitted to theUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for theDegree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

IN

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION

BY

SHABNAM M. ADHONI

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATIONCOLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,DHARWAD 580 005

JUNE, 2011


2/77

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD (S. S. DOLLI)JUNE, 2011 MAJOR ADVISOR

Approved by :

Chairman : ____________________________(S. S. DOLLI)

Members : 1. __________________________(K. A. JAHAGIRDAR)

2. __________________________(S. L. PATIL)

3. __________________________(R. K. PATIL)

4. __________________________(BALACHANDRA K. NAIK)

5. __________________________(ASHALATHA K. V.)


3/77

C O N T E N T S

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTLIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF PLATES

LIST OF APPENDIX

1. INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Profile of Farmers Field School (FFS) participants

2.2 Knowledge level of respondents

2.3 Impact of FFS on ICM of cotton

2.4 Factors contributing to the effectiveness of FFS

2.

2.5 Problems faced and suggestions obtained by farmers forsuccessful conduct of FFS

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

3.2 Locale of the study

3.3 Sampling procedure

3.4 Operationalization of variables and their measurement

3.5 Instrument used for data collection

3.

3.6 Statistical methods employed for analysis of data

RESULTS

4.1 Profile of FFS participants

4.2 Distribution of FFS participants based on their characteristics

4.3 Knowledge level of FFS and non FFS farmers about integratedcrop management (ICM) practices in cotton

4.4 Adoption level of the integrated crop management (ICM)practices in cotton by FFS and non FFS participants

4.5 Factors contributing to the effectiveness of FFS.

4.

4.6 Problems faced and suggestions obtained by farmers forsuccessful conduct of FFS.

Contd..


4/77

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars

DISCUSSION

5.1 Profile of FFS participants


5.3 Knowledge level of FFS and non FFS farmers about integratedcrop management (ICM) practices in cotton

5.4 Adoption level of the integrated crop management (ICM)practices in cotton by FFS and non FFS participants


5.

5.6 Problems faced and suggestions obtained by farmers forsuccessful conduct of FFS

6. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX


5/77

LIST OF TABLES

TableNo.

Title

1. Selection of the taluks and villages

2. Profile of FFS participants

2a Education level

2b Extension contact

2c Organizational participation

2d Mass media exposure

3. Cropping intensity of FFS participants

4. Participation Level of farmers in FFS activities

5. Distribution of FFS participants based on their characteristics

6. Extent of knowledge level of FFS and non FFS farmers about cottonICM practices

7. Knowledge index of different components of ICM of FFS and nonFFS farmers

8. Distribution of FFS participants according to their knowledge levelabout integrated crop management ( ICM) practices of cotton crop

9. Extent of Adoption of recommended integrated crop management(ICM) practices by groundnut FFS and non FFS farmers

10. Adoption index of different components of ICM of FFS and non FFSfarmers

11. Distribution of FFS participants according to their adoption level aboutintegrated crop management (ICM) practices of cotton crop

12. Comparison of mean yield levels of cotton of FFS and non FFSfarmers

13a. Association of method of selection of FFS participant and plot withknowledge and adoption level of FFS participants

13b. Association of nature of collaborator with knowledge and adoptionlevel of FFS participants

13c. Association of FFS events with knowledge and adoption level of FFSparticipants

13d. Association of nature of facilitators with knowledge and adoption levelof FFS participants

14a. Problems faced by FFS participants in FFS programme

14b. Suggestion of FFS participants for successful conduct of FFSprogramme


6/77

LIST OF FIGURES

FigureNo.

Title

1. Flow chart showing sampling procedure

2. Profile of FFS farmers

3. Knowledge index of FFS and non FFS farmers

4. Distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to theirknowledge level about ICM practices in cotton crop

5. Adoption index of different components ICM of FFS and non FFSfarmers

6. Distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their adoptionlevel

7. Comparison of mean yield of cotton of FFS and non FFS farmers

8. Conceptual framework of FFS


7/77

LIST OF PLATES

Plate

No.Title

1. Long term experiment (seed to seed)

2. Learning through games

3. Taking observations in CESA

4. Presentation of CESA charts by FFS participants


8/77

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix

No.Title

I. Interview schedule


9/77

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent past, there has been a shift in agriculture extension services from supplydriven to demand driven approaches and from central command and control to localmanagement and services in an effort to increase effectiveness, efficiency and equity.Therefore participatory community-driven development, a process in which community groupsinitiate, organize and take action to achieve common interest and goals, it has assumed

importance in developing nations.

The participatory approaches are more effective as they focus on needs and interestof local people. In these methods farmers wisdom and experiences are respected andagricultural extension agents put themselves in the roles of better listeners and facilitate anddevelop a responsive two-way communication process. Participatory approaches believe inbottom up approach and empowerment of local people. Hence, these methods have beenadopted by both government and non government organizations.

There is limited scope for expanding the area under different crops in India. However,it is possible to increase the production per unit area by promoting the adoption of modernagricultural technology among farmers. Organized attempts for agricultural developmentpredate the planning era in India. Over the years, the country has tried many extension anddevelopment strategies that helped to increase and enhance farm production, productivityand overall quality of human life. After the independence, first extension direction to

agricultural development was Community Development (CD) approach. The basic idea of CDprogramme was to bring overall development of the rural community through communityparticipation but, not many positive results were seen due to lack of conviction, commitmentand expertise and the compelling situation of food shortages. During sixties, the agriculturalproduction situation was very critical and intensification of agriculture with the use of highyielding varieties became must and agricultural development became the sole indicator andmeasure of rural development. The programmes such as IADP (Intensive Agriculture DistrictProgramme), IAAP (Intensive Agriculture Area Programme), ND (National Demonstration)and HYVP (High Yielding Varieties Programme) gained momentum. At this point, the solepurpose was to increase crop yields. These approaches, though paid good dividend,generally failed to help especially the poor farm households and reduce inequity.Superimposed on transfer of technology (ToT) approach was the T & V system with emphasison the role of extension in technology transfer to encourage utilization of research results.But, usually the flow of information was one-way and the feedback was minimal. The system

was found to be too narrow in its approach and not suitable for small farms and rain-fedareas, which are surrounded with so many uncertainties. Indian Council of AgricultureResearch (ICAR) has also launched innovative extension programmes namely, OperationalResearch Project (ORP), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) and Lab to Land Programme (LLP). Allthese programmes including National Demonstration (ND) were later merged under theprogramme of KVK. The farming system research and extension programme was also startedthrough KVKs. These programmes did receive some success, but could not make muchimpact, particularly in ensuring peoples participation. It was realized that the moderntechnologies did not match with the farmers need and resources, and therefore, farmersparticipation was partial in the programmes. The situation demanded an emphasis onfarmers need-based and problem-oriented technology generation with active participation ofthe farmers. The need for technology appraisal, refinement and transfer was felt and IVLP(Institute Village Linkages Programme) based on participatory methodology was launched inselected locations in the country. In addition, National Watershed Development Programme

for Rain-fed Areas was also launched by Govt. of India in selected states with basicconsideration of peoples participation. Recently, Agriculture Technology and ManagementAgency (ATMA) have been making effort to integrate various department as well as privatesectors to bring improvement in farming situation using bottom up planning approach. By andlarge, the impact of different programmes in terms of active peoples participation has notbeen so satisfactory. All these strategies considered farming problems essentially asindividual concern and never as a collective issue. The development planning is for thepeople and, therefore, it has to be of the people and by the people. If the development effortsare to be controlled by people, it is essential that they also contribute and are fully involved inall the phases of development process.


10/77

The techniques such as Participatory Rural Appraisal, Rapid Rural Appraisal,Participatory Learning and Action and Agro-ecosystem Analysis are well known and popular.The participatory approach needs to be cultivated and nurtured in the rural community basedon rapport, trust, interpersonal relationship and democratic but structural functioning.

There is increasing recognition to meet the diverse needs of modern farming, achange of approach is called for, towards educating and enabling farmers to define and solvetheir own problems, and take some responsibility for the extension service they require.

Framers Field School (FFS) is one of the participatory methods that provides farmers anopportunity of learning by doing, experimenting technologies and seeing the results in theirown situation.

During recent years, number of development agencies including the World Bank,have promoted FFS as a more effective approach to extend science-based knowledge andpractices to farmers. Though pioneered and first promoted by Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) a practical way of diffusing knowledge intensive integrated pestmanagement concept and practices for East Asian rice based systems, the FFS has sinceevolved to include a much broader coverage of other farm relevant topics in its curriculum.FFSs have spread rapidly to all continents since their first introduction in 1989 in Indonesia,where Integrated Pest Management FFSs were developed to help farmers deal with theproblem of rice brown plant hoppers (BPH) in irrigated rice. As the concept has spread, it hasbeen adapted for a wide range of crops (including tree crops such as bananas, various high

value crops such as vegetables and fruits, industrial crops such as cotton, cocoa). FFSscurricula and learning processes also have been developed for the livestock sector (dairying,veterinary care, poultry and integrated rice-duck systems, goat husbandry, aquaculture andfishing) and for land productivity issues (land and water management, soil fertility, landdegradation). These innovations have brought new types of participants within its ambit.

The FFS concept has been developed far beyond integrated pest management (IPM)in rice. Now FFS is being practicing in over 30 countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh,China, Philippines, Sudan, Kenya, Egypt, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Peru, Pakistan, Cameron,Angola, USA etc) around the world, encouraging farmer learning in the areas as diverse asdairy farming, conservation agriculture and even community health. In India, FFS isintroduced in 1989 under the assistance provided by the FAO of the United NationsIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) programme on cotton implemented on a pilot basis. FFShas been adopted in most of the crops especially high valued crops like cotton, pigenpea,groundnut, maize, etc.

India has the largest cotton area in the world with about 90 lakh hectares accountingfor one-fourth of the global cotton area. Cotton contributes 29.90 per cent of the Indianagricultural gross domestic product and provides livelihood to nearly 6 crore people(Pratiyogitha Darpana, 2010). In Karnataka, cotton is grown on an area of 5.34 lakh hectareswith the production of 10.00 lakh bales and productivity of 318 kg per hectare (PratiyogithaDarpana, 2010). Since introduction of hybrids, pest menace in cotton is severe resulting inindiscriminate use of insectiside, increase in crop losses and reduction in productivity andincome to farmers. In some of the area it was discontinued due to severe attack of insectpests. As FFS is the best approach to educate farmers on IPM it was adopted in cotton crop.FFS curriculum is broad based to suit farmers needs about integrated crop management(ICM) of cotton which are cost effective and also ensure sustainable production.

Concept of FFS

Farmers field school is a non-formal learner centered educational process. Educationis seen as a process of learning science by experimenting. It seeks to empower people tosolve their field problems, actively by fostering participation, interaction, joint decision makingand self confidence. Farmers learn, for themselves by carrying out various activities related toa selected farming technology and through constant observation of the technologyperformance in the field viz., Agro Eco-System Analysis (AESA). (Ramamurthy, 2005).

Participants, collaborator, facilitator are main three categories of actors involved inFFS. Farmers selected are willing to be learners in the farmer field school. Participants shouldbe willing for regular participation, active involvement, sharing learnt skills and knowledge andto adopt identified practices. Collaborator is a farmer/farm women who give land forconducting field studies. He/she should be co-operative, non-political, volunteer to spare


11/77

her/his land and bear the input cost, and be available during sessions. Facilitator is technicallycompetent person to lead members and he will participate in discussion sessions as acontributor rather than leader in arriving at an agreed consensus and makes the farmers tocarry out the activities.

Normally, FFS is conducted in 2 acres of land which is near to the village andconvenient to all participant farmers and facilitators to participate in all sessions. The land isdivided into FFS plot (0.75 acre), control plot (0.75 acre) and experimental plot (0.5 acre).

However the effectiveness of the FFS depends on various factors such as farmersparticipation, collaborator nature, facilitators nature, curriculum and effective conduct of FFS.

Considering the importance and potentiality of FFS in ToT, it is essential to study theimpact of FFS on integrated crop management practices of cotton crop. In this context, thestudy was designed with the following specific objectives.

1. To know the impact of FFS on knowledge level of farmers.

2. To analyse the impact of FFS on Integrated Crop Management Practices (ICM) ofcotton crop.

3. To identify the factors contributing to the effectiveness of the FFS.

4. To enlist the problems experienced and suggestions by the farmers forsuccessful conduct of FFS.

Scope of the study

The study was focused on impact of FFS on knowledge level and adoption of ICMpractices in cotton crop. The results open up the scope for adoption of FFS in different cropsespecially for high valued crops. The insight on factors that influences effectiveness of FFS isof immense use to field staff to articulate and provide thrust on such of the factors thatcontribute directly to the effectiveness of FFS. The results of the study provide base forplanning and organizing FFS in different situation and design the methodology accordingly.

Limitation of the study

The present study had limitation of the time and other resources. However,considerable care has been exercised in making the study as objective and systematic aspossible. It may however be recognized that the findings of study may be generalized withinthe boundaries of the area under investigation and such other areas having same agro

climatic and socio-economic conditions. Thus, the study becomes meaningful to the planners,policy makers and extension personnel for transfer of technology (ToT).


12/77

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The studies related to the research study are reviewed in this chapter. A few studieswere available on FFS, related studies were reviewed under this chapter.


2.2 Knowledge level of respondents


2.4 Factor contributing to the effectiveness of FFS

2.5 Problems faced and suggestions obtained in conduct of FFS programme


Vinayak Reddy (1991) in his study conducted in Chitradurga district of Karnatakareported that 53 per cent of cotton growers belonged to high income group.

More et al. (2000) conducted study in Parbhani, revealed that majority of cottongrowers were middle aged (55.00%), medium level of education (62.15%), socioeconomicstatus (63.57%), mass media exposure (55.71%), extension contact (62.86%) and riskpreference (62.14%).

Sriram and Palaniswamy (2001) conducted study in Salem district of TN, the revealedthat 59.16 per cent of cotton growers had medium level of awareness and higher proportion(98.00%) of cotton growers were highly educated and had high mass media exposure.

Patil et al. (2007a) study was undertaken to study the mass media utilization pattern ofcotton growers in Malaprabha and Tungabhadra command area of north Karnataka indicatedthat, considerable percentage of respondents read news papers regularly (30.42%) andoccasionally (23.75%). A negligible percentage of respondents occasionally read agriculturalmagazines (6.25%). Further a negligible percentage of respondents listened agricultureprogrammes broadcasted or telecast over radio (3.75%) and television (1.25%) regularly.

Patil et al. (2007b) reported that, respondents had more often contacted theAgriculture Assistants whenever problem arose (42.08%), once in month (32.08%), once infortnight (8.33%) and 17.08 percent never contacted. Similarly, the respondents were alsocontacted extension workers of bank and input companies whenever problem arose

(22.08%), once in month (22.08%) and never contacted (25.83%). A meager per cent ofrespondents contacted University scientist/Extension guides (9.58%) and Assistant Director ofAgriculture (6.67%), whenever problem arose.

Patrick et al. (2007) conducted study in Central Benin reported that, smallholdersacceptance of innovation depends largely on the approach used to take their needs andconstraints into account. The adoption of IPM practices by smallholders lead to the reductionin pesticide use in cotton.

Yeshwant kumar (2008) conducted study in Bellary district to know the knowledge andadoption of ICM practices by FFS participant. He reported that majority of FFS respondentswere young aged (40.00%) studied up to middle school (34.00%). Over fifty per cent offarmers were belonged to medium extension participation and high innovative category.

David Dolly (2009) conducted study in West Indies reported that, the FFS participants

had a mean age of 44.75 years, which was ten years younger than the non FFS participants.The FFS attracted younger farmers who may understand long term implication in vegetableproduction. Reported mean monthly farm income of FFS farmers ($ 3409.52) higher than thatof non FFS participants ($3197.5).

Kiran (2010) conducted study in Warangal district of A.P. reported that majority ofcotton growers were medium aged group (68.00%), education (80.00%), socioeconomicstatus (80.00%), information source utilization (67.00%) and extension participation(67.00%).


13/77

The above reviews indicate that, majority of cotton growers were belonged to middleaged group, medium extension participation category, high income group and studied up tomiddle school.

2.2 Knowledge level of FFS participants

Juliana et al.(1991) observed that most of the marginal and small farmers possessedonly medium level of knowledge about IPM practices. More than half of the big farmers

possessed high level of knowledge. In contrast to this, only 2.50 per cent of marginal farmersand one fourth of small farmers had high level of knowledge.

Parthasarthi and Govind (2002) reported that a very high percentage score (53.74%)was found in the case of knowledge on ETL of different pests among FFS farmers. But a verylow mean percentage score (6.66%) was observed in the case of Non FFS farmers. Thisindicates that the FFS farmers were more knowledgeable on ETL of different pests than NonFFS farmers.

Godtland et al. (2003) in their study evaluated the impact of a pilot Farmer-Field-School (FFS) programme on farmers' knowledge of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)practices related to potato cultivation, reported that farmers who participated in theprogramme have significantly more knowledge about IPM practices than those in the non-participant comparison group. Furthermore, improved knowledge about IPM practices has asignificant impact on productivity in potato production.

Darling and Vasanthkumar (2004) indicated that 59.16 per cent of the respondentspossessed medium level of knowledge and 28.33 per cent of the respondents had low level ofknowledge on various dimensions of botanical pesticides.

Dharminder and Ravinder (2004) conducted a study on cotton growers in Bathindadistrict of Punjab and revealed that 73.77 per cent of farmers had medium knowledge level.Whereas 21.30 per cent of them fell in the high knowledge category regarding IPM in cotton.

Godtland et al. (2004) conducted a study on the impact of a pilot Farmer Field School(FFS) programme on farmers' knowledge (as measured by a knowledge test score) and,subsequently, on the productivity levels in potato cultivation reported that FFS participationsignificantly enhances knowledge on pests, fungicides, and resistant varieties allinstrumental in implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices. It also findsevidence that the FFS approach adds to the traditional transfer-of-technology approach inimparting knowledge on technical issues related to IPM to farmers. Results of a simulationexercise indicate that FFS participation would raise the average potato seed output-input ratioby 2.5, or approximately 32 per cent of the average value in a normal year.

Noorjehan et al. (2004) reported that majority (90.00%) of paddy growers in Trichydistrict of Tamil Nadu had noticed of respondents had low to medium level of knowledge onpest management practices in rice. Only 10.00 per cent of them were found to have higherlevel of knowledge of pest management practices.

Ortiz et al. (2004) studied on the Peruvian FPR-FFS programme indicated thatparticipants are more knowledgeable and that their expertise further increased after anadditional year of participation. The benefits to participants can be evaluated more directly bycomparing the productivity of participants' farms compared with non-participants' farms. Forthe Peruvian FPR-FFS programme, participants had significantly higher average levels ofproductivity.

Ooi and Kenmore (2005) observed in their study that there is 16.9 per cent increase inbiological control knowledge of FFS farmers for recognizing natural enemies compared to 2.3per cent for non-IPM FFS farmers.

Venkatashivareddy (2006) find out that in knowledge and adoption of IPM practicesamong vegetable growers of Gadag district in north Karnataka. Majority of the vegetablegrowers possessed medium level of knowledge about IPM practices in tomato (66.70%) andcabbage (61.60%).

Bunyatta et al. (2006) in Kenya find out in their study that there was a significantdifference in knowledge acquired in Soil and Crop Management(S&CM) technologies by FFScompared to NFFS farmers.


14/77

About 50 per cent of FFS farmers had acquired high to very high level of theknowledge of all the eight technologies disseminated while the majority (>80%) of the NFFSfarmers had acquired less than 50 per cent of the same knowledge.

Yamini Verma and Rajendran (2007) reported that 45 per cent of farmers gain correctknowledge towards IPM, resistant varieties (40.00%), INM (35.00%), chemical pesticides(55.00%) and biological control (50.00%) compared to non-FFS farmers (40.00%, 35.00%,30.0%, 40.00% and 30.00%, respectively).

Yeshwant Kumar (2008) conducted study in Bellary district to know the knowledge andadoption of ICM practices by FFS participant and he reported that 42 per cent of maize FFSparticipants were in medium knowledge level category. Where as 40 per cent of respondenthad high level knowledge level. While 18 per cent of the maize FFS participants, were in lowknowledge level category. He reported that 52 per cent of groundnut FFS participants were inmedium level knowledge, where as 30 per cent of groundnut FFS participants had high and18% had low knowledge level of ICM practices.

George and Hegde (2009) reported that there was a significant difference in knowledgelevels before and after implementation of the programme. The farmers level of knowledgeincreased significantly from 35.70 per cent before the FFS to 82.20 per cent after the FFS.

From the above reviews it could be inferred that majority of the FFS participantswere belonged to medium knowledge level category and also knowledge level of FFS

farmers about IPM practices was higher than non FFS farmers.


Nerkar et al.(1999) reported that 45 to 100 per cent of the target population has realizedincrease in production, while 27 to100 per cent target population has realized increase inproductivity of crops and 100 per cent target population has realized increase in profitabilityand sustainability of agriculture.

Islam et al. (2002) conducted a comparative study between DAE Trainer FarmersField School (DT-FFS) and Farmer-Trainer Farmers Field School (FT-FFS) in Bangladesh.The results showed that the highest proportions (65-95%) of farmers had medium IPM skilllevels. About 26 per cent of DT-FFS farmers had high skill levels as compared to 1.82 percent of FT-FFS farmers.

Davies et al.(2003) reported that the combined application of FYM, DAP and Tithonia

resulted in a less serious loss of nitrogen than the current practice of using a singleapplication of FYM or DAP. This benefit in using organic and inorganic inputs in combination.

Vijayalakshmi et al. (2003) concluded that, FFS has helped farmers change theirattitudes considerably from the all insects are pests mindset and resorting to indiscriminatepesticides sprays, improvement in farm income and soil quality following the use of intercropsas a pest management option. The ultimate outcome of FFS was a decrease in cost ofcultivation leading to higher net incomes.

Mallah and Korejo (2005) carried out investigation on Farmer Field School (FFS)activities in Pai Farm Sakrand (Sindh, Pakistan) .The study compared the results of theexperimental IPM plot to that of a grower's plot (managed under current farmers' practices). Itis revealed that the IPM plot provided more (25.00%) yield and a net profit of Rs 3705(38.03%) increase over the profit from the grower's plot.

Ooi and Kenmore (2005) reported that there is a reduction in use of insecticides(43.00% for IPM FFS farmers versus 34 per cent for non-IPM FFS farmers). With the skillsacquired at FFS, farmers have increased incomes, as farmer education activities helpconsolidate the impact of biological control in farmers' pest management decision making(34.00% increase in FFS farmers as compared to 10.00% for non-FFS farmers).

Berg et al. (2007) reported that rice farmers in intervention villages who graduatedfrom the field school took vector-control actions as well as improving environmental sanitationand their personal protection measures against disease transmission. They also reduced theiruse of agricultural pesticides, especially insecticides.


15/77

Mancini et al. (2007) reported that Farmer field schools (FFSs) were conducted inSouthern India to reduce pesticide input and enhances sustainability of cotton productionsystems. This study was carried out to determine the additional benefits of FFSs in the socialand economic arena, using the sustainable livelihoods (SL) concept to frame the evaluation.Farmers who had participated in the integrated pest management (IPM) FFSs perceived arange of impacts much beyond the adoption of IPM practices. The reduced cost of cultivationallowed for financial recovery from debt and the building of physical assets. IPMFFS

households and production systems were perceived by the participants to have become moreeconomically resilient than Non-IPMFFS control groups when faced with adversity. IPMFFSsalso led to enhanced individual and community social well-being, a benefit valued in particularby the women participants.

Mancini et al. (2008) conducted study in Andhra Pradesh, reported that FFS farmers(73.00%) drastically reduced the use of highly toxic pesticides as a result of increasedknowledge on biological control principles.

Suresh et al. (2007) reported that after conduct of FFS programme in Dinnahalli villageof Kolar District, (93.00%) farmers/farm women were convinced about the technology. Insubsequent season, summer 2006-07, (73.00%) farmers have adopted the same technologyin their fields. During Kharif 2007, (93.00%) farmers have continued adoption of aerobicmethod of paddy cultivation. Thus, the FFS is a tool to build capacities of farmer groups andfield staff in managing crop ecosystem, make them better decision makers in promoting

sustainable use of resources at cropping, farming and watershed system levels.Yamini Verma and Rajendran (2007) reported that there was a yield increase of 14.5

per cent over the control after the conduct of FFS. The cost of cultivation could be reduced by9 per cent after FFS programme. Decrease in the use of Carbofuran 3G from 30 kg/ha to20kg/ha in rice. The incidence of pesticide application was five times during a croppingseason earlier. This was reduced to two times during the cropping season during the FFS. Itwas also observed that defender population had increased in FFS plots and reached a levelsufficient for control of pest.

Tchoumo et al.(2008) reported that there was 47 per cent reduction in the frequencyof spraying fungicides and 17 per cent reduction in the number of sprayers applied pertreatment following the implementation of FFS programme. A partial budget analysis revealedthat the IPM practices lowered overall costs of production by 11 per cent relative to previouspractices.

Yeshwant Kumar (2008) revealed that, 30 per cent of maize FFS participants were inhigh yield producer category when compared to non FFS participant (20%).Further, 40 percent of maize FFS participants were in high economic return category when compared to thenon FFS participants (32%) indicating positive impact of FFS on maize yield levels andeconomic returns of the participants.

George and Hegde(2009) reported that as a result of FFS programme the frequency ofinsecticide spray came down to 2.50 from 8.50 times per crop in farmers practice. Frequencyof fungicides came down to 3 as compared to 4.50 in farmer practice in farmers practice. Theincidence of tomato spotted wilt virus was 7.60 per cent in IPM compared to 25.60 per cent infarmers practice. The incidence of fruit borer came down to 7.80 per cent in IPM compared to21.88 per cent in farmers practice. In wilt resistant varieties of the incidence of blight reducedfrom 7.79 per cent to 4.00 per cent. The marketable yield obtained was 51.30 t/ha in IPMplots compared to 44.60 t/ha in farmers practice.

The above studies revealed that, the farmers who had participated in FFS programmebenefited in many aspects such as, reduced pesticide application, cost of cultivation andincrease farmers skill, profit as well as enhanced social well being than the non FFS farmers.

2.4 Factor contributing to the effectiveness of FFS

Sivakumar et al.(1998) conducted study in Chennai district of TN state reported that,education, farm size, mass media exposure and innovativeness had a positive and significantrelationship with know how behavior of FFS farmers. Where as, farm size, mass mediaexposure, innovativeness and know how behavior were the characteristics that had a positiveand significant relationship with the do how behavior of FFS farmers.


16/77

Krishnamurthy (1999) reported that age and farming experience were negative andhighly significant with knowledge level of the respondents, whereas education, extensionparticipation and risk orientation are highly significant with knowledge level about IPM in ricecultivation.

Islam et al. (2002) reported that educational background and agricultural knowledge ofDT-FFS and FT-FFS farmers were significantly correlated with their IPM skills. Cosmopolitanoutlook, extension contact and innovativeness of DT-FFS farmers and farm size and income

of FT-FFS were also significantly related with their IPM skills.

Vijayalakshmi et al. (2003) concluded that, the adoption of the technologiesdisseminated through FFS largely depends on the initiative and interest shown by theindividual farmers. To be able to sustain and spread on its own, the processes need to beinstitutionalizes within the group. Till that time, regular follow up for the FFS trained groups isnecessary. If facilitated in a meaningful way, the FFS approach will enable improvinglivelihoods of farmers in a relatively short time.

Rafee et al.(2006) conducted a study to determine farmers' knowledge level regardingcotton cultivation and servicing as well as their utilization of various information sources. Theeducational level and land holdings of the respondents had significant correlation withcultivation and servicing of cotton yield. Three independent variables were found to havesignificant correlation with farmers' field schools, including: farmers' educational level, attitudetoward innovation, and degree of mental flexibility. Moreover, farmers' age and mass media

utilization were observed to have significant correlation with the sources of information.

Arun and Rajendra (2007) found that the effectiveness of FFS programme willdepend to a large extent on whether and how the community managed resource centers willcontinue to use the services of the trained FFS facilitators. Regular monitoring and refreshercourses for updating the facilitators knowledge and skills are essential to maintain the impactof FFS in future. If these resource centers are able to provide sustainable follow-up to theFFS, with minimum external support, it will mean that FFS can become an effective,affordable and sustainable extension strategy in dry land agriculture.

Lapbim et al. (2008) reported that level of formal education, household size,membership to a formal organization and knowledge of improved spraying had a positive andsignificant influence on the probability of adopting full IPM technologies ( shade management,improved spraying practices, pruning and phytosanitory harvest) at 10 per cent, 10 per cent, 5per cent and 1 per cent respectively.

Yeshwant Kumar (2008) reported that education was highly significant correlated withknowledge level of FFS participants. Variables such as extension participation andinnovativeness were significantly associated with knowledge level, where as, variables age,farming experience and risk orientation were positively correlated and non-significantrelationship with knowledge level of FFS participants.

The above reviews depicts that, education, extension participation, mass mediaexposure, innovativeness, farm size are positively associated with knowledge as welladoption level of farmers. It also showed that interest of participants, follow up activity andregular monitoring and refresher courses for updating the facilitators knowledge and skill areessential to maintain the impact of FFS in future.

2.5 Problems faced and suggestions obtained in conduct of FFSprogramme

Krishnamurthy (1999) reported that non-availability of seeds and fertilizers (98.00%),lack of literature (98.00%), non availability of plant products (100.00%) and lack of literature(98.00%) are the major constraints expressed by the respondents.

Christian et al. (2005) reported that cotton growing farmers in Vadodara district ofGujarat had faced the major problems of untimely availability of training on IPM (100.00%)and lack of skilled labour (70.00%). Similarly, the non-availability of plant productionappliances, bioagents in time (47.50%) and high cost of plant protection input (98.33%) werethe other constraints in the adoption of IPM.


17/77

Chitins and Kothiklane (2000) reported the constraint of non-availability of inputs(19.00%), pheromone trap (14.00%) biotic agents (12.00%) and non-availability of IPM lab attaluk level.

Hein and Muhammad (2007) reported that, with each change in the FFS curriculumthere is a risk of losing quality. Newly introduced topics need to be field tested and adopteduntil they can be presented in a participatory and practical way. Introducing new topics in theFFS can also create time constraints, reducing time available for activities such as an AESA

and participatory decision making.

Patrick et al.(2007) conducted study in Central Benin reported that, the subdivision ofthe demonstration plot according to suggestions made by farmers during the discussion didnot lead to marked difference in terms of yield, but were very useful as initiating in case ofeffect of density or fertilizers. In some cases, the reasons for rejection or non adoption were:lack of labour, access to technology, competition with other crops in the calendar or riskmanagement. For these issues, more efforts should be made to plan the sessions in order tofacilitate identification of farmers demand for technology and assessment of farmersknowledge at the end of the training sessions.

Yeshwant Kumar (2008) reported in his study that, 68 per cent and 84 per cent ofmaize and groundnut FFS participants expressed FFS sessions should continue to one moreseason on same village on another farmers field, 46 per cent and 70 per cent expressed thatmore FFS sessions is needed, while 26 per cent and 42 per cent were expressed we need to

avoid odor while preparation of NSKE, biodigester and panchagavya of maize and groundnutFFS participants, respectively. It was observed that 52 per cent and 68 per cent of both maizeand groundnut FFS participants expressed the problem of non availability of seed treatmentmaterial respectively.

From the above findings it could be inferred that, major problems in FFS experiencedby farmers was non availability of inputs as well as labour. Before introducing new topics inFFS, need to be field tested because, it creates a time constraint.


18/77

3. METHODOLOGYThe methodology used for carrying out investigation is discussed under the following

headings.

3.1 Research design





3.6 Statistical methods employed for analysis of data

3.1 Research design

Ex-post facto research design was used in the investigation. The FFS conductedduring 2008-09 was considered to draw the samples.


3.2.1 Description of the study area.

Dharwad district was selected for the study. The district is situated in the northernpart of Karnataka state at 14

031N latitude and 74

028E longitude. The district comes under

the transition zone. It is bounded by Belgaum district in north, Haveri district in south, Gadagdistrict from north east to south east and Uttar Kannada from north west to south west. It hasfive taluks and 403 villages.

3.2.2 Soil type and cropping pattern

Soils in Dharwad district comprised of red, medium black and deep black soils.Whereas, Dharwad taluk and Kalaghatgi taluk mostly comprised of red and medium blacksoils and in Hubli taluk, major part of soils comprised of deep black cotton soils. Dharwaddistrict comprises of three Agro-climatic zones, i.e. dry zone (zone - 3), northern transitionalzone (zone - 8) and part of hilly zone (zone - 9). Transitional zone (zone - 8) comprises threetaluks Dharwad, Hubli and Kundagol. In this tract the average annual rainfall is 700 750

mm. Red and black soils are predominant in this areas. Groundnut, soybean, hybrid jowar,green gram and maize are the important crops grown in kharif. The hybrid cotton is grown ascommercial crop. Bengal gram and jowar are grown during the rabion residual soil moisture.In black soil double cropping is common in this area. Among horticulture crops mango,sapota, guava and banana are main fruit crops and vegetables like peas, brinjal, tomato,green chilli etc. are also grown. The entire taluk of Kalaghatagi comes under hilly tract (zone -9). It is characterized by high rainfall areas with average rainfall up to 900 mm. Majority ofsoils are red mixed black with low fertility. Drill sown paddy occupies major area under rainfedsituations. The area under soybean, cotton and maize has been increasing due to changingrainfall pattern since one decade.

3.2.3 Climate

The monsoon varies from April-May to September-October with two peaks, one in Julyand other in September enabling two cropping seasons. The temperature ranges from a

maximum of 390C to the minimum of 130C.


3.3.1 Selection of the taluks and villages

Farmers Field School (FFS) is one of the important activities of Department ofAgriculture (DoA) to educate farmers on crop management practices especially in high valuedcrops like, cotton and Tur. Department of Agriculture, Dharwad had organized 60 FFS incotton crop with the help of NGO (VIPMTEDS) in five taluks of Dharwad district during 2008-09.Out of five taluks three taluks namely Dharwad, Kalghatagi and Hubli were selected


19/77

purposively for the study as more number of FFS were conducted in these taluks. The villagewise list of FFS conducted in selected taluks was obtained from department of agriculture.Four villages from each taluk were selected randomly. The list of village selected for the studyis mentioned below.

3.3.2 Selection of respondents

The list of FFS participants from each of the selected villages was obtained from the

concerned agriculture department. From list of FFS participants ten farmers were selected bysimple random procedure. In order to compare the knowledge and adoption level, five NonFFS farmers were also selected randomly from same village(Fig. 1). Totally 120 FFS participant and 60 non-FFS participant farmers were selected for thestudy.


3.4.1 Dependent and independent variables

Knowledge level and Crop management practices of cotton crop were considered,as the dependent variables. Independent variables such as education, land holding, incomelevel, farm resources, extension contact, innovativeness, organization participation, massmedia exposure, participation level and FFS activities were considered for the study.

Fig. 1: Flow chart of selection of the taluks, villages and respondents


20/77

Table 1: Selection of the taluks and villages

District Taluk Village FFS farmers Non FFS farmers

Dasankoppa 10 5

Kanvihonnapur 10 5

Belligatti 10 5

Dharwad

Naglavi 10 5

Dummawad 10 5

Nirsagar 10 5

Kanyanayakankoppa 10 5Kalghatagi

Gambyapur 10 5

Sherewad 10 5

Pale 10 5

Bummasamudra 10 5

Dharwad

Hubli

Balagli 10 5

Total sample size = 180 120 60

3.4.1.1 Construction of teacher made knowledge test

A teacher made knowledge test was developed to measure the knowledge level ofFFS participants about cotton crop management practices. The curriculum of FFS wasobtained from the Department of Agriculture. Questions were drawn from the FFS curriculum.Experts and facilitators were consulted for the relevance of the questions and ambiguity. Laterquestions were finalized. The knowledge test was divided into four components namely seedmanagement, integrated nutrient management, integrated water management and integratedpest and disease management. Number of items under these components is as detailedbelow.

Components No. of itemsIntegrated seed management 7

Integrated nutrient management 19Integrated water management 3Integrated pest and diseasemanagement

9

Total 38

The knowledge test was administered to the respondents. The score of one and zerowas given for correct and incorrect answers, respectively. The score of all the individual itemswere summed up to get knowledge score of respondents. The maximum score that one couldget was 38 and the minimum score was zero. Based on the total score, the respondents wereclassified into three categories namely, low, medium and high knowledge level using mean

(X) and standard deviation (SD) as a measure of check.

Knowledge Category Criteria

Low Less than (X-0.425SD)Medium Between(X+0.425SD)

High More than(X+0.425SD)

Knowledge index was computed for different components like Integrated Seed Management(ISM), Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), Integrated Water Management (IWM),Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPDM) and also overall knowledge index. Basedon the score obtained by respondents and maximum possible score of the componentfollowing formula was used.


21/77

Actual score obtained by farmers in each componentKnowledge index (%) = x 100

Maximum possible score of each component

3.4.1.2 Crop management practices

Crop management practices was operationalzed as package of ICM practices

adopted by the FFS participants to improve the growth, development and yield of cotton cropas adopted by Dept. of Agril. in FFS curriculum. All the important ICM practices of cotton cropwere listed. Total number of recommended ICM practices selected were 29. The no. of itemsunder different ICM components are as below.

Components No. of itemsIntegrated seed management 6

Integrated nutrient management 12Integrated water management 2Integrated pest and diseasemanagement

9

Total 29

The responses elicited from the respondents were quantified as full, partial and non

adoption of the recommended practices. A score of two for full adoption, 1 for partial adoptionand zero for non-adoption was given. The maximum score that respondents could obtain was29 and minimum was zero depending upon total score obtained by each of the respondent.The respondents were grouped into 3 categories as low, medium and high categories

based on mean (X) and standard deviation (SD) as a measure of check.

Category CriteriaLow Less than (X-0.425SD)

Medium Between (X+0.425SD)High More than (X+0.425SD)

Adoption index was also computed for each component viz. Integrated SeedManagement (ISM), Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), Integrated Water Management(IWM) and Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPDM) using total score under the

components by using following formula.

Actual score obtained by farmers in each componentAdoption index (%) = x 100

Maximum possible score of each component

3.4.2 Independent variable3.4.2.1Age

Age was operationalized as the chronological age of the FFS participants at the timeof investigation. The participants were categorized into three age group based on procedurefollowed by Wondang (2010).

CategoryAge (years)

Young Less than 31Middle Between 31 to 50

Old More than 50


22/77

3.4.2.2 Education level

Education was operationalized as the extent of formal education undergone bythe respondents. The respondents were grouped into different levels of education based onthe frequency and percentage. The procedure followed by Raghavendra (2005) andJayaprada (2007) was adopted for computation.

Education (standard) ScoresIlliterate 0Primary school (1st 4th) 1

Middle school (5th 7th) 2High school (8th 10th) 3PUC 4

Graduate 5Post graduate 6

3.4.2.3 Land holding

Land holding is the actual land owned by the farmer in acres. The irrigated land wasconverted into rainfed land by following the procedure as specified in the notification ofGovernment of India (GoI) through circular no. 280-12/16/19-RD.III-Vol-X dated 15Nov, 1991.

Accordingly one acres of wet land is equal to three acres of dry land. The respondents werecategorized based on the procedure suggested by GoI.

Category Land holding (acres)Marginal farmer Up to 2.5

Small farmer 2.51 to 5.00Semi medium farmer 5.01 to 10.00

Medium farmer 10.01 to 25.00Big farmer More than 25.00

3.4.2.4 Farm resources

Farm resources was operationalised as the type and extent of resource base of thefarmer that support crop production system. The resources such as land, water, livestock and

farm equipments were considered to compute farm resources. The relevant componentsrelated to farm resources were selected by referring literature and consulting the consultants.For extent of possessions of these resources, the scores were assigned. The relevance ofcomponents and wieghtage was tested by taking opinions of judges. The Subject MatterSpecialist (SMS) of Agriculture Technology and Information Centre (ATIC), KVK, scientists ofagronomy and extension departments University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad wereconsidered to get expert opinion for different items. The components and item score assignedare as bellow.

Resource type Category Score

Land type Black 3

Red 2Non arable 1

Water Irrigated 3

Rainfed 1Livestock Draft animal 3

Baffallo 3Sheep and goat 2Poultry 2

Farm equipments Tractor 1

Bullock cart 1Plough 1

Other equipments 1


23/77

Based on the total score of farm resources, the respondents were classified into threecategories such as low, medium and high by considering mean and standard deviation asa measure of check.


Medium Between (X+0.425SD)

High More than (X+0.425SD)

3.4.2.5 Innovativeness

Innovativeness was operationalized as the behavior pattern of a FFS farmer who hadinterest in and desire to seek changes in farming technologies and to introduce such changesin to his operations which were practical and feasible.

Innovativeness was measured by using Mouliks (1965) method of self rating asfollowed by Venkteshivareddy (2006). The scale consisted of three sets of statements. Eachset containing three short statements with weightage 3, 2 and 1 respectively, indicating high,medium and low degree of innovativeness. The responses of the respondents as most likeand least like choices was obtained as in original scale, for each of the three sets ofstatements, the scoring was done by assigning 3 score to most like and score 1 for leastlike.

The final score was arrived by summing up the score of the weightage of the most likestatements and the weightage of the least like statements. As there will be three sets ofstatements for innovativeness scale, the sum of scores for the three sets were considered byrespondents, thus score ranges from 18 to 54. Later, the respondents were categorized intothree categories based on mean and standard deviation as the measure of check. High scoreof the respondents reveals ones more innovative nature.


Medium Between(X+0.425SD)High More than(X+0.425SD)

3.4.2.6 Extension contact

It refers to the frequency of contact of the respondents with different extensionpersonnel (A.A., A.O., UAS scientist and private company representative) to acquireinformation on agriculture and allied enterprises. The data were quantified by using theprocedure followed by Manjunath (2007).

Frequency of contact ScoreOnce in a week 3Once in fortnight 2

When needed 1

Never 0

Based on the total score of extension contact, the respondents were classified intothree categories such as low, medium and high by considering mean and standarddeviation as a measure of check.


Medium Between(X+0.425SD)High More than(X+0.425SD)


24/77

3.4.2.7 Organization participation

This refers to degree of participation of respondent in local organizations (SHGs,VLCs, VCSs, Gram panchayat, farmers club, Jaikisan group and cotton cooperative society)and their activities either as member or as office bearer. This variable was measured by usingprocedure developed by Trivedi (1963) and as followed by Savita (2008).

Category ScoreMembership 1Non Membership 0

Degree of participation ScoreRegularly 2Occasionally 1

Never 0

The composite score was arrived at by summing up the score obtained byrespondent were classified into three categories by using mean and standard deviation asmeasure of check


Medium Between (X+0.425SD)High More than (X+0.425SD)

3.4.2.8 Mass media exposure

It refers to extent of use of mass media such as Radio, Television, News papers andAgriculture Magzines by the respondents. The respondents were asked to indicate theirdegree of participation in terms of listening, viewing and reading behavior. The data waspresented in terms of frequency and percentage. The variable was quantified on the basis ofprocedures followed by Umamaheshwara (2009).

Subscription/possession Score

Subscriber /Owned 1

Non subscriber/Not owned 0

Behavior of listening/reading/viewing Score

Regular 2

Occasional 1

Never 0

The composite score was arrived at by summing up the score obtained byrespondent and were classified into three categories by using mean and standard deviationas measure of check.


Medium Between (X+0.425SD)

High More than (X+0.425SD)

3.4.2.9 Income level

It was measured by considering the total income of the family from all the sourcessuch as agriculture, allied enterprises and others. The classification was as suggested byMinistry of Rural Development, GOI was used and the same was followed by Deepak (2003).


25/77

Category Income (Rs/annum)High income Above 51,000

Medium income 34,001 to 51,000Semi medium income 17,001 to 34,000

Low income Up to 17,000

The results were expressed in frequency and per cent for each category.

3.4.2.10 Participation level

Level of participation of farmers in FFS was operationalised as the extent ofparticipation of respondents in different activities such as Group Dynamics/games, shortstudies, Cotton Ecosystem Analysis (CESA), drawing of CESA charts, presentation of CESA,group assignments, insect zoo, long term experiments and field day. The level of participationwas measured by using a three point continuum as, lead role, participation only andobservation only, with the score 2,1 and 0, respectively. The total score indicated the extentof participation of the respondents in FFS. The maximum score one could obtain was 18 andminimum was 0.

Level of participationSl.no.

Statements Lead role

(2)

Participation only

(1)

Observation only

(0)1 Games/GD

2 Short studies

3a CESA

b Drawing of CESA charts

c Presentation of CESA

4 Group assignment

5 Insect zoo

6 Long termexperimentation

7 Field day

3.4.2.11 FFS activities

FFS activities was operationalised as key elements of FFS such as participants, FFSplot, collaborators nature, facilitators nature and FFS sessions. An attempt was made tounderstand the extent of influence of these elements on participants knowledge andmanagement practices.

The FFS activities were measured by giving score 1 for positive response and 0score for negative response. The total score was obtained for each element. Furtherfrequency and percentage was used to present the data.

3.4.2.12 Cropping intensity

It is defined as the ratio of gross cropped area to the total land holding expressedin terms of percentage. The cropping intensity was calculated according to the procedurefollowed by Wondang (2010). The cropping intensity of respondents was categorized in to upto 100 per cent, 100-150 per cent, 150-200 per cent and above 200 per cent. The data was

presented in frequency and percentage.


Keeping in view the objectives and variables of the study, a structured interviewschedule was developed in consultation with experts. Based on the nature of the responses,necessary corrections were made so as to standardize the interview schedule. Pre-testing ofschedule was carried out in the non-sample area and necessary corrections wereincorporated. The final format of the interview schedule is given in Appendix I.


26/77

3.6 Statistical tools used

The statistical tools such as mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage, t testand modified chi-square were used wherever found appropriate and data were analyzed todraw inference.


27/77

4. RESULTSThe results of the investigation are presented under the following main headings.

4.1 Profile of the FFS respondents


4.3 Knowledge level of FFS and Non FFS farmers about integrated cropmanagement (ICM) practices in cotton

4.4 Adoption level of the integrated crop management (ICM) practices in cotton byFFS participants


4.6 Problems faced by FFS participants and their suggestions.

4.1 Profile of the FFS respondents

4.1.1 Education

With regard to education, higher proportion (36.77%) of FFS participants werestudied up to primary, followed by middle school (16.77%), high school (16.77%), illiterate(10.83%), while equal (9.17%) no. of FFS participants studied PUC and graduate and onlyone respondent was post graduate (table 2a).

4.1.2 Extension contact

It was clear from the Table 2b that among different extension personal UAS scientistswere contacted by relatively high percentage (3.33%) of respondents once in a week,fortnightly (7.50%) and when needed (80%). Similarly Agriculture 0fficers (AOs) werecontacted by very few (2.50%) Once in a week, fortnightly (1.77%) and when needed(53.33%). Agriculture Assistants (AAs) were contacted by only four respondents whenneeded. Only three respondents were contacted private company representative whenneeded. Over 90 per cent of the respondents never contacted either AAs or privatecompanies, nearly half (42.50%) of respondents never contacted AOs and very meager(9.17%) no. of FFS participants never contacted UAS scientist.

4.1.3 Organizational participation

The results presented in the Table 2c clearly depicts that majority of respondentswere not member of local organizations. However, 13.33 per cent were having membership inSHGs with regular attendance, participation in Farm club activities was regularly (12.50%)and occasionally (2.50%). Similarly other members found to have participated in Jaikisangroup (8.33%) with regular attendance. Few (5.83%) respondents were members in VillageLevel Committees, only six attended meetings regularly and only one occasionally. Very fewrespondents were member in Village Cooperative Societies (3.33%), Cotton CooperativeSocieties (CCSs) (2.50%) and Gram panchayat (1.66%) respectively. Less than five percentof members attended meetings regularly in Village level committees, CCSs and Grampanchayat.

4.1.4 Mass media exposure

It could be seen from Table 2d that, the majority (85.83%) of FFS respondents

possessed the Television and used it as main source of information for agriculture regularly(73.33%), and occasionally (15.00%), while 9.17 per cent respondents viewed regularly,occasionally (65%) for general information. Second important media was News papers,subscribed by 8.33 per cent, whereas, 40 and 25 per cent of the respondents used newspapers for agriculture and general purpose, while about fifty per cent of respondents usedoccasionally agriculture (41.77%) and general information (51.77%). Radio was possessed by15.83 per cent of respondents and they listened the agriculture and general programmeregularly ((7.50% & 1.77%), occasionally (21.77% & 8.33%), respectively. Among all,agricultural magazine were least used regularly (10.83%) and only one respondent read themagazine. Majority (88.33% and 84.17%) of respondents were not used agriculturalmagazine and Radio as their sources of information regarding agriculture respectively.


28/77

Table 2: Prof ile of the FFS respondents

a: Education level n = 120

Sl. No. Categories Frequency Percentage

1 Illiterate 13 10.83

2 Primary 44 36.77

3 Middle school 20 16.77

4 High school 20 16.77

5 PUC 11 9.17

6 Graduate 11 9.17

7 Post graduate 1 00.83

Table 2: Prof ile of the FFS respondents

b: Extension contact n=120

Frequency of contact

Once inweek

Once infortnight

Whenneeded

NeverSl.No.

Extensionpersonnel

F P F P F P F P

1 Agril.Assitant 1 0.83 1 0.83 2 1.77 116 96.77

2 AO 3 2.5 2 1.77 64 53.33 51 42.50

3 UAS scientist 4 3.33 9 7.50 96 80.00 11 9.17

4 Private companies - - - - 3 2.50 117 97.50

F = Frequency P = Percentage


29/77

Table 2: Contd..

c: Organizational participation n=120

Extent of participationMemberRegular Occasional Never

Sl.No. Name

F P F P F P F P

1 SHG 16 13.33 16 13.33 - - 88 73.33

2 Village level committee 7 05.83 6 5.00 1 0.83 106 88.33

3Village cooperativesociety

4 03.33 4 3.33 - - 112 93.33

4 Gram panchayat 2 01.77 1 0.83 1 0.83 116 96.77

5 Farmers club 12 10.00 12 10 - - 96 80.00

6 Youth club 6 05.00 3 2.50 3 2.50 108 90.00

7 Jaikisan group 10 08.33 10 8.33 - - 100 83.33

8Cotton cooperativesociety

3 02.50 3 2.50 - - 114 95.00

F = Frequency P = PercentageTable 2: Contd..

d: Mass media exposure n=120

Extent of reading/listening/viewingbehaviorPossession/

subscriptionRegular Occasional Never

Sl.No.

Category Information

F P F P F P F P

General 30 25.00 62 51.77 28 23.331

Newspaper Agricultural

10 8.3348 40.00 50 41.77 22 18.33

2Agril.magazine

Agricultural14 11.77 13 10.83 1 0.83 106 88.33

General 2 1.77 26 21.77 92 76.77

3 Radio Agricultural 19 15.83 9 7.50 10 8.33 101 84.17

General 11 9.17 78 65.00 31 25.834 T.V

Agricultural103 85.83

88 73.33 18 15.00 14 11.77



30/77

4.1.5 Cropping intensity

The results in Table 3 revealed that higher proportion (79.17%) of FFS farmers hadcropping intensity of 200 per cent, followed by 18.33 per cent of farmers had grown crops forthree seasons and only two respondents had 150 per cent of cropping intensity. Only onerespondent had 100 per cent cropping intensity.

4.1.6 Participation level

The Table 4 revealed that 29.17 per cent of farmers participated in FFS activitiestaking a lead role in games, while majority (66.77%) of respondents just participated inactivities and only 4.17 per cent of participants were observers of FFS activities like games.

It was also seen that 30 per cent of farmers equally participated taking a lead role inshort studies, CESA (drawing of CESA charts, presentation of CESA), group assignment,insect zoo, long term experiment and field day, while 70 per cent of respondents participatedonly equally in short studies, CESA (drawing of CESA charts, presentation of CESA), GD,insect zoo, long term experiment and field day.


The results pertaining to distribution of FFS participants based on their characteristicsis presented in Table 5 and fig 2.

4.2.1 AgeThe results presented in Table 5 indicate that 45.83 per cent of FFS participants were

middle, followed by young age category (37.50%) and 16.77 per cent were in old agecategory.

4.2.2 Land holding

Higher proportion (35.83%) of FFS participants belong to small farmers categoryfollowed by semi medium category (33.33%), marginal category (13.33%), mediumcategory (12.50%) and big farmers category (4.17%).

4.2.3 Income level

Income level of FFS participants, as observed from Table 5 revealed that, majority ofFFS participants (70.00%) belonged to high level of income group (>Rs. 51,000/-) followed

by medium level(20.00%) with income of Rs.34, 000/- to Rs. 51,000/- and only 10 per centof FFS participants found in semi-medium level of income group (Rs.17, 000/- to Rs. 34,000/-). No farmer was found in low level (


31/77

Table 3: Cropping intensity of FFS participantsn = 120

Cropping intensity index

Sl. No. Categories

Frequency Percentage

1 Up to 100 1 0.83

2 100 - 150 2 1.77

3 150 - 200 95 79.17

4 >200 22 18.33

Table 4: Participation level of farmers in FFS activities n = 120

Level of participation

Lead role Participation only Observation onlySl.No.

Statements

F P F P F P

1 Games /GD 35 29.17 80 66.77 5 4.17

2 Short studies 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0

3 a CESA 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0

b Drawing of CESA charts36

30.0084

70.000 0

c Presentation of CESA 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0

4 Group assignment 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0

5 Insect zoo 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0

6 Long term experiment 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0

7 Field day 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0



32/77

Table 5: Distribution of FFS participants based on their characteristics

n = 120

Sl.No.

Characteristics Categories Frequency Percentage

Young age (up to 31 years) 45 37.50

Middle age (31 to 50 years) 55 45.831 Age

Old age (above 50 years) 20 16.77

Marginal (up to 2.5 acre) 16 13.33

Small (2.51-5.00 acre) 43 35.83

Semi medium (5.01-10.00acre) 40 33.33

Medium (10.01-25.00acre) 15 12.50

2 Land holding

Big (>25.00 acres) 5 4.17

Low income (upto Rs 17000) 0 0.00

Semi medium income ( Rs 17001-34000) 12 10.00

Medium income ( Rs 34001-51000) 24 20.00

3 Annual income

High income ( >Rs 51000) 84 70.00

Low (2.21) 10 8.33

4 Extension contact

Mean = 1.775 SD = 1.04

Low (1.46) 49 40.83

5 Organizationparticipation

Mean = 0.95 SD = 1.19

Low ( 5.94) 45 37.50

6 Mass mediaexposure

Mean = 4.99 SD = 2.24

Low (< 33.29) 38 31.77

Medium (33.29 38.82) 26 21.77

High ( > 38.82) 56 46.77

7 Innovativeness

Mean =36.82 SD = 6.50

Low ( 5.30) 30 25.00

8 Farm resources

Mean = 4.55 SD = 1.78


33/77

Fig.2: Profile of the FFS respondents


34/77

4.2.7 Innovativeness

The data presented in Table 5 shows that more than half (56.00%) of FFSparticipants were found in high innovativeness category, followed by low innovativenesscategories(38.00%) and medium innovativeness categories (26.00%) .

4.2.8 Farm resources

Farm resources of the farmers were computed by considering the different resourceslike land, water, livestock and material possession. Farm resources of FFS participants, asobserved from Table 5 indicates that, majority of FFS participants (49.00%) belonged to lowlevel of farm resources followed by medium level(25.83%) and high level (25.00%) of farmresource base.

4.3 Knowledge level of FFS and Non FFS farmers about integratedcrop management (ICM) practices in cotton

4.3.1 Extent of knowledge of FFS and non FFS farmers about cotton ICMpractices

The result presented in Table 6 depicts the knowledge level of FFS and Non FFSfarmers about integrated crop management (ICM) practices in cotton crop. The knowledgelevel of participants about different practices under different components is presented below.

I. Integrated Seed Management

It was observed that all the FFS farmers had correct knowledge about all theintegrated seed management practices. Whereas, incase of non FFS farmers majority hadcorrect knowledge about seed rate (100.00%), followed by variety/hybrid (95.00%) andspacing (95.00%) and dibbling depth (80.00%). The low level of knowledge was observed inrequired seed germination percentage and intercropping (18.00%). Whereas, none of thenon FFS farmers had knowledge about germination test.

II. Integrated Nutrient Management

In case of nutrient management practices, all the FFS participants possessed correctknowledge about all most all of the practices such as, benefit of soil test, FYM quantity/acre,time of application of FYM, vermicomposting, application of chemical fertilizers. While,seventy five per cent of respondents had correct knowledge about ZnSo4quantity/acre, time

of application as well as method of application.

It is interesting to note that all non FFS participants had also correct knowledge aboutchemical fertilizers, followed by FYM quantity/acre(90.00%), time of application of basalfertilizers(85.00%), and time of FYM application(60.00%), method of fertilizer application.Fifty per cent of respondents know about benefit of soil testing and vermicomposting. Noneof non FFS farmers had knowledge of ZnSo4application in cotton crop.

III. Integrated Water Management

The findings about the knowledge related to water management showed that, all FFSparticipants had correct knowledge on irrigation methods and irrigation criteria in cottoncrop, followed by critical stage of irrigation(75.00%). Majority (70.00%) of non FFSparticipants had correct knowledge on irrigation method, irrigation criteria (20.00%) andcritical stage of irrigation (10.00%).

IV. Integrated Pest and Disease Management

All FFS farmers had correct knowledge of insect identification, IPM practices,beneficial insects, diseases identification and disease management followed by Prey forbeneficial insect and No. of prey eaten by beneficial insect per day (90.00%). In case of nonFFS participants more than half (55.00%) had knowledge regarding disease managementfollowed by insect identification (40.00%). Only 5 per cent of non FFS farmers hadknowledge about beneficial insects, IPM practices and disease management. None of nonFFS farmers knew about prey for beneficial insects and No. of prey to be fed by beneficialinsects per day.


35/77

Table 6: Extent o f knowledge of FFS and non FFS farmers about cotton ICM practices

FFS Farmers(n1=120)

Non FFS Farmers(n2=60)

Sl.No.

Practices

F P F P

I Integrated Seed Management

1 Variety /Hybrid 120 100.00 57 95.00

2 Required seed germination % 120 100.00 18 30.003 Germination test 120 100.00 00 00.00

4 Seed rate /acre 120 100.00 60 100.00

5 Spacing 120 100.00 57 95.00

6 Dibbling depth 120 100.00 48 80.00

7 Intercrop 120 100.00 18 30.00

II Integrated Nutrient Management

1 Benefit of soil test 120 100.00 30 50.00

2.1 FYM quantity/acre 120 100.00 54 90.00

2.2 Time of FYM application 120 100.00 36 60.00

3 Vermicompost manure 120 100.00 30 50.00

4 Basal dose of fertilizer - quantity 120 100.00 06 10.00

4.1 Time of application 120 100.00 51 85.00

4.2 Method of application 120 100.00 24 40.00

4.3 Top dressing of fertilizer - quantity 120 100.00 03 05.004.4 Time of application 120 100.00 12 20.00


5.1 ZnSo4 - quantity 90 75.00 00 00.00

5.2 Time of application 90 75.00 00 00.00


III Integrated Water Management

1 Critical stage of irrigation 90 75.00 06 10.00

2 Irrigation method 120 100.00 42 70.00

3 Irrigation criteria 120 100.00 12 20.00

IV Integrated Pest & Disease Management

1 Insect pest identification 120 100.00 24 40.00

2 IPM measures 120 100.00 03 05.00

3 Beneficial insects 120 100.00 03 05.004 Prey for beneficial insects 90 75.00 00 00.00

5No. of prey to be fed by beneficialinsects per day

90 75.00 00 00.00

6 Disease identification 120 100.00 33 55.00

7 Management of diseases 120 100.00 03 05.00

8.1 5% NSKE component 120 100.00 12 20.008.2 Method of preparation 5% NSKE 120 100.00 06 10.00

8.3 Purpose of use of 5% NSKE 120 100.00 12 20.00

9.1 3%Chilli-Garlic extract component 120 100.00 06 10.00

9.2Method of preparation of 3%Chilli-Garlic extract

120100.00

03 05.00

9.3Purpose of use of 3%Chilli-Garlicextract

120 100.00 06 10.00



36/77

All FFS farmers had correct knowledge about 5%NSKEand 3% Chilli-garlic extract,the component used in their preparation, method of preparation and purpose of use of bothorganic preparations. Whereas, almost all non FFS farmers had no knowledge about theseorganic preparation. Only 20 per cent of non FFS farmers had knowledge about componentsused in 5% NSKE preparation as well as its purpose of use and very less (10.00%) knewabout 5% NSKE and 3% chilli-garlic preparation method, components in 3%chilli-garlicpreparation. Only three non FFS farmers knew about 3% chilli-garlic preparation method.

4.3.2 Knowledge index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFSfarmers

The data related to mean knowledge index of FFS and Non FFS farmers aboutdifferent components of cotton ICM practices such as integrated seed management,integrated nutrient management, integrated water management and integrated pest & diseasemanagement is presented in Table 7 and fig 3. There exists highly significant difference inmean knowledge index of FFS and non FFS farmers. The data reveals that, wide gap inmean knowledge index was observed in case of integrated pest and disease management(92.85% & 18.33%), followed by integrated nutrient management (91% & 28.68%),integrated seed management (100% & 60.62%) and integrated water management (65% &33.33%). The gap between overall mean knowledge index (97.33% & 33.51%) of FFS andnon FFS farmers, respectively was also high.

4.3.3 Distribution of FFS and non FFS famers based on knowledge levelabout Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices of cotton crop

The data in Table 8 and fig 4 pertains to the knowledge level of FFS and non FFSfarmers about ICM practices of cotton. It was observed that relatively high (65.00%) per centof FFS farmers were in high knowledge level category, followed by low knowledge levelcategory (33.33%). Whereas, in case of non FFS farmers high (43.33%) per cent of farmerwere in medium knowledge level category, followed by low knowledge level category(31.77%) and high knowledge level category (25.00%).

4.4 Adoption level of the integrated crop management (ICM)practices in cotton by FFS and non FFS farmers

4.4.1 Extent of adoption of recommended Integrated Crop Management (ICM)

practices of cotton by FFS and non FFS farmersThe data presented in Table 9 shows the extent of adoption of various ICM practices

in cotton by FFS and non FFS farmers. The results are presented under different componentsas below.

I. Integrated Seed management

It is clear from the table that all FFS and non FFS farmers had fully adoptedvariety/hybrid as well as seed rate followed by spacing and dibbling depth by overseventy per cent of respondents. Over fifty per cent of FFS farmers fully adopted germinationtest and very meager per cent had adopted Intercropping (5.83%). Whereas, none of nonFFS farmers adopted germination test as well as intercropping. It is interesting to observethat high per cent (57.50%) of non FFS farmer partially adopted seed per hill than the FFSfarmers (37.50%). Further thirty per cent of FFS farmers partially adopted dibbling depth,spacing (24.17%) and germination test (21.77%). Whereas, equal (18.33%) number of nonFFS farmers partially adopted spacing as well as dibbling depth. Over ninety per cent ofFFS farmers had not adopted intercropping and only 24.17 per cent farmers had not adoptedgermination test.

II. Integrated Nutrient Management

It can be seen from the table that all FFS and non FFS farmers fully adopted time ofapplication of basal dose of fertilizer followed by FYM quantity (75%). Overall it wasobserved that, FFS farmers had adopted more number of improved technologies than the nonFFS farmers.


37/77

Table 7: Knowledge index of diff erent components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS farmers

Mean knowledge indexSl.No.

Components of ICM

FFS farmers Non FFS farmers

t value

1 Integrated Seed Management 100 60.62 39.33**

2 Integrated NutrientManagement

91.25 28.6842.83**

3 Integrated Water management 65.00 33.33 14.65**

4 Integrated Pest and diseasemanagement

92.85 18.3348.30**

5 Overall 97.33 33.51 54.33**

**= significant at 1 % level

Table 8: Distribution of FFS participants according to their knowledge level aboutIntegrated Crop Management (ICM) practices of co tton crop

n = 120

FFS farmers (n=120) Non FFS farmers (n=60)

Sl.No.

Categories

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

1 Low 40 33.33 19 31.77

2 Medium 02 01.77 26 43.33

3 High 78 65.00 15 25.00

Mean = 37.93 Mean = 12.40

SD = 1.51 SD = 3.88


38/77

Fig.3: Knowledge index of FES and Non FFS farmers

Fig.4: Distributi on of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their knowledge levelabout ICM practices in cotton crop


39/77

The higher difference can be observed in case of method of basal fertilizer doseapplication (83.33% & 5%), time of FYM application (77.50% & 20%), vermicompostmanuring (64.17% & 7.50%) and quantity of fertilizer for top dressing (49.17% & 5%). Overseventy per cent of FFS farmers fully adopted method of top dressing fertilizer followed byquantity of basal dose of fertilizer (59.17%) and time of top dressing of fertilizers (49.17%).ZnSo4quantity (48.33%), time of application (53.33%) method of application (19.17%) wasadopted only by FFS farmers, while none of the non FFS farmers adopted these practices.

All non FFS farmers had partially adopted quantity of basal dose of fertilizer followedby method of basal fertilizer dose application (87.50%). Equal (43.33%) per cent of non FFSfarmers had partially adopted time of FYM application, time of top dressing fertilizer andmethod of top dressing of fertilizer. Over thirty per cent of FFS farmers partially adoptedquantity of basal fertilizer, quantity of top dressing fertilizer as well as time of top dressingfertilizer.

Majority (87.50%) of non FFS farmers had not adopted vermicompost manure andequal (57.50%) per cent had not adopted quantity of top dressing fertilizer, time of topdressing fertilizer as well as method of top dressing fertilizer whereas, only few of FFSfarmers were not adopted the same practices.

III. Integrated Water management

In case of water management 23.33 and 21.77 per cent of FFS farmers had fully

adopted irrigation method and critical stage of irrigation, respectively. Very less i.e. 15 percent and 13.33 per cent had partially adopted critical stage of irrigation and irrigationmethod, respectively. While, higher proportion (63.33%) of FFS farmers had not adoptedirrigation method and critical stages of irrigation. While none of non FFS farmers adoptedwater management practices.

IV. Integrated Pest and Disease management

The findings about the extent of pest and disease management practices showed thatall FFS and non FFS farmers fully adopted summer ploughing. Whereas, over seventy percent of FFS farmers had fully adopted conservation of beneficial insect and 5% NSKEapplication and fifty five per cent of farmers had adopted 3% chilli-garlic extract application.Less then half had fully adopted physical destruction of adult insect (48.33%). Very less noof FFS farmers fully adopted trap cropping (35.83%), Trichogramma card release (20.00%)and chemical spray for disease control (14.17%). Only five non FFS farmers had fullyadopted chemical spray for insect control and only three farmers adopted trap cropping.

Majority (66.77%) of FFS farmers and only forty per cent of non FFS farmers partiallyadopted chemical spray for disease control. Over thirty per cent FFS farmer and 27.50 percent non FFS farmers were partially adopted trap cropping. It is interesting to observe thatrelatively high per cent (45.00%) of non FFS farmers partially adopted chemical spray forinsect pest control than the FFS farmers (30.83%). Whereas, practices like Trichogrammacard release (32.50%) followed by conservation of beneficial insect (23.33%) and 3%chilli-garlic extract (18.33%), 5%NSKE application (15.00%) had partially adopted by FFSfarmers.

Majority (69.17%) of FFS farmers had not adopted chemical spray for insect pestcontrol followed by physical destruction of adult insect (51.77%), Trichogramma cardrelease (47.50%). Thirty per cent of FFS farmers had not adopted trap cropping and veryfew had not adopted chemical spray for disease control (19.77%), 5% NSKapplication(13.33%). None of non FFS farmers had adopted 'conservation of beneficialinsect, Trichogramma card release, physical destruction of insect, 5%NSKE and 3%chilli-garlic extract. Over sixty per cent of non FFS farmers had not adopted trap cropping as wellas chemical spray for disease control and nearly half (47.50%) of non FFS farmers had notadopted chemical for insect pest control.

4.4.2 Adoption index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFSfarmers

The data related to mean adoption index of FFS and Non FFS farmers about differentcomponents of cotton ICM practices are presented in Table 10 and fig 5. There exists highlysignificant difference in mean adoption index of FFS and non FFS farmers.


40/77

Table 9: Extent of Adoption of recommended Integrated Crop Management (ICM)practices of cot ton by FFS participants

FFS farmers (n1=120) Non FFS farmers (n2=60)Sl.No.

PracticesFull Partial Not Full Partial Not

I Integrated Seed Management

1 Variety/hybrid120

(100.00)- -

60

(100.00)- -

2 Germination test65

(54.17)

26

(21.77)

29

(24.17)- -

60

(100.00)

3 Seed rate120

(100.00)- -

60

(100)- -

4 Spacing91

(75.83)

29

(24.17)-

42

(70.00)

11

(18.33)

7

(12.50)

5 Dibbling depth87

(72.50)

33

(27.50)0

42

(70.00)

11

(18.33)

7

(12.50)

6 Intercropping7

(5.83)0

113

(94.17)0 0

60

(100)

II Integrated Nutrient Management

1 FYM quantity/acre90

(75.00)

30

(25.00)00

45

(75.00)

12

(20.00)

03

(05.00)

2Time of FYMapplication

93

(77.50)

27

(22.50)00

12

(20.00)

26

(43.33)

22

(37.50)

3Vermicompostmanure

77

(64.17)

26

(21.77)

17

(14.17)

05

(7.50)

03

(2.50)

52

(87.50)

4.1 Basal dose of fertilizer- quantity/acre 71(59.17)49

(40.83)00 00 60

(100.00)00

4.2 Time of application120

(100.00)00 00

60

(100)00 00

4.3Method ofapplication(ring/row)

100

(83.33)

16

(13.33)

4

(3.33)

03

(5.00)

52

(87.50))

05

(7.50)

5.1Top dressing offertilizer -quantity/acre

59

(49.17)

44

(36.77)

17

(14.17)

03

(5.00)

23

(37.50)

34

(57.50)


(49.17)

44

(36.77)

17

(14.17)00

26

(43.33)

34

(57.50)

5.3Method ofapplication(ring/row)

88

(73.33)

15

(12.50)

17

(14.17)00

26

(43.33)

34

(57.50)

6.1ZnSo4 - quantity/acre(4kg)

58

(48.33)

9

(07.50)

53

(44.17)00 00

60

(100.00)


41/77

Table 9. Contd..

FFS farmers (n1=120) Non FFS farmers (n2=60)Sl.No.

PracticesFull Partial Not Full Partial Not


(53.33)

3

(02.50)

53

(44.17)00 0

Extension education Dharwad

Documents

Transcript of Extension education Dharwad