CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Agriculture plays an important role in the economy of Pakistan. It contributes 22 percent in GDP and provides employment to 44.8 percent of the population. Agriculture is the main source of foreign exchange where wheat, cotton and rice are main contributors. Apart from direct contribution to foreign exchange, the agriculture sector also provides raw materials to many industries which seem to multiply the impact (Govt. of Pakistan, 2006). The climate of Pakistan is very good and its natural resources are likely for our agriculture system, which provides ideal conditions for wide variety of agricultural crops. In Pakistan, the average size of cultivated land is very small and it has decreased overtime. According to agricultural census, there are 5.1 million farms, among them, 93 percent are small and marginal (Govt. of Pakistan, 2003). Although small farms are profitable but some problems related to these farms may also need to be addressed. Small farmers usually face too much difficulty to overcome these problems. Sometimes, it happens that purchases are not made according to the dire need, which may result as a financial burden (Terry, 2004). Poverty is the most dynamic issue that can create many problems for the small farmers. Small land holders, most of the time are short in capital and therefore, cant fulfill their crop input needs which directly affect the crop yield. Small farmers have limited access to formal credit source which restricts the ability of farmers to adopt new technology for improving the quantity and quality of produce (Hussain et al., 2006). Although increase in agricultural productions by farmers can bring prosperity but insufficient financial resources yet restrict the farmers to adopt agricultural innovations. To overcome the problem, rural credit in the form of loans, cash or commodity can play vital role for the farmers development. In a developing country like Pakistan many institutions are working for this purpose like Zari Taraqiati Bank Limited, Central Cooperative Bank, Commercial Banks, Agricultural Cooperative Societies and Governmental Organizations (Jaffar et al., 2006). In farming community, small farmers have an important position and can play a key role. The contribution of the small farmers is 30-35 percent in total agriculture productivity. 1

Therefore, small farmers hold a key position in the development of country whose production base is dependent on agriculture (Peacock and Jowett, 2004). With the increasing number of mouths to feed and lesser available resources we need to increase per acre yield. The successful crop production can be achieved by the management of soil, plant nutrients and other natural resources. The healthy resource based agriculture is a key factor in this regard. In the developing countries like Pakistan the ever increasing population has envisaged the development of new methods of crop production and protection which is a continuing challenge for us. Limited availability of additional land for crop production, along with declining yield growth for major food crops has provoked agrarians, the urgency to seek out problems and their relative solutions. Under the prevailing circumstances we will have to produce more food largely from the existing farmlands. This could only be done by increasing crop yields and stepping up cropping intensity (Doos, 1994). In this regard, adoption of integrated soil fertility and nutrient management practices may help farmers to enhance crop production and to conserve natural resources (FAO, 2003). Most of the problems in agricultural farm productivity are associated with factors like land preparation, seed, irrigation, plant protection measures, etc. along with some social factors which include education, age, farming experience etc. The limited access to updated information regarding seed, fertilizer, weedicides and pesticides is another important concern for small farmers (Bakhsh et al., 2005). Farmers in many parts of world are provided with subsidized inputs and better marketing facilities for agricultural products. Now under the umbrella of World Trade Organization (WTO), an agriculture production system which is well driven to market realities is said to be successful. Small farmers in most of the developing countries have to face many difficulties due to lack of resources, insufficient market access and weak infrastructure. Due to this, it is more difficult for small farmers to compete in the global market (Asian Productivity Organization, 2004). The technological improvement changed the traditional system and pattern of agriculture but farmers are still facing a lot of constraints and problems in every step of agricultural production, which affect the pace of socio-economic development of farmers and their sustainability as well as livelihood. Different constraints faced by small farmers include unavailability of electricity, higher input costs, limited source of information and unavailability of insecticides, pesticides and fertilizers which increased the cost of cultivation and reduce their earnings. The socio-personal attributes like age, land holding and economic 2

motivation had positive and significant correlation, while education, scientific orientation and risk preference had negative and significant correlation (Khan et al., 2007). Looking over certain key indicators in 2010-11, it revealed that heavy floods damaged 3.7 percent growth of agriculture and livestock. The sector has no immunity against weather related problems and thus many prospects for consistent growth were lost. Fishery sector grew by 1.9 percent as against last years growth of 1.4 percent. Forestry has experienced negative growth of 0.4 percent this year as compared to last years growth of 2.2 percent (Govt. of Pakistan, 2010). Pakistan along with many developing countries of the world have adopted policies like provision of subsidies in agricultural inputs and marketing through procurement at minimum support prices for the welfare of the small farmers. However, in most such cases, the government intervention takes the form of interest rate ceiling on subsidized products. When credit rationed, some borrowers noted that government has provided subsidies and easy loans. In such cases, liquidity can become a constraint and the access to credit become limited (Malik, 1999). Addressing the root causes of the reinforcing cycle of decline of crop and livestock productivity, natural resource degradation, high population growth and vulnerability are the major problems for poor farmers (Tadesse, 2001). Economic, social and environmental sustainability need intensified package approach (Alemneh, 2003). The illiterate farmers are usually not familiar with complexity of the technology, conflicting information, institutional factors, risks (both capital and intellectual) and incompatibility (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1994; Bengesi et al., 2004). In rural areas of our country, small farmers usually have little choice of selling and charging. The crop is sold to middleman at a low price because the farmers have limited access to main market. Many factors, like to pay back debts and household requirements compel the farmers to accept a low price for their output. Farmers could improve their methods of marketing to earn more from their crops. Developed communication technologies enable farmers to get information about latest prices and link them directly to buyers (CTA, 2008). Agricultural mechanization has played a vital role in enhancing agricultural yields of different crops. However, the adoption of sophisticated agricultural machines has been restricted to most of the large farmers only. Small farmers access to these technologies has 3

been retained mainly due to poor financial conditions and lack of awareness. It has been observed that mostly small farmers dont have enough knowledge about the modern techniques/machines to get maximum yield with limited resources for increasing their income. As a result, pace of development all over the country remains slow and inconsistent (Rehman et al., 2012). Although manufacturing and services sector have their major contribution towards Gross Domestic Product yet the sustainability in GDP growth can never be realized without acknowledging the agriculture sector. The need to develop agriculture sector is also obvious due to its overwhelming part in national employment and foreign exchange reserves. Land distribution in Pakistan has squeezed over time and currently more than 80% of agricultural farms are considered as small farms along with major part of agricultural produce also comes from small farms who have been suffering from many problems over this brief history of Pakistan. It necessitates inquiring about the nature, direction and intensity of problems faced by small farmers in Pakistan. Dera Ghazi Khan remained a remote and underdeveloped district in Punjab, which remained at the mercy of local feudal lords. The issues of small farmers in such remote and unattended areas provoked the challenges of sustainable agricultural production system. Therefore, it was decided to conduct this research in Tehsil D.G.Khan. It is expected that the study will contribute towards highlighting the issues of small farmers in particular and of agriculture sector in Pakistan in general. Thus the research was conducted in Tehsil D.G. Khan with the followings objectives. To find out the socio-economic status and demographic characteristics of respondents To know the socio-economic problems faced by small farmers. To give some suggestions to policy makers of agriculture sector for the improvement of socio-economic conditions of the small farmers.

CHAPTER2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Khan and Keatinge (2000) determined that the level of awareness, understanding and adoption of improved agricultural technologies are important determinants of agricultural productivity. They reported that in a survey for adopting the recommended farming practices near about 50% of farmers have adopted improved technologies. Moreover, they said that one quarter of all farmers feel lack of confidence in the recommendations for new agricultural technologies. The dynamics of soil fertility management in communal areas of Zimbabwe was studied by Chuma, et al. (2000) who concluded that lack of inputs, labor and capital are major problems faced by the small farmers. This may be because of some initiatives by the extension department which are not actually realized by the farmers. The extension workers should increase the knowledge of farmers about better crop production technologies. Apart from this, easy access to credit usually ensures the availability of chemical fertilizers and supply of electricity/gas at reasonable costs. They further concluded that training programs imparted to the farmers are appropriate methods of soil fertility and nutrient management. The research on factors affecting farmers adoption of technologies in farming system was carried out by Chi and Yamada (2002). They stated that factors which affect the adoption of new technologies usually encompass progressive, young and educated farmers. However, not all the farmers usually adopt modern technologies mainly because these are new for them and they are unaware about their use. They feel hesitant in the adoption of new technology because they do not believe that the new technology could ensure the high yield. They reported that most of the small farmers usually believe in their own experience instead of relying on modern technology. Bank lending to small-scale peasant farms in Nigeria was focused by Olubiyo and Hill (2003) where he found that the small farmers usually face problems in agriculture development like lack of availability of credit facility. Small farmers adopt new technology to increase agricultural production and farm incomes. However, this potential cannot be realized without adequate access to funds. Adoption of improved fallows technology for soil fertility management in Zambia studied by Ajayi et al. (2003) reported that small farmers face a number of challenges that 5

hinder them from adoption of recommended technologies. This is followed by lack of interest to adopt innovations, as it requires taking a certain level of risk. They further revealed that the major constraints in the adoption of optimum technology were lack of awareness, and unwillingness to wait for long term crops. Meena (2003) concluded that the majority of the small farmers (88.83%) mentioned that non-availability of agricultural inputs at farms is the main situational limitation. In case of technical constraints 93.33 percent farmers were facing problem regarding training of scientific cotton production technology. While among the economic constraints, she further reported that high cost of seed, fertilizer and insecticides are perceived to be the most relevant problems faced by most of the small farmers (90.83%). The majority mentioned that extension department has not provided technical guidance besides other extension related constraints. Similarly in institutional constraints 54 percent farmers mentioned that cooperative societies do not provide seed, fertilizers, insecticides and implements in time besides other institutional constraints. Ahmad et al. (2003) demonstrated some constraints confronting small farmers with special reference to wheat-cotton cropping zone of Punjab. They concluded that the small farms are most integral part of farm business in Pakistan. In view of their major contribution towards the overall stability of the economy, there is a strong need to make them resilient against certain risks. The development planners and strategists need to give attention in devising policies which contribute to enhance their access to easy credit. They further recommended that the issues related to law of inheritance which still operates the matters related to transfer of land assets, needs to be seriously addressed. Asian Productivity Organization (2004) reported that small farmers in Pakistan are unable to face global competitive markets because they have not enough resources to have market access. Moreover, it was stated that farmers usually use outdated production techniques and often face huge losses especially during post-harvest. It was strongly recommended in the report that in order to enhance small farmers competitive position in both local and international market, government could play a key role to provide suitable opportunity to the farmers and empower them to reap the benefits of global market. A study Linking small farmers to markets was carried out by Estelle et al. (2004) who reported that transaction costs, lack of information on markets and irregularity of information are the main reasons of un-stability of small farmers. They also observed lack of

bargaining power, asymmetric of negotiation, lack of economy of scale, lack of human capital and lack of social capital as the potential problems of small farmers. Mahmood and Hussain (2004) studied the socio-economic problems faced by small farmers of district Faisalabad. They concluded that financial status of small farmers has become worse over the time, which is due to uncertainty in their production and earnings. They strongly recommended that government should provide credit facility to the small farmers and must lower down the rate of interest. Exclusion of small-scale farmers from coordinated supply chains, market failure and economies of such farmers were studied by Meer (2004). He reported that the weaknesses of small-scale farmers are due to the lack of knowledge about modern technology and proper use of recommended inputs. Inaccessibility to capital is one of the main factors that explains the farmers inability to reach competitive markets. This seems to be a serious problem for serving high-end modern supply chains. The organization of small-scale farmers is not easy in many cases as the culture of existing organizations and cooperatives may be barrier rather than an asset. He also mentioned that risks of working with small-scale farmers can be high because of their ignorance and higher incidence of inappropriate application. Kerr (2005) reported that the small-scale farmers are facing many challenges that tend to undermine its productivity. While working on a Malawian case study he identified that food insecurity is the result of declining soil fertility, inadequate landholdings, inadequate labor availability to small-scale farmers as well as the low wages to such community are the major factors associated with small-scale farmers. Socio-economic factors affecting the income of small-scale agro-forestry farms in hilly areas of Yemen were studied by Safa (2005).He concluded that small-scale farmers usually practice agro-forestry land-use system traditionally which is associated with low productivity and income. He further identified the socio-economic attributes of small farmers that influence the economic viability of agro-forestry and non-agro-forestry farms in the Boras mountain region. Incomes of small farmers were found to be influenced by education, size of land, family size and livestock holding. He further suggested that the small farmers are in need of financial and technical support from government to increase their income. Public intervention and infrastructural development in developing farmers technical knowledge could enhance production, ensure the optimum use of land and will contribute towards soil and water conservation.

Impact of increasing landlessness on access to food was investigated by Chowdhury (2005) considering the experience of small and marginal farmers in rural Bangladesh. He narrated that the landlessness is caused by the complex interaction of various socio-economic and political forces. He further reported that increase in the number of landlessness leads to increase in the number of people who are unable to meet their livelihood requirements. He concluded that landlessness has serious impact on the different aspects of human security and the most serious problem that arises is the incapability of the poor people to have access to sufficient food. Constraints faced by the small farmers in rice production and export were studied by Thanh and Singh (2006).They revealed that socio-economic constraints, like credit problems, high cost of inputs, poor quality inputs and lack of trainings were the most important constraints as perceived by large percentage of small farmers. Sustainability of microfinance institutions from small farmers perspective in rural Nepal was studied by Acharya and Acharya (2006) and they concluded that a difference between the interests of professionals and small farmers is the key factor that leads to increase the number of default borrowers. The difference in expectations of both lenders and borrowers caused the problems in re-payment of the loan resulting in high credit defaults. The majority of small farmers viewed that some economic projects need to be initiated for sustainable micro-finance in the isolated areas. Determinants of poverty among small farmers in the Central Punjab (Pakistan) were studied by Sabir et al. (2006). They concluded that increasing number of old age small farmers, lower prices of output, low productivity of crops, bigger household size, lack of infrastructure and high dependency ratio were the major determinants of poverty. They strongly recommended that development policies should be in line with participatory agricultural growth. Socio economic conditions of small farmers in Sargodha District were investigated by Tanwir et al. (2006). They showed that in some rural areas of Pakistan, major factors contributing towards poverty are poor facilities, low productivity of crops and weak infrastructure. They suggested that resources and infrastructure must be improved along with increasing the capacity and concentrating literacy rate. According to Ortmann et al. (2006) the small-scale farmers in communal areas of South Africa have limited access to factors of production, credit and information, and markets are often constrained by inadequate property rights and high transaction costs. 8

Despite these problems, some small-scale farmers have managed to produce food for own consumption and for the market. Constraints faced by farmers of Narsing Kheda village of Sihore district were stated by Khan et al. (2007). They reported that the technological improvement changed the traditional system and pattern of agriculture. However, farmers still face a lot of constraints and problems in agriculture production that affects the pace of socioeconomic development of small farmers and their livelihood. Some constraints usually faced by small farmers are higher input costs, electricity shortfall, limited source of information, unavailability of insecticides and pesticides. The fertilizers increase the cost of cultivation and check their income. The socio-personal attributes like age, land holding and economic motivation had positive correlation with agricultural productivity, while low education and risk preference had negative and significant correlation. Empowering small farmers in markets through national and international policy initiatives was suggested by Bijman et al. (2007) when he reported through his study that small farmers are usually living in areas where markets are not well developed. The market support institutions are either absent or small farmers have to face very high transaction costs for borrowing this service. Therefore, it is often difficult to obtain appropriate information on market demands. They further reported that small producers often lack information about price trends, consumer demands, and information on prices, quality requirements, different market opportunities and potential buyers. Farm household decision making and design of agro-forestry extension strategies were studied by French (2007). He reported that most of the farm resources are owned by small farmers who often remained less efficient in agricultural production. While reporting about the level of decision making he argued that the most essential factor, which is affecting the investment and production, is the decision making at farm. He also reported that a secure tenancy could ensure the long-term engagement of small farmers in production activities. Resource-poor farmers constraints regarding integrated soil fertility and nutrient management for sustainable crop production in Bangladesh was studied by Farouque and Takeya (2007). They emphasized that poor quality resources are directly affecting the soil fertility and nutrient management. They further argued that in rural areas land holding is usually considered a symbol of social status, so small farmers in this regard have a very low social status.

Enabling rural innovation in Africa: Approaches for empowering small farmers to access market opportunities for improved livelihoods were studied by Kaaria et al. (2007). The study invariably revealed that access to market outlets for small-scale farmers is the most important problem that needs to be addressed in rural areas. They pointed out that small-scale farmers should be assisted to reach reliable market outlets. They further argued that the importance of enabling rural innovation and extending it to the marginal communities is vital as it could strengthen the capacity of smallholders and resource-poor farmers to access market opportunities. Access to nutritious food is a basic human entitlement. However, the majority of people in rural areas do not enjoy this entitlement because of their poverty. The rural poor depend on a number of livelihood strategies for their survival, but the majority depends on small-scale farming as their main means of earning. Diao et al. (2007) reported that 70 percent people live in rural areas depending on agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other related activities for survival in Sub-Saharan Africa. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in small holder agriculture was inquired by Shiferaw et al. (2007). They suggested that many small holder farmers in vulnerable areas continue to face certain challenges in adoption and adaptation of resource management and conservation strategies. They said although much was learned from diverse experiences in sustainable resource management yet there is insufficient understanding of the market policy. The policy and institutional failures exacerbate market failures, locking smallholder resource users into a low-level equilibrium that perpetuates poverty. They concluded that improved market access that raises the returns to land and labor is often the driving force for adoption of new practices in agriculture. Sources of technical efficiency among small holder maize farmers in Southern Malawi was investigated by Chirwa (2007) who reported that despite the long history of government investment in the agriculture sector through extension services and promotion of technology, small holder maize farming remains uneconomic and technically inefficient. He further revealed two main policy issues emerged from the results of this study. First, there is need to promote adoption of hybrid seeds among small holder maize farmers. Second, there is need to enhance social capital in small holder farming through the revival of farmers clubs or through the creation of agricultural cooperatives. Farm size and productivity in Pakistan were studied by Kiani (2008). He argued that in order to improve average yield per acre in agriculture sector, land should be re-distributed 10

in small farms. He said that it is usually observed that small farmers as compared to large ones gave higher output. This result was found to be contradicting with already available literature where evidences have been found that small farmers leads to lesser output as compared to large farmers. Sources and uses of agricultural credit by small-scale farmers in Surlier local government area of Oyo State were conducted by Adebayo and Adeola (2008). They revealed that 57.6% of the small farmers fell within the age group of 20-49 years which is an indication of majority being in the middle age group. Only 10.8% of the small farmers were above 57 years of age or even above this age. More than seventy-six percent (76.7%) of the small farmers were married. The study also indicated that 62.4% of the small farmers were male as against 5.8% female farmers. Small farmers had large family size with majority falling within the range of 6-10 persons per family. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the small farmers had formal education or the other as against 41% that had no formal education. CTA (2008) observed that most of the small farmers living in rural areas dont sell their produce in the main market and hence they do not realize maximum profit. They have little choice about the selling of their produce. It was also observed that the small farmers sell their crop at a low price to intermediaries. Unlike the farmers, the middle-men have access to transport to the main market and also good position in bargain. Desperate for money to pay back debts or maintain their households, the small farmers take the little advantage but they never earn enough money for investments in their farming business or pull themselves out of the poverty. Obeng (2008) while mentioning the problems of small farmers reported that the small farmers in rural community faced many problems in taking credit and dealing with bank interest. He also observed that the majority of the farmers are not well educated in order to plan or settle their business. In addition, it has become very critical problem for the small farmers to secure loans because of the security demanded by the banks. Many banks even look at the size of the farm before granting loans. The most alarming problem that the farmers faced is the high interest rates or bank charges, as a result it seem to be difficult for the farmers to borrow money from the rural banks. Congressi and Kennedy (2009) reported that in developing countries, small farmers faced many challenges which are diverse in composition and severe in magnitude and are supposed to have a detrimental effect on small scale farm productivity. They further predicted that due to the increase in population, more grains will be needed to meet the food 11

requirements of people. Farmers will have to respond to changing market demands and remain competitive. They further reported that climate change is another important issue, which must be addressed. While mentioning the characteristics of farming in South Africa Sebopetji and Belete (2009) reported that South Africa has a dual agricultural economy, with both well-developed commercial farming and subsistence farming in the remote rural areas. Majority of this subsistence farmers are not part of the mainstream agriculture and practice subsistence agriculture in the overcrowded semi-arid areas. Subsistence farming is characterized by low production, poor access to land, poor access to inputs, infrastructure, information and most importantly poor access to credit for production requisites. Factors influencing economic viability of marginal and small farmers in Punjab were inquired by Singh et al. (2009) where they reported that in low productivity region, off-farm income and rationality in domestic expenditure are the two main determinants of viability of marginal farmers. However, for small farmers differences in the farm investment and offfarm income are the main contributors to their problems. Therefore, the farm investment, in particular on irrigation has emerged as a constraint for the marginal and subsistence farmers in Punjab. Constraints experienced by small farmers in adopting management strategies in rainfed agricultural areas were discussed by Kumar and Bhagat (2009). They argued that the poor resource base of small farmers was main factor behind failure of farmers to cope with the risks and uncertainties. They reported that the farmers expressed that the coverage of insurance schemes was not satisfactory along with non-coverage of the crops grown by small farmers is another issue that needs to be addressed. The failure of the government in protecting the small farmers from the risk management strategies is the main reason behind low status of small farmers. Though majority of the small farmers grow crops like Jowar, Bajra etc. which require less input, still the increase in the cost of cultivation in general was perceived as major threat to small farmers. Frequent crop yield and price variations restrict the risk aversion strategies. Agriculture Problems in Pakistan and their solutions was discussed by Ali (2010), he reported that the small farmers are increasing in our country as the lands are dividing generation by generation. Therefore, there are large numbers of farmers who own less than 4 acres of land. These small farmers usually face plenty of problems like difficulty in purchase of seeds, pesticides, fertilizers etc. Additionally, a large area of land owned by feudal is cultivated by the small farmers, who work on their lands as tenants. This uncertain situation 12

of occupancy neither creates incentive for work nor does attract capital investment in cultivation. Adaptation of small-scale farmers to climatic risks in India was studied by Pande and Akermann (2010), they concluded that five states face a general problem of water unavailability and reduced farm productivity due to erratic and untimely rainfall. They further added that soil fertility loss, soil erosion and intensified agricultural practices lead to an overall decrease in income of small-scale farmers. Moreover, mono cropping practiced in many places adds to their problems through offering lower productivity. They also observed that these farmers at most of the times do not wait for external interventions and develop their own adaptation strategies. Finally they recommended that government policies and programs providing additional options for secured income as well as provision of advanced technologies for Agriculture might be useful. Farmers perception regarding problems in the cultivation of selected leaf vegetables in south Western Nigeria were inquired by Okunlola and Ofuya (2010). They reported that the farmers encountered insect pest attacks on their vegetable farms resulting in reduced quantity, quality and derivable income. The most prevalent insect-pests of selected vegetables during the wet and dry seasons were Podagricas jostedti (Flea Beetles), P. uniforma (Flea Beetles), Sylepta derogate (Leaf Rollers), Dysdercus superstitious (Cotton Stainers), and Zonocerous variegatus (Grass hoppers) which defoliate the leaves of these vegetables. They concluded that seventy six percent of the farmers were aware of indigenous methods for the control of these pests. Moreover, there were significant associations between age, sex, farming experience and use of plant extract for the control of insect pest in the leafy vegetables. They added that the level of education does not affect use of plant extracts because the method is indigenous, simple and locally available. An analysis of the problems faced by farmers in the mountains of northwest Pakistan was conducted by Shahbaz et al. (2010). They revealed that majority of the farmers in the study area had small land holdings (less than 10 acres). Wheat was the major Rabi crop whereas maize and rice were the major Kharif crops. Due to the absence of effective agricultural extension system, the local farmers were using time old traditional technology of crop and fruit production, and were obtaining very low yield. Due to small land holding and illiteracy, most of the farmers could not access to agricultural loans offered by the banks. They concluded that most of the farmers were not satisfied with the services of provincial department of agriculture. 13

Effect of small-scale irrigation on the income of rural farm households was studied by Asayehegn et al. (2011), who revealed that income, gender, access to market information and health condition of households were found to be important determinants for participating in small scale irrigation schemes. They concluded that by improving rural farm households access to market information and health services, could likely to improve participation in irrigation schemes thereby improving of smallholder farmers income. The socio-economic problems of small farmers in adopting new agricultural technology were studied by Din (2011). He emphasized that low literacy rate of the small farmers was the major hurdle in the adoption of new agricultural technology. Furthermore, majority of the people were small landholders, which seem to be one of the major obstacles towards the adoption of new technology. It was also found that majority of the small farmers were having low incomes, due to which they were unable to adopt new farm technology. Role of agricultural credit on production efficiency of farming sector in Pakistan was studied by Ayaz et al. (2011). He found that agriculture sector of Pakistan still suffers from low productivity, expensive financial support to the farmers, inefficient market structure and improper research. Thus to develop farming sector and to increase the farming efficiency it was recommended to enhance the accessibility of small and marginal farmer to formal agricultural credit. The loan for the livestock sector should be enhanced which would definitely enhance farmers' income and ultimately would reduce poverty. A study regarding perception about problems of farming community at Hyderabad Pakistan was conducted by Mari et al. (2011). They showed that the majority (83 %) of small farmers faced problems of shortage of irrigation water, 76 % faced problem due to nonavailability of extension worker, 72 % faced problems due to lack of inputs and 63 % due to lack of roads. The irregular supply of water and expensive rates of inputs were found to be main causes for low yield in the study area. They found that small farmers do not care about the use of recommended land preparation practices and conservation techniques. Therefore, they recommended that extension workers should stimulate small farmers to adopt new production techniques. An extension worker must visit small farmers field for their proper guidance. Pervaiz et al. (2011) concluded that most of the small farmers are out of access to get loans because of the lack of guarantee and recovery threat. The loan availability usually increases with the increase in farm size. The main restrictions in provision of loans to small farmers are high rate of interests, costly guarantee, complicated procedure and Islamic 14

attitude. However, through the, one window operation small farmers are taught and encouraged that how they could utilize the loans for improving farming activities. They strongly recommended that the rate of interest should be reduced as well as subsidies must be provided to the small farmers. Socio-economic problems of small farmers in Pakistan were identified by Rehman et al. (2012) who concluded that farmers face a lot of problems regarding irrigation water, shortage of pesticide, education problem, social security and unavailability of credit for small farmers etc. Institutions of credit provision usually sanction loans to land lords or business class and not to the poor farmers. Before designing this study a lot of literature in the form of research paper, books and articles was reviewed. Previously conducted empirical research has declared that low education, low income, lack of awareness, poverty and social stress are major problems of small farmers in different areas of the world. Tehsil D. G. Khan is the remote and backward area where the number of small farmers is more than large farmers and also they are unaware about the problems and their solutions. Therefore, the present study was conducted to know the socio-economic problems faced by small farmers in Tehsil D.G. khan.

15

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The main methodology involves the explanation of tools and techniques employed for data collection, analysis and interpretation of data relating to the present study. The method and techniques of research along with statistical tests and operational definitions of the concepts being used are briefly described here. According to Nachmias and Nachmias (1992) the scientific methodology is a system of explicit rules and procedures upon which whole research is based and against which the claims for knowledge are evaluated. Similarly, Goldhaber and Nieto (2010) explains the scientific methodology as, The scientific methodology refers to body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge or correcting and integrating previous knowledge .The methods, concepts and techniques applied in the present study are briefly stated as under:

3.1- The Population or universe:

The population under observation out of which a sample is chosen or data is collected in a particular time frame is known as universe. For undertaking a scientific study selection and specification of universe is the first and important step. The current study was therefore aimed at exploratory study of socio-economic problems faced by small farmers in rural areas of Tehsil Dera Ghazi Khan which is comprised of (according to district administration), thirty four rural union councils.

3.2- Limitations of the study:

Small farmers who were above the age of 15 years were selected as respondents of the study.

3.3- Data Collection:

The data was collected through interview schedule.

3.4- Interview Schedule:

The interview schedule was prepared to get information about the socio-economic problems faced by small farmers in Tehsil D.G.Khan. A structured interview schedule was prepared to collect the data. The interview schedule was consisted of both multiple choice and close-ended questions. In the first part, 16

there were general demographic questions. The questionnaire was prepared in English but the questions were asked in Urdu and Saraiki. The researcher made his best effort not to alter the sense of the question. Before asking the questions, the researcher made it clear to the respondents that the purpose of his inquiry was just educational so that they might not have any suspicion in the mind. The researcher also assured the respondents that the information they will give would be confidential. The interviews were conducted by researcher himself and other master level students. Each respondent was conducted individually and the time consumed per interview was varied 25-30 minutes, but in some cases it took little more time.

3.5- Pre-testing:
The pre-testing is a tryout of the interviewing schedule to see how it works and whatever changes are necessary before actual data collection. To judge the authenticity of the questionnaire, the interview schedule was pre-tested on ten respondents. After making necessary modification in the light of pre-testing the interview schedule was finalized for carrying out field work.

3.6- Field Experience:

Data collection is not an easy task. Some difficulties were encountered at the time of data collection. The major problem was to explain the purpose of doing the research because in our society which is criticized for low level of education, respondents found it difficult to comprehend the significance of research. Sometimes a visitor came and tried to join the respondent and answer some of the questions. This created a confusion and over exposure. On proper advice, the situation was made normal. The following careful observations were done before and during the interviewing schedule; 1. The researcher had to introduce himself with each and every respondent prior to data collection. 2. Some of respondents regarded interviewer as a reporter of government and thought that government could find them for their comments. This misunderstanding was removed by explaining the purpose of research and by assuring them that the information collected from them will be kept confidential and will only be used for research purpose. 3. The researcher had collected the information in the field at the doorstep of the farmers. 17

Anyhow, the collection of data was also interesting to some extent, which was completed within a month.

3.7- Sampling:
Time and cost are normally limited factors in social research. It is therefore more emotional and efficient to base the studies on sample rather than to study the entire universe (Good and Hatt, 1952). According to District administration there are 41 union councils in Tehsil Dera Ghazi Khan. Seven union councils belong to urban area and 34 union councils belong to rural areas. Out of these thirty four rural union councils, four union councils (Haji Ghazi, Gadai, Khakhi and Paighan) were selected and from these union councils a sample of 120 respondents was selected.

3.8- Coding:
After editing the interviewing schedule, a coding sheet was prepared to convert qualitative data into quantitative form and then data was tabulated.

3.9- Conceptualization:
Conceptualization is used to define certain concepts used in research work in order to clearly define their meanings to the readers. Conceptualization defines certain scientific terminologies within research framework or design in order to clearly communicate the meaning to the reader. Conceptualization is much more difficult in social sciences as compared to any other discipline, because concepts are sometimes used with difficult meaning by different researchers. Some of the concepts used in the present study were operationalized as under. Concepts are the abstracts used by the scientists as building block for the development of propositions and theories, which explain and predict phenomenon. In social sciences, conceptualization is much more difficult as compared to any other disciplines because the same concepts are sometimes used with different meanings by different researchers. The following were the concepts used in the study:

3.9.1- Socio-Economic Characteristics:

Socio-economic status is a complex concept. It refers to the social standing of the individual in the society to which he belongs. The socio-economic status has been defined as A comparison of index of socio-economic status, as it is a complex of attitudes that are 18

interrelated, but do not form a single dimension, and thus should not be measured directly as a totality. Therefore, socio-economic status comprises of various factors and each factor further has several indices; every society according to the social norms and values determines socioeconomic status of a person. For example, the socio-economic status of the parents influences the attitude, aspirations and other attributes of personality of their children. The indicators of socio-economic status are: 1. Respondents education level 2. Respondents income 3. Marital possession

3.9.2- Age:
Age is an important characteristic of human being and attitudes vary considerably with the age. In the present study, age was defined as total number of years completed by the respondents since their birth to the time of interviews. The information collected about the age of respondents was categorized as under: 1. 16-21years 2. 22-27 years 3. 28-33 years 4. 34 year and above

3.9.3- Family type:

Family is a group of intimate people emotionally involved and related whether by blood, marriage or adoption, responsible for the production, rearing and living together. The following three major types of a family were discussed in this study. 1. Nuclear 2. Joint 3. Extended

3.9.4- Education:
Education is one of the most important factors for variation in a knowledge, attitude and prestige of an individual. Education is meant for the formal and informal year of 19

schooling by the respondents in educational institutes like school, college or any other religious institute. Education was categorized as under, 1. Illiterate 2. 3. 4. 5. Primary Middle Matric Above matric

3.10- Rural Area

What makes the difference between so called the urban and the rural area? Some researchers have identified minimum social characteristics of rural areas and concluded that all societies that exhibit social characteristics that differ from such are urban areas. They therefore described the rural area as a society that is small, isolated, less-literate and homogeneous with a strong sense of group solidarity. The rural area of Tehsil D.G.Khan was therefore, selected for current research purpose. According to Fasoranti (2008), the ways of living are conventionalized into coherent system, which is called culture while the behavior is traditional, spontaneous, uncritical and personal.

3.11- Marital status:

A demographic parameter indicating a person's status with respect to marriage, divorce, widowhood, singleness, etc. was also studied. 1. Single 2. Married

3.12- Analysis of Data:

The collected data was analyzed by applying statistical techniques. The following statistical techniques were used in the present study. Part-A deals with uni-variate analysis, i.e the analysis of the respondents socio-economic characteristics like opinion about the problems faced by small farmers. Part-B deals with bivariate analysis showing relationship among various socio-economic characteristics and their opinion about the problems faced by small farmers.

20

3.12.1- Uni-Variate analysis

Uni-variate is a method for analyzing data on a single variable at a time. This part begins with uni-variate analysis of different factors that play most important role in determining the socio-economic status of small farmers. In this part frequency distribution and percentage distribution was analyzed.

3.12.2- Bi-Variate Analysis

Bi-Variate analysis is a technique of data analysis in which two variables are examined simultaneously for association with each other. Relationship and association between dependent variable and independent variable was analyzed by using chi-square and Gamma statistics.

3.12.3- Percentage:
For the simple analysis of data, percentage test was applied as a statistical technique. The formula for calculating the percentage is as under: P=F/N*100 Where F = Frequency of desired class N= Total no of frequencies P= Percentage

3.12.4- Chi-Square Test:

To test the significance of association between independent and dependent variables, chi-square test was used. The formula for chi-square is as under; (O - E)2 X2 = Where O= E= = Observed frequency Expected frequency the Sum total of observations

-------------E

21

3.12.5- Gamma statistics:

Gamma statistics was applied to ascertain the relation between certain independents and dependent variables. The Gamma was used with the following formula.

Gamma = Where NS ND = =

NS-ND ------------NS+ND same order pairs different orders

22

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It is imperative to carry out detailed survey for finding facts related to any social problem. Analysis of data leads to inferences without which no study is useful. Generalizations and conclusions are drawn on the basis of characteristics and attitude of the respondents. The general objective of this research was to know the socio-economic problems faced by small farmers in Tehsil D.G. Khan. In this regard, this effort has been made to discuss, analyze and interpret the relevant data in order to draw pertinent conclusions and formulate appropriate suggestion in the light of study results. The suggestions given in this chapter may prove to be helpful in resolving issues of small farmers and would possibly develop positive attitude towards new technologies among small farmers. Table 1. Distribution of the respondents according to their age Age of the respondents (Years) 16-21 22-27 28-33 34 and above Total Frequency 08 21 13 78 120 Percentage 6.66 17.50 10.83 65.0 100

Age is considered as the number of complete years lived by the respondents. It was observed that the majority of the respondents (65.0 %) belong to the age group 34 and above followed by 17.50 % falling in age group of 22-27 years while about17.5 percent of the respondents lie in 22-27 years of age group and a very few of them (12.5 %) belongs to age group 16-21 (Table 1). However, these results are more or less in line with the findings of Adebayo and Adeola (2008), Okunlola and Ofuya (2010), Din (2011) and Mari et al. (2011) who indicated that in a rural community majority the respondents fall within the age group of 20-49 years. Although they used different age group categories but we can easily conclude from their findings that more than 88 % respondents belonged to the age of 36 and above years. It is quite evident from the data presented by them that majority of the farmers involved in the farming were above 35 years of age, while below that age group i.e. a younger lot was less 23

interested in agricultural activities. It is mainly because young people were either joining services or studying at colleges and universities. However, they were more responsive to change. Table 2 Distribution of the respondents according to their education level Education of the respondents Illiterate Primary Middle Matric Above matric Total Frequency 56 21 12 17 14 120 Percentage 46.66 17.50 10.00 14.16 11.66 100

Education is a method of influencing the human behavior. The above shown Table 2 represents that the majority of the total surveyed respondents (46.66 %) were illiterate followed by primary education (17.50 %). While 10.0 % of the respondents were middle pass, 14.16 percent were matric and only 11.66 percent were above matric level category. These results are also almost in line with the findings of Adebayo and Adeola (2008). They indicated that, in Surulere local Government area of Oyo State, Nigeria, 41% of the respondents were illiterate while 59 % of the respondents were educated. Ali (1987) carried out a study regarding investigation into the social and economic constraints to the adoption of improved agricultural technology by small farmers in District Kasur. He observed that education, income, size of land holding and sources of information were found to be positively correlated with the adoption of improved agricultural practices. The adoption rate in highly educated farmers is high as compared to less educated farmers in all areas of the country. Keeping in view this study where nearly 50 % respondents are illiterate and only a very few (10 %) are above Matric level of education it can be concluded that the adoption of innovation among small farmers is very low and diffusion process is also quite slow. It is also concluded that highly educated farmers can manage their problems in a better way as compared to the illiterates.

24

Table 3. Distribution of the respondents according to their marital status Marital status of the respondents Single Married Total Frequency 16 104 120 Percentage 13.33 86.67 100

Marital status refers to present status of a respondent whether married or unmarried. The above Table 3 shows that a large number of the respondents (86.67 %) were married and 13.33 percent of the respondents were unmarried. These results are comparable and also almost in line with the findings of Adebayo and Adeola (2008) who argued that 76 % of the respondents in Surulere local Government area of Oyo State, Nigeria, were married. Table 4. Distribution of the respondents according to their number of children Number of children No child 1-3 4-6 More than 6 Total Frequency 02 28 42 32 106 Percentage 1.66 23.33 35.00 26.66 86.66

Fertility rate is expected to be higher among rural communities which sometimes create problems by raising the dependency ratio in the family. In this regard information regarding the number of children is gathered in Table 4 which clearly indicates that the majority of the respondents (35.0 %) had 4-6 numbers of children followed by more than 6 numbers of children (26.66 %), 1-3 numbers of children (23.33 %) and no child (1.66 %). These studies show that more than 61 percent respondents had 4 or more than 4 children and it means having big family size. These studies are almost in line with those of Adebayo and Adeola (2008) who revealed that respondents in Nigeria had large family size with majority falling within the range of 6-10 persons per family. Odoemenem and Adebisi (2011) conducted a study in Niger state of Nigeria on small scale farmers regarding sustainable agriculture and revealed that majority of the respondents (51 %) have above 10 members of household. They 25

concluded that the higher the number of people in the household the more the availability of labor for the farming. Now we can conclude from our study that as the family size increases the more will be the availability of labor to that family but at the same time due to the dependency of children to the parents it becomes difficult with some families to maintain and carry on their resources. As there is high inflation and less means of earnings/ resources so it becomes difficult of some big families to make both ends meet. It is a general slogan in Pakistan created by family planning department, Kam bachay khush haal gharaana. But in rural areas mostly the people have big families. Table 5. Distribution of the respondents according to their family type Family type of the respondents Nuclear Joint Extended Total Frequency 17 96 07 120 Percentage 14.17 80.00 05.83 100

Family consists of present couple and their children blood relative, married persons and their children. The results presented here (Table 5) show, that a large number of the respondents, (80.0 %) were living in joint family type while a few of the respondents viz., 5.83 % and 14.17 % had extended and nuclear family type respectively. Usually it is observed that in joint and extended families the participation of family labor is expected to be higher than nuclear families. These results are almost in line with those of Sarwar (2011) who concluded that about 70 % respondents were living in joint family system. Generally people living in joint family system share their resources and can sustain with limited resources. Mostly the small farmers in our country live in joint family systems as they have limited resources and in this way they sustain well which could not be possible living in extended and nuclear systems.

26

Table 6. Distribution of the respondents according to their family size Family size of the respondents 1-5 6-10 Above 10 Total Frequency 13 51 56 120 Percentage 10.83 42.50 46.66 100

Family size is usually considered as an important variable which determine the socioeconomic status of a community and also affect the household decisions regarding agriculture. The results gathered in Table 6, evidently proved that majority of the respondents (46.66 %) said that they have above 10 family members followed by 42.50 % falling in group of 6-10 family members while a very few 10.83 percent of the respondents have 1-5 members in their families. These results are contradictory to the findings of Adebayo and Adeola (2008) who reported that large family size is falling with a good pace in rural areas while in our studies the small farmers with large family sizes have financial burden and need to get loans especially in off seasons to maintain their livelihood, to educate their children and for their basic health requirements etc. Table 7. Distribution of the respondents according to their residential status Residential status of respondents Own house Hired house Total Frequency 116 04 120 Percentage 96.67 3.33 100

House ownership is considered as a vital determinant of socio-economic strength of a person. Ownership of a house is an ultimate and exclusive right conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, and sell. The facts mentioned in Table 7 expressed that except a few (3.33 %) almost all respondents (96.67 %) who are residing in rural areas had their own residential houses and not the hired or rented ones. These studies are in line with the findings of Sarwar (2011) who reported in his study that 93% of the respondents had their own houses. 27

The hired houses again put some financial burden upon the farmers which forces them to get loans. Table 8. Distribution of the respondents according to their house area House area of the respondents 1-5 Marlas 6-10 Marlas Above 10 Marlas Total Frequency 18 32 70 120 Percentage 15.00 26.67 58.33 100

A building for human habitation, especially one where a family or a small group of people lives is called a house. The figures in Table 8 as mentioned above showed that the majority of the respondents (58.33 %) said that they have more than 10 marlas house, while 26.67 percent replied that they have above 6-10 marlas house area and a few (15.0 %) of the respondents said that they have 1-5 marlas of house area. In rural areas the houses are usually of large sizes and hence small farmers dont feel problems like small houses as are felt in urban areas. Table 9. Distribution of the respondents according to their house type House type of the respondents Kacha Pacca Mixed Total Frequency 35 38 47 120 Percentage 29.16 31.67 39.16 100

House means a place where people live together. Type of house is another important variable that reflects the socio-economic status of a respondent. In this regard, results presented in Table 9 reveals that majority of the respondents (39.16 %) lived in mixed type of houses while 31.67 percent of the respondents replied to be living in pacca houses while 29.16 percent of the respondents said that they had kacha house. It is generally observed that most of the respondents who had pacca houses feel no tension regarding their houses and can perform their field operations in an area with good pace as compared to those residing in kacha houses. 28

Table 10. Distribution of the respondents according to their land size Agricultural land size Up to 5 acres 6-10 acre Above 10 acre Total Frequency 81 20 10 111 Percentage 72.97 18.02 9.00 100

This study was specifically concerned with investigating the problems of small farmers and in this regard results presented in Table 10 shows that majority of the respondents (72.97 %) said they were having up to 5 acres of agricultural land. The percentage of farmers having 6-10 or more than 10 acres were 18.02 % and 9.0 % respectively which is quite low. These results are in line with the Economic Survey, Government of Pakistan, 2003, MINFAL which reported that in Pakistan the size of land is very small and it has decreased overtime and also those of Rehman et al. (2012) who conducted a study to reveal the socioeconomic problems of farmers in Sukkur district of Pakistan and reported that the size of land holding is continuously decreasing with the passage of time due to the law of inheritance in Pakistan. They further concluded that the holding of two or less than two acres does not allow the use of mechanized method of cultivation. The fragmented and small size of holding is an important factor of low agricultural productivity in the country. Table 11. Distribution of the respondents according to their cultivated land area Cultivated land area (Acres) Up to 5 acre 6-10 acre Above 10 acre Total Frequency 83 18 10 111 Percentage 74.77 16.22 09.00 100

Cultivated agricultural land means production of food and fiber by preparing the land for growing crops (especially on a large scale). For this purpose Table 11 indicated that large number of the respondents (74.77 %) said that they cultivated up to 5 acre land and 16.22 percent said that they cultivated 6-10 acre land while a few (9.00 %) of the respondents 29

replied that they cultivated more than 10 acre land. These results proved that majority of the farmers in the study area were small landholders. Din (2011) carried out socio-economic study of small farmers in three villages in Mardan, Pakistan. His study was focused on small farmers having less than 12 acres of land. This study is in line with those of Ali, (2010) and Shahbaz et al. (2010). Shahbaz et al. conducted analysis for the problems faced by small farmers in mountainous area of Pakistan and revealed that majority of the farmers in the study area had small land holdings (less than 10 acres). Similarly, Ali discussed and reported that the small farmers are increasing in our country as the lands are dividing generation by generation. Therefore, there are large numbers of farmers who own less than 4 acres of land. These small farmers ultimately face plenty of problems like difficulty in purchase of seeds, pesticides, fertilizers etc. Additionally, a large area of land owned by feudal lords is cultivated by the small farmers, who work on their lands as tenants. This uncertain situation of occupancy neither creates incentive for work nor does attract capital investment in cultivation. Hence, the small farmers cannot get high yields and remain at lower levels of income. Table 12. Distribution of the respondents according to rented land Land on rent Yes No Total Frequency 35 85 120 Percentage 29.16 70.83 100

Rent is a contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent. Table 12 shows that most of the respondents (70.83 %) agreed that they dont get any land on rent while 29.16 percent of the respondents said that they do get some land on rent. It is evident that small farmers do get some land on rent to have some more earnings and some studies have revealed that such small farmers also get loans to maintain their farms properly. But the number of such small farmers is very low who get some land on rent due to a lot of factors. Some of the factors include high inflation, uncertainty in crop production, high seed and fertilizer rates, increasing pest problems and pesticides, irrigation water availability in some areas, the ever changing political situation of the country etc.

30

Table 13. Distribution of the respondents according to size of land taken on rent Land taking area Up to 5 acre 6-10 acre Above 10 acre Respondents who asked no Total Frequency 27 06 02 85 120 Percentage 22.50 05.00 1.66 70.83 100

Taking land on rent means the act of someone who takes land on rent for cultivation. The results presented in the Table 13 shows that a large number of the respondents 22.50 percent said that they took up to 5 acres land on rent and only 5.0 percent of the respondents said that they took 6-10 acres of agricultural land while a very few 1.66 percent of the respondents said that they took more than 10 acres of land on rent. CBS (1997) revealed that amongst the agricultural households, 95 percent operate their own land whereas 6.4percent also rent out part of their land. About 29 percent of the households work on rented land along with their own land. About 5 percent of the households work on rented land only. Table 14. Distributions of the respondents according to land given on rent Land given on rent Yes No Total Frequency 06 114 120 Percentage 05.00 95.00 100

As some of the respondents took land on rent for cultivation, similarly some others give their land on rent to others. Farmers usually give their land to someone and take money. Table 14 shows that the majority of the respondents (95 %) denied and said that they dont give land on rent while only 05 percent of the respondents agreed that they give land on rent. In many cases when farmers fail to get their maximum produce of the crops they give their lands on rent for some money. This situation is also not good as the person taking on rent will not take care of the land and will try to maximize the crop produce by any means other than the healthier ones. 31

Table 15. Distribution of the respondents according to size of land given on rent Area of land give on rent Up to 5 acre 6-10 acre Respondents who said no Total Frequency 05 01 114 120 Percentage 04.16 0.83 95.00 100

It is important to note the trend of giving land on rent especially among small farmers who usually are unable to cultivate their lands due to increasing cost of production. Table 15 shows that a very small proportion of the respondents (4.16 %) said that they give up to 5 acres of land on rent while only 1.0 respondent out of 120 (0.83 %) said that they give 6-10 acre land on rent while 95 percent of the respondents did not give their land on rent. The results indicated that the trend was weak about giving land on rent in the study area. The reason might be that most of the farmers in the study area are small land owners and they want to cultivate their own land to get maximum benefits. Table 16. Distribution of the respondents according to their tenancy status Tenancy status of the respondents Own cultivator Contractor Owner cum tenant Tenant Total Frequency 80 08 29 03 120 Percentage 66.66 6.67 24.16 2.50 100

32

Tenancy means a piece of land held by a tenant of a property owner. It is believed that the tenancy and land ownership structure is very important in determining the level of agricultural development through affecting the production efficiency. Results regarding the tenancy status of respondents are gathered in Table16 which clearly shows, that most of the respondents (66.66 %) said they cultivate their lands themselves, 24.16 percent replied that they were owner cum tenant and 6.67 percent of the respondents said that they were contractors and a very few (2.50 %) of the respondents replied that they were tenant by tenant status. So, study revealed that majority of the respondents have their own land and they were involved in cultivating it by themselves. The results of present finding are comparable with those of Mari et al. (2011) who showed that 41% of the respondents in their study were tenants, 15% were owner-cumtenants while 44% of the respondents were own cultivators. Table 17. Distribution of the respondents according to monthly income Monthly income (Rs.) Up to 7000 7001-15000 15001-25000 Above 25000 Total Frequency 68 25 19 8 120 Percentage 56.66 20.83 15.83 06.66 100

Income is the flow (that is, measured per unit of time) of revenue accumulating to a person. Income is said to be the most important factor determining the socio-economic status of a community. Income is also important for the sustainable agricultural production. Therefore, farming communitys response is presented in Table 17 regarding the level of income which clearly shows, that majority of the respondents (56.66 percent) said that they have up to Rs. 7000 monthly income. Another 20.83 percent of the respondents said that they have Rs. 7001-15000 monthly income while 15.83 percent replied that they get Rs. 15001-

33

25000 monthly income while a very few of the respondents (6.66 %) replied that they have more than Rs. 25000 monthly income. These results are in line with the findings of Din (2011) who studied the socioeconomic problems of small farmers in adopting new agricultural technologies during a case study in three villages in Mardan, Pakistan. He reported that the farmers were having low incomes, due to which they were unable to adopt new farm technology. Similarly, these findings are also in line with other researchers like Mahmood and Hussain (2004), Meer (2004), Jaffer et al. (2006), Sabir et al. (2006), Farouque and Takeya (2007) and Kumar and Bhagat (2009) etc. Table 18. Distribution of the respondents according to use of irrigation source Use of irrigation sources Tube Well Response Yes No Total Canal Yes No Total Turbine Yes No Total Hill Torrent Yes No Total Any Other Yes No Total Frequency 109 11 120 96 24 120 06 114 120 0 120 120 0 120 120 Percentage 90.83 09.16 100.00 80.00 20.00 100.00 05.00 95.00 100.00 0.0 100.00 100.00 0.0 100.00 100.00

The information regarding the source of irrigation for respondents is collected and given in Table 18 which expressed that most of the respondents (90.83 %) replied that they use tube well water for irrigation purpose. Similarly, 80.0 percent of the respondents reported 34

that they used canal water for irrigation while a few viz., 05.0 percent of the respondents favors to use turbine for irrigation of their agricultural lands. The current findings are in line with those of Mari et al. (2011) who reported that the majority (83 %) of the farmers faces problems of shortage of canal water and hence the farmers use tube well water for irrigation purpose. Hence the majority of the farmers use tube well water for irrigating their crops. On the other hand, these results are contradictory to the findings of Rehman et al. (2012) who indicated that the respondents face problems in accessing canal water for irrigation purpose. They showed that 70 % of their land is irrigated by canal water, and 30 % irrigated by sub soil water. Data collected by them showed that 90 % of the respondents have no irrigated water at proper time, and 10 % responded agreed that they manage to have irrigated water at proper time. Further it is revealed that there is 60 % natural shortage of water, 10 % non-regulation of water and 10 % responded any other reason of water shortage. It can be concluded from the current findings that although the canal water is cheaper and good source for irrigation purpose but mostly the farmers irrigate their crops by tube well water because they could access canal water. Table 19. Distribution of the respondents according to ownership of tractor Ownership of Tractor Owned Hired Total Frequency 19 101 120 Percentage 15.83 84.17 100

Table 19 regarding ownership of tractors, revealed that the majority of the respondents (84.17 %) said that they hired the tractors for their use in the field while 15.83 percent of the respondents were having their own tractor for their agricultural activities. The results of present findings are in line with those of Khan et al. (2007) who identified that the use of tractor on rent is common among farming community which raises their input costs making them less competitive in the market.

35

As most of the studies done by other workers revealed that the technological improvement has changed the traditional system and pattern of agriculture but at the same time the small farmers face least approach to innovations and new technology as small farmers are still facing a lot of constraints and problems in every step of agriculture production which ultimately affects the pace of socioeconomic development of farmers and their livelihood. Table20. Distribution of the respondents according to the purpose of using tractor Purpose of tractor using For cultivation Response Yes No Total For ploughing Yes No Total For sowing Yes No Total For leveling Yes No Total Threshing wheat Yes No Total Frequency 118 02 120 80 40 120 52 68 120 113 07 120 112 08 120 Percentage 98.33 1.66 100.00 66.67 33.33 100.00 43.33 56.67 100.00 94.17 05.83 100.00 93.33 06.67 100.00

Tractor is usually used to perform different tasks in agricultural production system like ploughing, threshing, leveling etc. The respondents were asked about their use of tractor in different agricultural practices and it was found that majority of the respondents (98 %) said they use tractor for cultivation. Table 20 shows that 66.67 % respondents were agreed that they used tractor for ploughing on their agricultural land while 43.33 % replied that they

36

use tractor for sowing wheat. The use of tractor in leveling and threshing was 94.17 and 93.33 %, respectively. The results of present findings are in line with those of Khan et al. (2007) who identified that it is very difficult by the farmers mainly due to financial reasons to use improved technology like the use of tractor for cultivation, ploughing and sowing etc. The bank loans are also limited due to which farming community feels it difficult to use improved technology for enhancement of their production. Due to limited resources they can only use one or two farm machinery as these may raises their input costs on one hand although also facilitate them in achieving their higher productivity goals. Table21. Distribution of the respondents according to their use of different farm implements

37

Using of farm machinery Thresher

Response Yes No

Frequency 114 06 120

Percentage 95.00 05.00 100.00 04.16 95.83 100.00 0.83 99.17 100.00 02.50 97.50 100.00 86.66 13.34 100.00 14.16 56.67 100.00

Total Reaper Yes No Total Harvester Yes No Total Seed driller Yes No Total Rotavator Yes No Total Ridger Yes No Total

05 115 120 01 119 120 03 117 120 104 16 120 68 52 120

A farm implement is used to break up the surface of the soil. It is reflected in Table 21 that the majority of the respondents, 95.00 percent replied that tractor was used for threshing in their farms, 04.16 percent were of the view that they used reaper and 14.17 percent were using ridger with tractor at their farms. Those respondents who use the rotavator at their farms were 86.66 percent, 2.5 percent of the respondents were using the seed drills at farms and only 01 out of 120 respondents (0.83 percent) was using the harvester at his farms fields. It is conclusive from these results that the use of farm machinery in agricultural production was limited to some extent except in case of harvester and thresher which identified one of the main issues of small scale farmers in Pakistan.

38

The results of present findings are in line with those of Khan et al. (2007) who inferred from his findings by studying the major constraints faced by small farmers in achieving higher production. He concluded that the less use of agricultural innovation/ implements like tractors, drills, harvesters, ridgers etc. by the small farmers is only due to the less available resources or money as these may increase their input costs which in turn make them less competitive in the open market. As we know and also other workers revealed that the technological improvement has changed the traditional system and pattern of agriculture but at the same time the small farmers are facing least approach to innovations and new technology as small farmers are still facing a lots of constraints and problems in every step of agriculture production which ultimately affects the pace of socioeconomic development of farmers and their livelihood. Similarly, some studies regarding financial burden on small farmers (Terry, 2004), revealed that farmers do not purchase according to their needs at a particular time hence increasing financial burden on them. Under such situations, the small farmers need to get loans to meet their requirements and so cant enjoy modern machinery like tractors to enhance their productivity. The main reason behind the limited use of farm implements could be non-feasibility of small farmers to adopt mechanized practices because of increasing costs.

Table22. Distribution of the respondents according to type of crops sown

39

Type of crops that they sow Cotton

Response Yes No

Frequency 82 38 120

Percentage 68.33 31.66 100.00 90.83 9.17 100.00 16.66 83.34 100.00 43.33 56.66 100.00 03.33 96.67 100.00

Total Wheat Yes No Total Sugar cane Yes No Total Rice Yes No Total Maize Yes No Total

109 11 120 20 100 120 52 68 120 04 116 120

The main cropping pattern of the study area was wheat-cotton along with combination of some other major and minor crops. Table 22 reveals that the farmers response was about 100 % regarding their preference of crop in Rabi season. Similarly, majority of the respondents (68.33 percent) were involved in cotton production. Apart from these a few of the farmers were also engaged in the cultivation of rice and maize as well. Rehman et al. (2012) revealed that main crops of Pakistan are classified in to two main categories viz., food crops and non-food crops. The food crops include wheat, rice, maize, grain, and pulse. The cash crops are cotton, sugarcane. Wheat is the principal food or staple crop of the people in our country. The area under wheat crop is in thousands of hectares while its output stood at millions tons and it contributed 13.1% to value added in agriculture. Rice is the 2nd largest food crop in Pakistan. It is now a major export item and contributes to GDP. Pakistan produces finest quality of rice named as Basmati. It enjoys monopoly in the international market. After Thailand, Vietnam, USA and India, Pakistan is 40

the 5th largest rice exporting country in the world. Maize is an important food grain as well as raw material for edible oil production. It is also used to produce starch and poultry food mixes. Cotton is the most important cash crop of Pakistan in the term of area and value addition. It is the main foreign exchange earner for the country with the production of million bales. Cotton now is the golden as the silver fiber of Pakistan. Cotton brings cash return to the farmers. It supplies raw material to the textile industry and is the main employment generating crop for the people living in both rural and urban areas and also contributes to GDP. Sugar cane crop servers as a major raw material for production of white sugar and gur and is also a cash crop. As the above mentioned crops are very important for the farmers from edible or cash point of view as well as for Pakistan also directly or indirectly hence the main cropping pattern of the area includes these crops. These results clearly indicate that although the study area possesses squeezed land distribution even it doesnt have any serious effect on cropping pattern of the area. Table23. Distribution of the respondents according to mode of cultivation Mode of cultivation Traditional Modern Total Frequency 109 11 120 Percentage 90.83 09.17 100

The main difference between traditional and modern mode of cultivation is adoption and non-adoption of certain improved cultivation techniques like improved seeds, level of farm mechanization, improved application of inputs in field and better irrigation infrastructure development. It was observed during the study as mentioned above in Table 23, that majority of the farmers (90.83 %) had adopted traditional methods of crop production however, a small proportion (9.17 %) had adopted modern methods of production. So, the farmers who are still using traditional methods of crop production may be either they were resource poor or having believe in conventional techniques along with a sense of safety. These results are in line to the findings of Shahbaz et al. (2010) who did analysis of the problems faced by farmers in the mountains of northwest Pakistan and revealed that majority of the farmers in the study area had small land holdings (less than 10 acres). Wheat was the major Rabi crop whereas maize and rice were the major Kharif crops. Due to the 41

absence of effective agricultural extension system, the local farmers were using time old traditional technology of crop and fruit production, and were obtaining very low yields. Table24. Distribution of the respondents according to source of getting seed Source of getting seed From market Produce own-self Both Total Frequency 90 30 0 120 Percentage 75.00 25.00 0.00 100

The quality seed often determines the level of agricultural productivity. In this regard farmers were asked to respond regarding their source of seed. The results were arranged as in above Table 24 which clearly indicated that majority of the respondents (90 %) were purchasing their seeds from market. However, some of the farmers still believe in traditional cropping in which self-sown crop seed is gathered often from the previous crop. Similarly, some (30 %) of the respondents were producing their own seed at the same time. These results are almost in line with those of the findings of Meena (2003) who indicated that high cost of inputs especially that of seeds is a major limiting factor for low yield of small farmers and a large number of farmers cant access to quality seed from the market. It can be concluded that as the farmers are mainly purchasing seeds from the market hence they are totally dependent upon what so ever the vendors sell to them showing that the farmers cant get guaranteed pure seeds at their own will. Table25. Distribution of the respondents according to source of buying seeds Source of buying seeds From Govt. agencies From private agencies From middleman Respondents who did not buy seed from market Total Frequency 10 68 22 30 120 Percentage 17.50 31.67 4.17 46.67 100

Purchase of seed from different sources reflects the attitude of farmers towards modern ways of production. The information regarding seed purchase was presented in Table 25 which reflected that majority (46.67 %) of the respondents were not purchasing seed from 42

the market and either depends on their own seed or acquire from the neighboring farmers. Another 31.67 percent replied that they buy crop seed from private agencies in the market, 17.50 percent of the respondents buy seed from governmental agencies while a few (4.17 percent) of the respondents replied that they buy seed from middleman. These results revealed an important policy implication that most of the farmers who are unable to access seed market are expectedly small farmers and there is need to increase the farmers access to financial resources so that they can use quality seeds. These results are in line with the findings of Ali (2010) who reported that small farmers usually do not have access to adequate credit facilities to purchase seeds and other inputs. Agriculture today is getting more and more capital intensive. Capital is required for the purchase of improved seed. Jaffar et al. (2006) established that 47.5 % of the respondents get credit for the quality seeds while other 52.5% of the respondents didnt get credit for quality seed. Table 26. Distribution of the respondents according to problems faced during purchasing in seeds. Problem in purchasing of seeds Seed availability problem Response Yes No Total Price problem Yes No Total Pure variety problem Yes No Total Frequency 15 105 120 115 05 120 67 53 120 Percentage 12.50 87.50 100 95.84 4.16 100 55.84 44.16 100

The survey includes inquiry about the problems faced by small farmers regarding the access to seed. The response of the farmers was gathered and is presented in Table 26 which clearly indicates that a vast majority of the respondents was facing problems like price of seeds (95.84 %) and problem related to purity of variety (55%) as well as some (12.50%) 43

availability of seed problems also. Most of the time when farmer sows seed for cultivation of crop he is not satisfied for the variety he has sown. Meena (2003) and Khan et al. (2007) reported similar findings that access of most of the farmers was restricted by the high price and impure seeds. Thus high cost of inputs and impurity are again the limiting factors for getting high yields per acre by the small farmers. Although most of the farmers dont feel any shortage of seeds at the time of sowing but the main problems faced by small farmers at the time of sowing is very low quality of seeds and poor in germination and even mixed variety which even do not germinate. It has also been observed that most of the farmers in the study area sow their seeds twice to get the desired germination percentage of the crop plants. Table 27. Distribution of the respondents according to their intention towards modernization Intention towards modernization Yes No Total Frequency 116 04 120 Percentage 96.67 3.33 100

Modernization is a concept in the sphere of social sciences that refers to process in which society goes through industrialization, urbanization and other social changes that completely transform the lives of individuals. However, in agriculture modernization refers to the adoption of recommended production techniques that would enhance the agricultural productivity on one side and value addition on the other side. In this regard farmers were asked regarding their intention towards modernized agricultural production and their response is presented in Table 27 which inevitably proved that almost all farmers (96.67 %) regardless of their social and economic status were willing to adopt modern techniques. Therefore, it is needed to inquire further the factors which were responsible for restricting the farmers from adopting these modern production techniques. Farmers behavior regarding acceptance or rejection of any innovation is mainly defined by socio-economic, cultural and personal factors (Roger, 1983). It can be concluded from these findings that although the farmers are inclined more towards innovation but the

44

socio-economic and personal factors like lack of capital, high inflation rate etc. limit their powers. Adoption of modern technology is linked with behavior change of farmers. Table 28. Distribution of the respondents according to constraints in the way of modernization. Type of constraint in the way of modernization Lack of capital Response Yes No Total High Prices Yes No Total Non availability Yes No Total Lack of Technical knowledge Total Any Other Yes No Total Yes No Frequency 105 15 120 87 33 120 9 111 120 22 98 120 00 120 120 Percentage 87.50 12.50 100.00 72.50 27.50 100.00 7.50 92.50 100.00 18.33 81.67 100.00 0.0 100.00 100.00

It is evident that non-availability of agricultural credit results non-adoption of new technology. Hence, improvement / progress couldnt be brought without financially strengthening the farmers. It is necessary that sufficient agricultural credit facilities may be provided to the farmers as lack of capital (87.50 %) and high prices (72.50 %) were the main constraints which farmers faced in the way of modernized agriculture. The results in Table 28 revealed that apart from capital the other main constraint was the high prices of quality inputs and unawareness to some extent.

45

The problems identified in this study are different in nature as were mentioned by Chi and Yamada (2002) who argued that farmers usually feel hesitated in the adoption of new technology because they do not believe that the new technology can ensure the high yield. Similarly, these findings are in accordance with the findings of Olubiyo and Hill (2003) who stated that small farmers adopt new technology only if adequate funds are available to them. Likewise, the findings also correlate with those of Ahmad et al. (2003) who argued that the development planners and strategists need to give attention in devising policies which contribute to enhance the access to easy credit to small farmers. These small farmers would in turn play major role in the production of yield of a particular crop per unit area. Table 29. Distribution of the respondents according to methods of selling products

Method of selling term production Through middle man Through factory Through money lenders Total

Frequency 99 09 12 120

Percentage 82.50 7.50 10.00 100

The effective disposal of output is vital in determining the returns from agricultural business. Therefore, the farmers were queried about their method of output disposal where the results as shown in Table 29, indicated that majority of the respondents (82.50 percent) said that they sell their production through middle man and 10.50 percent of the respondents said they sell their final production through money lenders while only 7.50 percent of the respondents replied that they sell their production through factory. Now this information reveals an important suggestion that farmers were unable to access competitive markets and hence were being exploited by the middlemen and other agents like money lenders. These results are in line with the findings of Pender and Hazell (2000) and CTA (2008) who observed that most of the small farmers living in rural areas dont sell their produce in the main market and hence they do not realize maximum profit. They have little 46

choice about the selling of their produce. It was also observed that the small farmers sell their crop at a low price to intermediaries. Unlike the farmers, the middle-men have access to transport to the main market and also good position in bargain.

47

Table 30. Distribution of the respondents according to source of transportation Source of transportation Own vehicle On rent vehicle Pair of ox Total Frequency 13 55 52 120 Percentage 10.83 45.84 43.33 100

Market is a regular gathering of people for the purchase and sale of provisions, livestock, and other commodities. Transportation is a crucial area which determines the farmers returns from their produce. Lack of own transportation facility could be a vital hurdle in the farmers improved access to market. Information regarding transportation facility used by farmers was gathered and is presented in Table 30 which clearly reflects that a vast majority of respondents viz., 45.84 % and 43.33 % were using transport facility on rent and old slow transport (pair of ox) respectively while a small fraction of respondents (10.83 %) were having their own transportation facility. It showed that transportation usually add to the marketing cost of small farmers shrinking their net benefits. The results are in line with those of Bamiduro and Gbadeyan (2011) who specified the lack of access to funds as the major problem facing small-scale farmers and increased cost of transportation as the major problem facing marketing of agricultural products. Table 31. Distribution of the respondents according to optimum price for production received Optimum price from production Yes No Total Frequency 58 62 120 Percentage 48.33 51.67 100

Small farmers usually have very poor bargaining strength and therefore could not receive optimum price for their produce. This assumption was investigated during the survey and results collected are presented in the Table 31. The results in this regard indicated that 48

majority of the farmers (51.67 %) replied that they dont receive optimum price for their produce however, 48.33 % responded that they get optimum price of their produce. These findings are almost in line to those with the Asian Productivity Organization (2004) report according to which the small farmers in Pakistan are unable to face global competitive markets because they have not enough resources to have market access. It was strongly recommended in the report that in order to enhance small farmers competitive position in both local and international market government could play a key role to provide suitable opportunity to the farmers and empower them to reap the benefits of global market.

Table 32. Distribution of the respondents according to reason not get optimum price Reason to not get optimum price No awareness Due to market fluctuation Due to not bargaining Respondents who said yes Total Frequency 08 47 07 58 120 Percentage 6.66 39.16 5.84 48.34 100

The respondents who replied that they could not receive optimum price for their produce were further asked about the possible reason for not receiving optimum price. The response of those farmers was presented in Table 32 which revealed that main reason behind the problem was market price fluctuation (39.16 %) and only a few respondents claimed that because of poor bargaining power they have to face this problem. Table 33. Distribution of the respondents according to sowing of new varieties Sowing of new varieties Yes No Total Frequency 98 21 120 Percentage 82.5 17.5 100

Varieties mean the quality or condition of being various or varied diversity. The adoption of new seed varieties is important to the development of farming community. In the 49

survey farmers were asked about their attitude towards use of new crop varieties in sowing. The results are presented in Table 33 which reflects that the majority of the respondents (82.50 percent) said that they were using new varieties on their field while only a few 17.50 percent of the respondents said no they dont use new varieties. Table 34. Distribution of the respondents according to their method of sowing seed Method of sowing seed Broadcast Drilling Total Frequency 119 01 120 Percentage 99.17 0.83 100

Sowing method is important in determining the state of technology being used at the farm. The farmers response regarding sowing method is presented in Table 34 which showed that maximum of the respondents (99.17 percent) said they were using broadcast method of sowing seed in their field while only one person out of 120 was using drilling method of sowing seed in the agricultural lands. It clearly reflects that farmers still rely on traditional sowing method in spite of using modern ways of sowing crops. Table 35. Distribution of the respondents according to reason of not using drill Reason of not using drill Due to financial problem Due to lack of awareness Any other Respondents who used drilling Total Frequency 99 18 02 01 120 Percentage 82.50 15.00 1.66 0.83 100

Table 35 shows that the majority of the respondents (82.50 percent) said that due to financial problems they do not adopt drilling methods of sowing seed and a few (15.0 percent) of the respondents said that due to lack of awareness in the past they were not able to adopt these new sowing methods. The results of present findings are in line with those of Khan et al. (2007) who identified that the uses of some agricultural implements like seed drills are taken on rent 50

which in turn increases the input costs of small farmers and hence they avoid most of the time to adopt this improved method. It has been observed that mostly the large farmer use seed drills but the small farmers avoid using such implements as these increase their input costs. Table 36. Distribution of the respondents according to weed problem Weed problem Yes No Total Frequency 120 0 120 Percentage 100 0.0 100

Weeds may be unwanted for a number of reasons. The most important one is that they interfere with food and fiber production in agriculture wherein the farmers must control weeds to prevent losses in crop yields. Table 36 shows that almost all of the respondents 100 percent said yes that they faced weed problems on their fields while not a single respondent was in favor of these weed problem rather were affected with these weed problems. Table 37. Distribution of the respondents according to their way of removing weeds Way of removing weeds Through manual methods Though chemical methods Both Total Frequency 05 87 28 120 Percentage 4.17 72.50 23.34 100

A wild plant growing where it is not needed and compete with cultivated plants is called weed. Table 37 shows that the majority of the respondents (72.50 percent) said that they remove weeds through chemical methods and 23.34 percent of the respondents said they use both type of methods for eradication of weeds like through manual method and through chemical methods while only 04.17 percent of the respondents said they used manual methods to remove weed from their agricultural lands. Most of the farmers like small land holders mostly prefer to remove weeds now-a-days by chemical means which is the quicker one but sometimes by hand (manually) as they have a large family size so prefer to control 51

weeds themselves and in certain areas where labor costs are minimal they may also adopt manual methods of weed control. Table 38. Distribution of the respondents according to harvesting problems Harvesting problems Labor problem Response Yes No Total Transportation problem Yes No Total Cost problem Yes No Total Frequency 20 100 120 49 71 120 105 15 120 Percentage 16.66 83.33 100 40.83 59.16 100 87.50 12.50 100

Post-harvest losses are expected to be higher among small farmers. The problems farmers usually face during harvesting are given in Table 38 which shows that most of the respondents (87.50 percent) said that they face cost problem for harvesting, while a major portion (40.83 percent) of the respondents also said that they faced transportation problem for harvesting while only 16.66 percent of the respondents said they faced labor problem during harvesting of the crop. These results are contradictory with the findings of Ker (2005) who revealed that the farmers face many challenges that tend to undermine their productivity. Among these challenges the labor problem during the harvesting of crops is most severe one. Table 39. Distribution of the respondents according to marketing problems Market problem for sale production Yes No Total Frequency 106 14 120 Percentage 88.33 11.66 100

52

Marketing is the activity to set of institutions and processes for creating, communicating, delivering and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. Table 39 shows that the majority of the respondents (88.33 percent) said that they do ace market problem for selling their produce while only 11.66 percent of the respondents said that they do not face market problem for selling of their produce. These results are in line with the findings of Asian Productivity Organization, (2004) which indicated that the respondents face problems of insufficient market access at large. Table 40. Distribution of the respondents according to their reasons of market problem Reasons of problems Transportation problem Total Financial problem Total Lack of awareness Total Yes No Yes No Response Yes No Frequency 50 56 106 86 20 106 08 98 106 Percentage 41.66 46.66 88.32 71.66 16.66 88.32 6.66 81.66 88.32

The term marketing concept holds that achieving organizational goals depends on knowing the needs and wants of target markets and delivering the desired satisfactions. Table 40 shows that the majority of the respondents (71.66 percent) said that the main reason to face market problem was lack of finances followed by 41.66 % of transportation problems while only a few had problems related to lack of much awareness. In some studies (Terry, 2004), it is concluded that the farmers do not purchase crop inputs and other requirements like seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, new machinery etc. according to their needs at a particular time hence increasing their financial burden on them or also increase input costs. This is also one of the situations when small farmers can face marketing problems due to lack of resources or finances.

53

Table 41. Distribution of the respondents according to types of problem in cultivation: Types of problems in Cultivation Water problem Total Fertilizer problem Total Economic problems Total Yes No Yes No Response Yes No Frequency 57 63 120 34 86 120 98 22 120 Percentage 47.50 52.50 100 28.33 71.66 100 81.66 18.33 100

Small farmers faced a lot of problems during cultivation and often due to these problems small farmers remain underdeveloped. In the survey farmers were queried about the problems they faced during cultivation and their response is presented in Table 41 which reflects that almost all farmers face varied degree of economic, water and fertilizer problems. In the above survey it was observed that majority of the respondents (81.66 percent) said they faced the economic problems followed by 47.50 % farmers who face water problems and some others (28.33 %) said they face fertilizer problems. These studies are in line with those of Khan et al. (2007) and Rehman et al. (2012). They reported that, although agricultural mechanization has played a vital role in enhancing agricultural yields but adoption of these sophisticated machines has been restricted to most of the large farmers and small farmers face a lot of problems like those of fertilizer, water, economic, financial and lack of awareness. As a result, pace of development all over the country remains slow and unpredictable. Table 42. Distribution of the respondents according to access to credit

54

Access to credit Yes No Total

Frequency 74 46 120

Percentage 61.66 38.33 100

Loan means something lent or furnished on condition of being returned especially a sum of money lent at interest. The farmers access to credit was inquired and results are presented in Table 42 which reflected that 61.66 percent said that they take loan for their agricultural activities while 38.33 percent of the respondents that they did not take loan for their agricultural activities. These results are contradictory to the findings of Olubiyo and Hill (2003) who indicated that the small farmers were unable to take credit due to unawareness and some other problems like high interest rates, lack of guarantee etc. Table 43. Distribution of the respondents according to source of loan Source of loan From Govt. agencies/Bank From private agencies/Bank NGOs From middle men/Ahurties Any Other Respondents who did not take loan Total Frequency 11 25 01 37 0 46 120 Percentage 9.16 20.83 0.83 30.83 0.0 38.33 100

Loan is an arrangement in which a lender gives money or property to a borrower and the borrower agrees to return the property or repay the money, usually along with interest, at some future point(s) in time. Usually, there is a predetermined time for repaying a loan, and generally, the lender has to bear the risk that the borrower may not repay a loan (though modern capital markets have developed many ways of managing this risk). The farmers response regarding credit provision is presented in Table 43 which shows that majority of the farmers (30.83 percent) were getting loans from middle men or Ahurties followed by private agencies (20.83 %) and only a few (9.16 %) from governmental agencies/ banks.

55

These results are contradictory to the findings of Jaffar et al. (2006) who concluded that main credit providers in Pakistan are institutions like Zari Taraqiati Bank Limited, Central Cooperative Bank, Commercial Banks, Agricultural Cooperative Societies and Government Organizations. On the other hand, these results are almost in line to those of findings of Olubiyo and Hill (2003), Thanh and Singh (2006) and Obeng (2008) who reported that small farmers usually face problems in agriculture development like lack of availability of credit facility. Thus the adoption of new technologies to enhance crop production in this context would be nullified without adequate access to funds. In most part of world, loaning for small farmers is of great importance. By doing so, needs of farmers could be fulfilled. It is important that adoption of new technologies require improved inputs (Oboh and Kushwaha, 2009). Pervaiz et al. (2011) established that most of the small farmers are out of access to get loans because of the lack of guarantee and recovery threat. The loan availability usually increases with the increase in farm size. The main restrictions in provision of loans to small farmers are high rate of interests, costly guarantee, complicated procedure and Islamic attitude. However, through the, one window operation small farmers are taught and encouraged that how they could utilize the loans for improving farming activities. They strongly recommended that the rate of interest should be reduced as well as subsidies must be provided to the small farmers. Mahmood and Hussain (2004) revealed the distribution of the respondents with regard to obtaining loan during the last crop season from institutional sources and distribution of the respondents with regard to receiving the loan in time or not. It was observed that 65.60 percent of the respondents obtained loan from commercial banks during the last crop season, 29.60 percent obtained loan from ADBP, and only 4.80 percent of the respondents obtained loan from the other sources. The reason for the majority to get loans from commercial banks may be their nearness from the villages.

56

Table 44. Distribution of the respondents according to provision of better cultivation facility Provision of better cultivation facility Govt. Agencies Response Frequency Percentage

Yes No

19 101 120

15.83 84.16 100 90.00 10.00 100 1.66 98.34 100 30.00 70.00 100

Total Local people Yes No Total Media Yes No Total Agriculture Department Yes No Total

108 12 120 02 118 120 36 84 120

Cultivation is a method to completing the cropping. The results presented in Table 44 expressed that most of the respondents (90.0 percent) said that the local people provides better cultivation facilities and ideas and 30.0 percent of the respondents said that the Agriculture department provide better facilities and training to the farmers regarding 57

improved crop production technologies while 15.83% of the respondents said that other Government agencies provide better facilities while 2 respondents out of 120 said that the media provides better cultivation facilities. Hence it was evident from the study that primary source of technology diffusion for small farmers remain their peers and neighboring farmers.

Table 45. Distribution of the respondents according to the use of fertilizers types Using of fertilizers types Urea Yes No Total DAP Yes No Total Potash Yes No Total Any Other Yes No Total Frequency 119 01 120 120 0 120 11 109 120 10 110 120 Percentage 99.17 0.83 100.00 100 0 100.00 9.17 90.83 100.00 8.33 91.67 100.00

Fertilizer is the main factor for better crop production. Therefore, the farmers attitude towards using fertilizer was inquired in the survey and response is presented in Table 45 which reveals that almost all the respondents (99.17 %) said that they used urea fertilizer in 58

their field and 100 percent of the respondents said that they used DAP fertilizer while a few 9.17 percent and 10 % of the respondents said that they used potash and other fertilizers respectively also on their fields. This invariably reflects that farmers were well aware about the use of chemical fertilizers in the agricultural production. Akram et al. (2004) concluded that Majority (57.6 %) of the small farmers faced the problem of quality of fertilizer to some extent, 26.1 % small farmers had faced the problem of quality of fertilizer to great extent and 16.4% small farmers had not faced the problem of quality of fertilizer. As far as price is concerned majority (73.9 %) of the small farmers had faced the problem of low prices of crops to great extent, 21.8% small farmers had faced the problem of low prices of crops to some extent and there were only 4.2% small farmers who had not faced the problem of low prices of crops. Table 46. Distribution of the respondents according to reason not using more fertilizers Reasons to not use much fertilizers Due to high price Due to non-availability Total Frequency 120 0 120 Percentage 100.0 100.0 100

Fertilizer is any organic or inorganic material of natural or synthetic origin (other than liming materials) that is added to a soil to supply one or more plant nutrients essential to the growth of plants. It was asked only from those farmers who were not using more fertilizer at their farm. The results (Table 46) show that almost all respondents (100 %) said that they did not use much fertilizer due to high prices of fertilizer. These results are in line with the findings of Meena (2003) who indicated that the respondents face cost problems of fertilizer. These findings are also in line with many other researchers like Khan et al. (2007) who reported that the fertilizers are quite expensive that it is not possible to apply appropriate amount of fertilizers to the crops for getting maximum yields by the small farmers. Table 47. Distribution of the respondents according to their response regarding pest attack in field during season.

59

Pest attack Yes No Total

Frequency 120 0 120

Percentage 100.0 0 100

Most pests either compete with humans for natural resources or transmit disease to humans, their crops, or their livestock. Invertebrate pests include some protozoans, flatworms, nematodes, mollusks, arachnids, and especially insects. Mammals and birds can also be pests. The farmers were queried about the attack of major pests on their crops during season which is depicted in Table 47. This reveals that almost all farmers (100 %) said that they face pest problems every year for which they have to apply pesticides. These results are more or less contradictory to the findings of (Khan et al. 2007) who reported that farmer invest all possible resources as much as possible but could not get production up to the optimum level due to a lot of problems faced by him on the crops like unavailability of insecticides or pesticides, unavailability of fertilizers etc. to combat these menaces. Pesticides are used especially in agriculture and around areas where humans live. Some are harmful to humans, either from direct contact or as residue on food, or are harmful to the environment because of their high toxicity, such as DDT (which is now banned in many countries). Pesticides include fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. Table 48. Distribution of the respondents according to the type of pest attack Pest types American Sundi (Helicoverpa) Response Yes No Total Sabaz Tela (Jassid or hopper) Yes No Total Frequency 66 54 120 115 05 120 Percentage 55.00 45.00 100.00 95.83 4.17 100.00

60

Kala Tela (Aphid)

Yes No

106 14 120

88.33 11.66 100.00 48.33 51.66 100.00

Total Any Other insect-pest Yes No Total

58 62 120

It was enquired from the small farmers of the study area about the attack of common and major insect pests and varied information was got about these pests as mentioned in Table 48. The results reveal that majority of the farmers (95.83 %) face attack of Sabaz Tela followed by Kala Tela (88.33 %) and American Sundi ( Helicoverpa) (55.0 %). Moreover, 48.33 % of the respondents said that they face some other insect-pests attack also. These results are almost in line to the finding of Okunlola and Ofuya (2010) in South Western Nigeria, who surveyed some vegetable farmers for getting firsthand information about their perception. They reported that the farmers encountered insect-pest attacks on their vegetable farms which resulted in reduced quantity and quality of their produce as well as derivable income. Table 49. Distribution of the respondents according to the source of information

61

Source of information From parents Total From fellow farmers Total From Radio / TV Total From newspapers / Magazine Total From extension workers Total From agriculture college Total From agricultural agencies Total

Response Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Frequency 114 6 120 120 0 120 60 60 120 33 87 120 39 81 120 0 120 120 29 91 120

Percentage 95.00 5.00 100 100 0 100 50.00 50.00 100 27.50 72.50 100 32.50 67.50 100 0 100 100 24.17 75.83 100

Table 49 shows that almost all farmers (100 %) get information about modern technology from their fellow farmers and about 95 % from their parents as well as from fellow farmers. Similarly, it is also revealed from the above mentioned Table that 22.5 % of the respondents get information from other agricultural agencies followed by Radio/TV (19.16 %), newspaper/ magazines (10 %), extension workers (7.5 %) and no information (0.0 %) from Agriculture College. These findings are more or less contradictory with those of Admasu and Paul (2010). They regarded that farmers access to credit information, revealed their ability to get information through electronic media, such as radio and TV, besides the words of mouth. Respondents also played down the impact of possible infrastructural hindrances to access 62

bank information for getting loans/ credits. Thus, farmers do not seem to be affected by lack of information. Farooque (2004) and Jan et al. (2011) determined that information has a significant role in technology transfer and fellow farmer has major role in the adoption of new technology. Because innovators were respected for being successful, but ordinarily do not enjoy the highest prestige in the farming community. Hence these findings are strongly in line with the above mentioned Jans study. Table 50. Distribution of the respondents according to the distance of village from metal road Distance from metal road 1 - 5 km 6 - 10 km 11 - 15 km Above 15 km Total Frequency 100 20 0 0 120 Percentage 83.33 16.67 0 0 100

Table 50 shows that the majority of the respondents (83.33 percent) said the distance of their village from metal road was 1-5 km while 16.67 percent said that their village is about 6-10 km away from metal road. According to Asian Productivity Organization (2004), farmers in many parts of world are provided with subsidized inputs and better marketing facilities for agricultural products. Small farmers in most of the developing countries have to face many difficulties due to lack of resources, insufficient market access and weak infrastructure. Due to this, it is more difficult for small farmers to compete in the global market.

63

Testing of Hypothesis: Table 51. Hypothesis 1: Lower the Education Level higher will be the economic Problem Education Illiterate Primary Middle Matric Above Matric Total Chi square = 26.435 Economic Problem Yes No 51 5 19 2 8 4 15 2 5 9 98 22 df = 4 sig = 0.00** Total 56 21 12 17 14 120 Gamma = 0.566

64

The above Table 51 indicates the relationship between education levels and economic problems. The gamma value is positive and the relationship is highly significant. The result shows that as the education level increases the economic problems faced by farmers are less. Similar findings were observed by Ali (1987) who described in his study that education is positively correlated with the adoption of improved agricultural practices. He also mentioned that the adoption rate in highly educated farmers is high as compared to less educated farmers in all areas of country. So it can be concluded from the current findings that education plays an important role in lowering down the economic problems of the farmers.

Table 52. Hypothesis 2: Higher the Education of Farmers better will be the way of Cultivation. Education Illiterate Primary Middle Matric Above Matric Total Chi square value = 7.541 Conclusion: The above Table 52 indicates the relationship between education of the farmers and the way of cultivation. The gamma value is positive and the relationship is significant. The result shows that as the education level increases the tradition towards modernization also 65 Economic Problem Total Yes No 53 3 56 19 2 21 11 1 12 16 1 17 10 4 14 109 11 120 df = 4 Level of significance = 0.05, Gamma = 0.405

changes going towards improvement. Similar findings were observed that Ali (1987) who described in his study that education is positively correlated with the sources of information. Hence with better sources of information the farmers can maximize their production by adopting modern methods of cultivation. It can be concluded that education again plays a vital role in modernization of the farmers.

Table 53. Hypothesis 3: Higher the Education Level lower will be the marketing problem. Education Illiterate Primary Middle Matric Above Matric Total Chi square value = 3.011 Conclusion: The above Table 53 indicates the relationship between education of the farmers and the marketing problems. The table shows that out of 106 respondents 49 illiterates had marketing problems while only 13 highly educated respondents got the marketing problems. Hence, it can be concluded that education is important in lowering down the marketing problems of the farmers as well. Economic Problem Yes No 49 7 17 4 12 0 15 2 13 1 106 14 df = 4 Level of significance = 0.556, Total 56 21 12 17 14 120 Gamma = 0.136

66

Table 54. Hypothesis 4: Higher the Education more will be the information received by farmers from newspaper / magazine. Economic Problem Yes No Illiterate 3 53 Primary 8 13 Middle 4 8 Matric 12 5 Above Matric 6 8 Total 33 87 Chi square value = 32.6451 df = 4 Level of significance = 0.00**, Education Conclusion: The above Table 54 reveals the relationship between education and the information gained from newspapers and magazines. Highly significant negative correlation in this situation shows that highly education farmers dont get agricultural information from newspapers or magazines. It may be possible that the highly educated farmers contact and communicate with the agricultural agencies / agricultural institutions for better production of his farms. Total 56 21 12 17 14 120 Gamma = 0.661

67

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY
Agriculture plays a vital role in the economy of Pakistan contributing about 22 percent in GDP and provides employment to a major part of the population. Here the climate is also suitable for the production of many valuable crops. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the average size of cultivated land is very small and low land holding is increasing day by day and according to a recent survey out of 93 % farms, 5.1 million are small and marginal. Although small farms are profitable but some problems related to these farms may also need to be addressed. Small farmers usually face too many difficulties to overcome these problems. Sometimes, it happens that purchases are not made according to the dire need, which may result as a financial burden. The small land holders are most of the time short in capital and cant fulfill the crop inputs hence remain low in crop yields. Agriculture today is getting more and more capital intensive. Agriculture is the major income and employment-creating sector of Pakistan. Two third populations of the country lives in rural areas, among this majority of the people are small farmers who are living very difficult life. Thus the research was conducted in Tehsil D.G. Khan with some objectives viz., to know the socio-economic problems faced by small farmers and also to give some suggestions to policy makers of agriculture sector for the improvement of socio-economic conditions of the small farmers. As the study was conducted in the rural area of Tehsil Dera Ghazi Khan after preparing a questionnaire, various parameters were included in the questionnaire like socioeconomic status of the farmers i.e, education, sex, marital possession, income, age, family type etc. The farmers were interviewed in a free mode. Afterwards the analysis of the data collected so was done by uni-variate and bi-variate methods. Percentage of the relative frequency of the respondents and chi-square test and gamma statistics were also used. The results were computed which revealed that, Majority of the respondents belonged to age group 28-33 with low education and 4-6 numbers of children and they live in joint family type systems. Most of the respondents have above 10 family members with their own houses of 6-10 marlas. Most of the respondents have their own agricultural land up to 5 acres. Many farmers dont have their own implements rather rented ones and hired tractors as well. The maximum income of a medium 68

farmer falls within the range of 15000-25000 per month. Almost all small land holders face the following problems; purchasing seeds, in sufficient financial resources, lack of bargaining power, higher cost of inputs especially fertilizer and pesticides, credit/loan getting problems with high interest rates, weak infrastructure, irrigation and litigation problems, marketing of their produce, harvesting of crops, high number of dependency, financial burden, high attack of insect pests etc. It was suggested that the government should consider the problems of small land holders and make policies accordingly keeping in view small farmers problems in the area. Secondly, mass media should make every effort to educate the farmers through media sources. Farmers should be facilitated by providing loans with minimum interests and subsidies on various agricultural inputs for better crop production. Extension Department should update the farmers about new innovations by conducting extensive surveys and farmer meetings as well.

Major Findings
Majority of the respondents (65.0%) belonged to age group 28-33. 46 66 percent were illiterate A large proportion of the respondents (86.67%) were married. Majority of the respondents (35 %) had 4-6 numbers of childs Most of the respondents (80.00 %) lived in joint family type systems. Most of the respondents (46.66%) said that they have above 10 family members. A large proportion of respondents (96 67%) replied that they have their own houses Majority of the respondents (58.33%) said they have above 10 marlas house areas. Majority of the respondents (39 16%) said they lived in mixed type house Most of the respondents (72.97%) said they had up to 5 acre agricultural land Majority of the respondents (74.77 %) said that they cultivate up to 5 acre land Majority of the respondents (70.83%) said they dont get any land on rent. Only a few respondents (22.50%) said that they take up to 5 acre land on rent. A large proportion of the respondents (95.0%) said that they dont give land on rent. Maximum of the respondents (56 66%) said that they earn up to 7000 income/month

69

 Most of the respondents (90.83%) said that they used tube well water while 80 % said they used canal water for irrigation. Majority of the respondents (84.17%) said that they hired the tractor for their field. Almost all of the respondents (98.33 %) said that they used tractor for cultivation. Almost all the respondents (90.83%) said that they cultivated their land in traditional way of agriculture. Majority of the respondents (75.0 %) said that they get seed from market and buy that from pvt. agencies (31.67). Most of the respondents said that they faced price problems during seed purchasing (95.84). Majority of the respondents (96.67%) said that they have intention towards modernization to fulfill their requirements. Majority of the respondents (87.50 %) said that they face lack of capital constraint in the way of modernization. Majority of the respondents (82.50%) said that they sell their term production through middle men. A large proportion of respondents (45.84%) said that they used rented vehicle for their agricultural transportation. A large number of the respondents (51.67 %) said that they do not get optimum price from their production. Majority of the respondents (82.50 %) said that they used new varieties on their field. Majority of the respondents (99.17 %) said they used broadcast method of sowing seed in their field. Majority of the respondents (82.50 %) said due to financial problem they did not adopt drilling methods of sowing seed. Almost all the respondents (100 %) said that they faced weed problems in their fields. Majority of the respondents (72.50 %) said they remove weeds through chemical, methods.

70

 Most of the respondents (87.50%) said that they face cost problem for harvesting while majority of the respondents (88.33%) said yes that they face market problem for sale of their production. Majority of the respondents (81.66%) said that the main reason to face economic problems is due to financial problem. Most of the respondents (81.66 %) said they face economic problem in cultivation A large proportion of the respondents (6 1.66%) said that they took loan for their agricultural activities. Majority of the respondents (30.83 %) said that they get loan from middle men. Most of the respondents (90.0 %) said that they get better cultivation facilities from local people. Almost all of the respondents (99.17-100 %) said that they used urea and DAP fertilizer in their field. Majority of the respondents (100 %) said they did not used much fertilizer due to high prices of fertilizer Most of the respondents (100 %) said that they faced pest attack during the season. Majority of the respondents (95.83 %) said Sabz Tela attack on their field. Almost all respondents (100 %) said they get information sources from their fellow men. Majority of the respondents (83.33 %) said the distance of their village from metal road were 1-5 km.

71

Conclusion:
It is concluded that the majority of the small farmers face different types of socioeconomic problems in the area. Some small farmers face transportation problem while some face fertilizer problems, some face loan taking problems and some small farmers faced marketing problems. However, near about all small farmers face some types of problems related to their agricultural life, which highly affect their socio-economic life. The small farmers have their attention towards modernization but due to some constraints like lack of capital and unawareness about modern technology they do not take steps blindly in the modern age. In conclusion, the small farmers development is one of the main ways to increase yield as well as alleviate poverty in the rural areas of Pakistan which needs to be addressed in urgency. The policy makers should consider the problems faced by small farmers in almost all areas of crop production. Small farms are important players in most developing countries, accounting for significant shares of agricultural output and national employment; hence, their future is linked to future possibilities for the agriculture sector. This role is itself an issue of some debate now and so we begin with an assessment of the agricultural context in which the small farm debate must be resolved.

Suggestions
It is suggested that the government or the policy makers should consider the issues of small farmers on priority bases who are an integral part of developing countries. The Agriculture Extension Department has a key role in educating and imparting trainings to farmers at their field places. It is suggested that imparting trainings about agricultural innovations should be performed regularly at least to the educated farmers which in turn play a role in dissemination of knowledge as a fellow farmers. Farmers should be facilitated by providing interest free loans and subsidies on various agricultural inputs for better crop production. The Govt. should control seed mafia as there should be no private agencies selling fake seeds and only Govt. bodies selling or controlling the seeds or otherwise farmers should have their own pure seeds (if available).

72

 Infrastructure should be improved paving the ways from fields to the markets and Govt. should be responsible for the purchase of farmers produce at proper rates and procure directly from the fields. All agricultural implements should be made available to the small farmers at each union council level at minimal rates which in turn will activate the harvesting process and facilitate the farmers.

73

LITERATURE CITED
Adebayo, O.O. and R.G. Adeola. 2008. Sources and uses of agricultural credit by small scale farmers in surulere local government area of Oyo State. Anthropologist, 10 (4): 313314. Acharya, Y. P. and U. Acharya. 2006. Sustainability of microfinance institution from small farmers perspective: a case of rural Nepal. Int. Rev. Busin. Res. Paper, 2(2): 117-126. Admasu, A. and I. Paul. 2010. Assessment on the mechanisms and challenges of small scale agricultural credit from commercial banks in Ethiopia: The case of AdaaLiben Woreda Ethiopia. J. Sustain. Develop. Africa, 12 (3): 304-323. Ahmad, M., G. Hussain and M. A. Chaudhry. 2003. Constraints confronting small farmers with special reference to wheat production in the cotton based cropping zone of Punjab (Pakistan). Int. J. Agri. Bio., 5(3): 341-344. Ajayi, O. C., S. Franzel, E. Kuntashula and F. Kwesiga. 2003. Adoption of improved fallows technology for soil fertility management in Zambia. Empirical studies and emerging issue.Agrofor. Syst., 59(3): 317-326. Akram, M. B., A. A. Maan, M. Ali, M. F. Raza and M. H. Salik. 2004. Agro-economic and social constraints faced by the small Farmers: A study of Tehsil Faisalabad. Int. J. Agri. Bio., 6(5): 935-936. Alemneh, D. 2003.Integrated natural resources management to enhance food security: the case of community-based approach in Ethiopia. Environment and Natural Resource Service Research, Extension and Training Division FAO Sustainable development Department, Working Paper No.16,FAO of UN, Rome. Ali, M. 2010. Agriculture problems in Pakistan and their solutions. Available at www.einfopedia.com retrieved on 12/2/12. Ali, L. 1987. An investigation into the social and economic constraints to the adoption of improved agricultural technology by small farmers in Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, M.Sc. (Rural Sociology) Thesis, U.A.F. pp. 112. Asayehegn, K., C. Yirga and S. Rajan. 2011. Effect of small-scale irrigation on the income of rural farm households: The case of Laelay Maichew District, Central Tigray, Ethiopia. J. Stor. Produc.Postharve.Resear., 2(10): 208-215. 74

Asian Productivity Organization. 2004. Strengthening agricultural support services for small farmers, Report of APO Seminar held in Japan, Dated, 4-11. July. 2001. P. 167. Ayaz, S., S. Anwer, M. H. Sial and Z. Husain. 2011. Role of agricultural credit on production efficiency of farming sector in Pakistan- A Data Envelopment Analysis. Pak. J. Life. Soc. Sci., 9(1): 38-44. Bamiduro, J. A., R. A. Gbadeyan. 2011. Small scale farming and agricultural products marketing for sustainable poverty alleviation in Nigeria. Canadi. Soc. Scien., 7(3): 125-132. Bengesi, C. P. M., R. M. Wambula and P. C. Ndunguru. 2004. Farmers utilization of agricultural innovation: A case study of adoption of hybrid production technologies in Mwanga District, Tanzania. Uonogoz. J. Manag. Dev., 15 (1): 133-143. Bijman, J., G. Ton and G. Meijerink. 2007. Empowering small holder farmers in markets: National and international policy initiatives, Wageningen University and Research Centre, ESFIM Working Paper No. 1, Pp. 29. Bakhsh, K., I. Hassan and A. Maqbool. 2005. Factors affecting cotton yield: A case study of Sargodha (Pakistan). J. Agri. Soc. Sci., 1(4):332 334. Chi, T. T. N. and R. Yamada. 2002. Factors affecting farmers adoption of technologies in farming system: A case study in Omon district, Can Tho Province, Mekong Delta. Int. J. Omonrice, 10 (2): 94-100. Chirwa, E. W. 2007. Sources of technical efficiency among smallholder maize farmers in Southern Malawi. African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi.AERC Research Paper 172. Chowdhury, M. I. 2005. Impact of increasing landlessness on access to food: experience of mall and marginal farmers in rural Bangladesh. Web: www.unnayan.orgaccessed on 12-02-2012. Chuma, E. M., B. G. Murwina, H. K. and J. Chikuvire. 2000. The dynamics of soil fertility management in communal areas of Zimbabwe. Int. Institu. Environ. and Develop., 3(2):1- 45. Congressi, P. D., and P. J. F. Kennedy. 2009. Research and innovation for smallholder farmers in the context of climate change. Discussion paper, Thirty-second session, IFAD's Governing Council, P. 1-13. CTA. 2008. Rural Radio Resource Pack. Marketing for small scale farmers. Netherland Available at www.cta.int retrieved on 1/4/12. CBS, 1997. Nepal Living Standard Survey Report 1996 (Volume I and II), Central Bureau 75

of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal. Diao, X., P. Hazell, D. Resnick and J. Thurlow. 2007. The role of agriculture in development: Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC. USA. Din, M. J. U. 2011. The socio economic problems of small farmers in adopting new Agricultural technology: a case study of three villages in district Mardan. Sarhad. J. Agric., 27(2): 299-304. Doos, B. R. 1994. Environmental degradation, global food production, and risk for largescale migrations. Ambio, 23(2):124-130. Estelle, B., C. Clia and L. C. J. Franois and L. Laurent. 2004. Linking small holder farmers markets: Lessons learned from literature review and analytical review of selected projects. Final draft, Montpellier. The Centre for Investigation, Research and Discovery (CIRAD). FAO. 2003. Plant nutrition: challenges and tasks ahead. Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition Section. Food and Agriculture Organizations in United Nations, Italy, Rome. Farouque, M. G. and H. Takeya. 2007. Resource-poor farmers constraints regarding integrated soil fertility and nutrient management for sustainable crop production: a farm level study in Bangladesh. 106th seminar, Oct., 25-27, Montpellier, France. Food Agriculture, Trade & Organization.P.16. Farooque, S. 2004. The present and prospective role of print media in the dissemination of agricultural information among farmers of tehsil Tando Allah yar, district Hyderabad. M.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, Department of Agriculture Extension, University of Agriculture, FaisalabadPakistan Fasoranti, O. O. 2008. Studying rural system. Logos-Universal publisher Inc, Akure, p. 1015. Feder, G., R. E. Just and Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries: a Survey. Eco. Dev and Cultural Change, 33(2): 225-298. French, J. H. 2007. Farm household decision making and extensive framework for understanding farm household-level decision making and design of agro-forestry extension strategies. Asia-Pacific Agro forestry Network, FAO-APAN, Bognor. Available on webpage: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0266e/x0266e00.HTM. (Accessed 16 July, 2011). 76

Goldhaber, A. S and M. M. Nieto. 2010. Photon and gravation mass limits, Rev. Mod. Phys. American Physical Society, 82:939-979. Good, W and P. Hatt. 1952. Methods in research. Mcgraw Hill Book Company, New York, pp.133-214. Govt. of Pakistan. 2003. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2002-2003. Ministry of Finance, Islamabad, Pakistan. Govt. of Pakistan. 2006. Economic survey of Pakistan, Ministry of Fin, Eco. AdvisorsWing, Fin. Division, Islamabad. Govt. of Pakistan. 2010. Economic Survey of Pakistan. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan.. Hussain, M., Z. Hussain and M. Ashfaq. 2006. Impact of small-scale irrigation schemes on poverty alleviation in marginal areas of Punjab, Pakistan. Int. Res. J. Fin. and Eco., (6): 194-200. Jaffar, S. S., K. Javed and T. E. Lodhi. 2006. An evaluation of micro credit schemes of small and medium enterprise development authority (SMEDA). J. Anim. Pl.Sci., 16 (3-4): 111-113. Jan, M., I. Sultana, M. Imran and M. Anwar. 2011. Message-oriented farmers and potential adopters of agricultural technology the case of Khyber PakhtunKhawa (KPK) Pakistan. European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-216X, 52(4): 461- 469. Kaaria, S., P. Sanginga, J. Njuki, R. Delve, C. Chitsike and R. Best. 2007. Enabling rural innovation in Africa: an approach for empowering smallholder farmers to access market opportunities for improved livelihoods.www.eldis.org/assets /41405.html. Kerr, R. B. 2005. Food Security in Northern Malawi: Gender Kinship Relations and Entitlements in Historical Context. J. S. Afr. Stud., 31(1):53- 74. Khan, A. R., M. K. Dubey, P. K. Bisen and K. K. Saxena. 2007. Constraints faced by farmers of Narsing Kheda village of Sihore District. Indian. Res. J. Ext. Edu., 7(1): 57-59. Khan, N and J. D. H. Keatinge. 2000. Awareness and level of adoption of agricultural technologies in the remote areas of North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Pakistan.Sarhad J. Agric., 16 (2): 217-226.. Kiani, A.K. 2008. Farm Size and Productivity in Pakistan. European. J. Soci. Scienc.,7(2): 42-52.

77

Kummar, S. K. and R. Bhagat. 2009. Constraints experienced by farmers in adopting risk and uncertainty management strategies in rainfed agriculture. Pusa. Agri. Scienc., 32: 7074. Mahmood, B and S. Hussain. 2004. A study of socio economic constraints in the flow of agricultural credit with special reference to small farmer in district Faisalabad. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., 2(2): 115-117. Malik, S. J. 1999. Rural Poverty and Credit Use: Evidence from Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 38: 699-716. Mari, J. M., A. K. Shahzadi and Q. I. Chachar. 2011. Perception of the problems in farming community at Hyderabad Pakistan. J. Agricult. Technol., 7(1): 9-17. Meena, K. C. 2003. Constraints faced by the farmers in adoption of improved cultivation of cabbage in Udaipur District of Rajasthan. Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu., 3: 69-71. Meer, L. J. V. D. 2004. Exclusion of small-scale farmers from coordinated supply chains: Market failure, policy failure or just economies of scale? Workshop Is there a place for smallholder producers in coordinated supply chains? Washington, D.C: World Bank, December 8, 2004. Nachmias, C. F and D. Nachmias. 1992. Research methods in social science, published by Edwards Arnold. A division of Hadder and Stoughton, London. Obeng,S. K. 2008. Rural banking in Ghana: its impact on rural farmers (a case study of Abokobi rural area). SAMVENS Research and consultancy unit.1-50. Oboh, V. U and S. Kushwaha. 2009. Socio-economic determinants of farmers loan size in Benue State, Nigeria. J. App. Sci. Res., 5(4): 354-358. Odoemenem, I. U and V. Adebisi. 2011. Sustainable agriculture for small scale farmers in Niger State, Nigeria. J. Sustain. Developme. Africa., 13( 2): 225-235. Okunlola, A. I.and T. I. Ofuya. 2010. Farmers Perception of Problems in the Cultivation of Selected Leaf Vegetables in South Western Nigeria. Sains. Malaysiana., 39(3):513518. Olubiyo, S. O. and G. P. Hill. 2003. Beyond the risk factor: Bank lending to small-scale peasant farms in Nigeria. African Review of Money Finance Banking.Pp5-22. Ortmann, G. F. and King, R. P. 2006.Small-scale farmers in South Africa: Can agricultural cooperatives facilitate access to input and product markets? Staff Paper Series, University of Minnesota. Minnesota, USA. Pande, P. and K. Akermann. 2010. Adaptation of small scale farmers to climatic risks in India. www.sustainet.org. accessed on Dec., 2011. 78

Peacock, C and A. Jowett. 2004. Reaching the poor a call to action for investment in smallholder Agriculture. In sub-Saharan Africa Prepared jointly by staff at farm Africa, harvest help and the center for development and poverty reduction, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Imperial College, London p:112. Pender, J and P. Hazell. 2000. Promoting sustainable development in less-favored areas: overview. Brief 1 in J. Pender and P. Hazell (eds.), Promoting Sustainable Development in Less-Favored Areas.2020 Vision Initiative, Policy Brief Series, Focus 4. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Pervaiz, U., D. Jan, M. Z. Khan, M. Iqbal and R. Javed. 2011. Disbursement of agricultural loans, constraints and its future policy implication. Sarhad J. Agri. 27(2): 323-328. Rehman, Z. U., D. A. A. Wassan and M. K.B. Dost. 2012. Socio- Economic Problems of Farmers in Pakistan: Focused Area Tauluka Pano Akil District Sukkur. Arabi. J. Busin.Manag.Revi., (15): 114-129. Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations; study and teaching; history. The free press of Glerco, Illinios.New York and London.Pp453. Sabir, H. M., Z. Hussain and A. Saboor. 2006. Determinants of small farmers poverty in the Central Punjab (Pakistan). J.Agri and Soc. Science., 2(1): 10-12. Safa, M. S. 2005. Socio-economic factors affecting the income of small-scale agro forestry farms in hill country areas in Yemen: A comparison of OLS and WLS determinants Biomedi.lif. Scienc.,4(1): 117-134. Sarwar, G. 2011. An Assessment of Farmers Attitude Towards the Adoption of Modern Agricultural technologies in Tehsil Taunsa Sharif, Uni of Agri Faisalabad. Sebopetji, T. O and A. Belete. 2009. An application of profit analysis to factors affecting small-scale farmers decision to take credit: a case study of the Greater Letaba Local Municipality in South Africa. Afric.J. Agri. Rese., 4 (8): 718-723. Shahbaz, B., T. Ali, I. A. Khan and M. Ahmad. 2010. An analysis of the problems faced by farmers in the mountains of northwest Pakistan: Challenges for Agri. Extension. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 47(4):417-420. Shiferaw, B. A.,J. Okello and R.V. Reddy. 2007. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: Reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ. Develop and Sustain., 11: 601-619. Singh.M., A. S. Bhullar and A.S. Joshi. 2009. Factors influencing economic viability of marginal and small farmers in Punjab. Agri. Econ. Res. Rev., 22: 269-279. 79

Tadesse, G. 2001. Land Degradation: Land degradation: a challenge to Ethiopia. Environment Management, 27(6): 815-824. Tanwir, F., A. Saboor, A. A. Maan, I. Ali, T. Mahmood and S. Muhammad. 2006. Socio economic milieu of small farmers in Sargodha District. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 43(1-2): 86-88. Terry, E. P. 2004. Operating a profitable small farm, Ag 101: Introduction to small farming. Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland. Fact Sheet:1-6 Thanh, N. C. and B.Sing. 2006. Constraints faced by the farmers in rice production and export, Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute Head of the Division of Agricultural Extension, IARI, New Delhi, India, 14: 97-110. Vanclay, F. and G. Lawrence. 1994. Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practice; a critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. The European J. Agri. Edu.and Ext., 1(1): 59-90.

80