Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 91

A STUDY ON TECHNOLOGICAL GAP IN ADOPTION

OF THE IMPROVED CULTIVATION PRACTICES BY


THE SOYBEAN GROWERS

Thesis submitted to the


University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of

Master of Science (Agriculture)

in

Agricultural Extension Education

By

SURESH KUM AR

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION


COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD – 580 005

AUGUST, 2009
ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD (K.V.NATIKAR)
August 2009 CHAIRMAN

Approved by :

Chairman : ____________________
(K.V.NATIKAR)

Members: 1.___________________
(K.V.NATIKAR)

2.___________________
(L.MANJUNATH)

3.___________________
(GANGA YANAGI)
CONTENTS
Sl.
Chapter Particulars
No.

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

1 INTRODUCTION

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Socio Economic characteristics of the soybean growers

2.2 Knowledge level of farmers about the soybean cultivation


practices

2.3 Technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation


practices

2.4 Marketing pattern of soybean growers

2.5 Constraints in adoption of recommended cultivation practices by the


soybean growers

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

3.2 Selection of the district

3.3 Selection of taluks

3.4 Selection of villages

3.5 Selection of respondents

3.6 Brief description of the study area

3.7 Selection of variables

3.8 Method of data collection

3.9 Statistical tools


4 RESULTS

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers

4.2 Knowledge level of the soybean growers about individual


recommended cultivation practices

4.3 Technological gap among the respondents

4.4 Marketing pattern followed by soybean growers

4.5 Constraints faced by the soybean growers

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers

5.2 Knowledge level of the soybean growers about individual


recommended cultivation practices

5.3 Extent of adoption of recommended cultivation practices by soybean


growers

5.4 Marketing pattern followed by soybean growers

5.5 Constraints faced by the soybean growers

6 SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES

Table
Title
No.

1 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers

2 Innovativeness of the respondents towards individual items

3 Risk orientation of respondents towards individual items

4 Economic motivation of respondents towards individual items

5 Extension Participation

Knowledge level of soybean growers about recommended cultivation


6
practices

Overall Knowledge level of soybean Growers about recommended


7
cultivation practices

8 Adoption level of soybean growers about recommended cultivation practices

Technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation


9
practices

10 Overall Technological gap among the soybean cultivation practices

11 Marketing pattern followed by the soybean growers

12 Constraints faced by the soybean growers


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
Title
No.

1 Map showing study area

2 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers

3 Extension Participation

Knowledge level of soybean growers about recommended cultivation


4
practices

Overall Knowledge level of soybean Growers about recommended


5
cultivation practices

Technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation


6
practices

7 Overall Technological gap among the soybean cultivation practices

8 Marketing pattern followed by the soybean growers

9 Constraints faced by the soybean growers


1. INTRODUCTION
India has exhibited a phenomenal growth in agricultural sector after independence. Our
country witnessed “Green Revolution” in late sixties onward and it is a landmark in Indian
agriculture resulting not only self-sufficiency in food grains but also in export of surplus produce
to other countries. Further, “Yellow Revolution” was the result of enhanced pace in the
development of Indian agriculture for the last two and half decades which has contributed
remarkably due to newly introduced crops like soybean and sunflower (Joshi, 2003).

Soybean cultivation in India has gained momentum in oil front with the steady increase
in the area and production. In recent years, it has become an important oilseed crop of our
country, occupying the third place next to groundnut, rapeseed and mustard in area and
production. This crop has a greater potentiality to substitute different oilseeds and pulses to
overcome the shortage of edible oil and protein rich food.

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Meril] is one of the oldest cultivated crops of the world. The
first record of this crop is available in Chinese literature, where it is mentioned to be one of the
five sacred grains of china. The ancient yogis of Indus valley civilization supplemented their
meatless diet with this bean because of having good quality proteins. The father of the nation
Mahatma Gandhi in the year 1932 initiated soybean movement as a food reformist. Soybean is
known as “Golden bean”, “Miracle crop” etc., because of its several uses. Soybean besides
having high yield potential (30-35qtl/ha), Provides cholesterol free oil (20%) and high quality
protein (40%). It is a versatile crop with innumerable possibilities of improving agriculture and
supporting industry. The soybean protein is rich in Lycine (4-6%) and the oil extracted is edible
one. India is in short supply of proteins and large portion of the population are vegetarians,
under this situation crop like soybean with high protein content and high yield potential became
an important crop in India.

Soybean protein is receiving more attention than any other source of protein today.
Besides, it contains several vitamins, calcium, phosphorous and iron. They are ideally suited for
human beings. Food uses of soybean include beverages; fermented products like soya souce
and yoghurt, cheese analogous like fried and roasted nuts, sarouts etc. Small quantities of
soybean flour are already being used in baked goods, primarily biscuits and in snacks.
Soyaflour is also used in substantial quantity in place of besan in sweets, pappads and similar
products.

Industrial uses of Soya in the pharmaceutical, farming, plywood glues, asphalt


cements, detergent products, paper boards and laminations, fibre boards, shoe polish, textiles,
printing inks, etc. are well accepted. It is also used for industrial production of antibiotics,
streptomycin and oxytetracycline etc. Japanese experts have recommended the use of
soybean oil as a source of carbon for commercial production of penicillin.

Soybean is one of the important grain legume crop grown in most parts of the world for
its several uses as food, feed and beverages. The crop is presently grown on an area of about
91.29 million hectares, mainly in United States (31 per cent), Brazil (26 per cent) and Argentina
(20 per cent). The rest 33 per cent is contributed by China (10 per cent), India (10 per cent) and
Paraguay (3 per cent), with the production of 220 million tonnes and a productivity of 2033 kg
per hectare. Even though soybean was introduced to India in 1880 A.D., hardly it occupied an
area of 8.88 million hectares with production of 9.99 million tonnes and a productivity of 1124
kg per hectare (Anon., 2008).

The area and production of soybean in Karnataka is 0.162 million hectares and 0.154
million metric tonnes, respectively, with an average yield of 718 kg per hectare (Anon., 2008).
In Dharwad district, soybean crop is grown by large number of farmers on an area of 21,646
hectares and with the production of 8,349 tonnes. Due to its characteristics such as short
duration, high yielding potential protein and oil content, good fodder and building soil fertility by
fixing atmospheric nitrogen in the soil, it is becoming popular with the farming community.

As pointed out by Singh (1973), “Key to agricultural development lies in the mind, heart
and hands of farmers”. Farmers are ultimate decision makers about on innovation introduced
into their systems. They are hetrogeneneous and differ in various characteristics like education,
experience in cultivation, farm size, annual income, media participation, extension contact,
participation in extension activities, economic motivation, scientific orientation, etc. Their
receptivity to different agricultural innovativeness will vary depending on their personal, socio-
economic and psychological attributes. Hence, an insight in to these factors is essential.

Large scale adoption of innovation is essential feature of agricultural development.


However, some farmers adopt all the recommended practices while some others don’t. The
personal, social and economic aspects of the farmers play a major role in their adoption
process. It was felt that information about the adoption level and technological gap in cultivation
of soybean crop in relation to personal characteristics of the farmers and reasons for the same
would form an important aspect today. It is to be noted that there are no studies in Karnataka
state with reference to the technological gap in adoption of recommended cultivation practices
by the soybean growers. Hence, in this context the present study was undertaken to measure
the extent of adoption and locating the technological gap in specific components of soybean
cultivation.

Keeping this in view, the investigation was designed in Dharwad district of Karnataka
state with following specific objectives.

Objectives of the investigation

1. To Study the socio -economic characteristics of soybean growers

2. To measure the knowledge level of farmers about the soybean cultivation practices

3. To Study the extent of technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation


practices

4. To analyse the marketing pattern of soybean growers

5. To identify the constraints in adoption of recommended cultivation practices by the soybean


growers

Significance of the study

The study is expected to throw some light on knowledge level, extent of technological
gap in adoption of improved cultivation practices and marketing pattern of the soybean crop.
The findings of this study will provide valuable information to all the private, voluntary and
government agencies for the development of appropriate extension strategies for boosting the
soybean production as well as productivity.

The study also aims to analyse the constraints faced by the farmers in adoption of
recommended cultivation practices of the crop. This will help the concerned authorities to take
the problems of the soybean cultivation to their best satisfaction.

Limitation of the study

1. The study was confined to two taluks of Dharwad district. Hence, generalisations made
in this study may have to be reinforced by a comprehensive study.

2. The study has the limitation of time and resources usually faced by the student
investigator. However, considerable care and thought was exercised in making the
study as objective and systematic as possible.

3. Part of this study involved investigation of delicate issue relating to certain economic
aspects, on which rural people are usually reluctant to give precise information. The
correctness of responses might, inspite of the best efforts of investigator leave margin
for error to creep in.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of literature was undertaken keeping in view the variables for the study. It was
rather difficult to find adequate research studies exclusively relating to recommended
practices of soybean cultivation. Therefore, studies related to other crops were also reviewed
and presented covering all aspects of the investigation comprehensively under the following
headings;

2.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the soybean growers

2.2 Technological gap in adoption of soybean cultivation practices

2.3 Knowledge level of farmers about the soybean cultivation practices

2.4 Marketing pattern

2.5 Constraints in adoption of recommended cultivation

2.1 Socio Economic characteristics of the soybean growers


2.1.1. Age
Joshi (1992) conducted a study on paddy cultivation practices by Tibetian
rehabilitation and their socio-economic characteristics in Mundgod taluk of Karnataka, and
noticed that half of the respondents belonged to middle age category and about 30.00 per
cent of the respondents were in old age category. In the young age group, there were 19.00
per cent of the respondents.

Saikrishna (1998) carried out a study on knowledge of paddy cultivation practices and
adoption behavior of Andhra migrant farmers in Raichur district reported that majority of the
respondents (55.33%) belonged to the group of 30-50 years. The respondents below the age
of 30 years were 1.33 and 43.33 per cent of the respondents were found to be more than 50
years of age.

Patil (2000) conducted a study on adoption of banana production technology under


drip irrigation observed that, majority of the banana growers (58.33%) were from middle age
group followed by young age (24.17%) and old age group (17.50%).

Karpagam (2000) conducted a study on a study on knowledge and adoption


behaviour of turmeric growers in Erode district of Tamil Nadu state and indicated that majority
(70.83%) of the turmeric growing farmers belonged to middle aged group.

Babanna (2001) conducted a study on arecanut growers in Shimoga district and


stated that 38.40 per cent of growers belonged to old age, 35 per cent of them were middle
aged and 26.66 per cent of the growers were young.

Wase (2001) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of farmers about Jayanti
chilli cultivation observed that, majority of chilli growers (52.50 %) were in the age group of 36
to 50 years that is middle age category.

Vedamurthy (2002) in his study on arecanut growers in Shimoga district focused that
25.33 per cent of the growers were old aged, 40 per cent of middle aged and 34.66 per cent
were young aged group.

Sunil Kumar (2004) from his study on farmers knowledge and adoption of production
and post-harvest technology in tomato crops of Belgaum of Karnataka state indicated that
majority of the tomato growers (53.30%) belonged to middle age group.
Amol (2006) conducted a study on indigenous technical knowledge about rice
cultivation and bovine health management practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra
reported that, majority of the respondents belonged to middle age group.

Chandrashekhar (2007) investigated an analysis of onion production and marketing


behaviour of farmers in Gadag district of Karnataka revealed that, majority of the respondents
(63.34%) belonged to middle age group, followed by equal per cent in both young age and old
age group (18.33%).

It could be inferred form the above studies that majority of the farmers belonged to
middle age group.

2.1.2. Education
Patil (1990) conducted study on a critical analysis of technological gap and
constraints in the adoption of improved rice cultivation practices is Konkan region of
Maharashtra and noticed that more than 55 per cent of paddy growers had studied upto 4th to
th th
10 standard, 22.00 per cent of farmers were educated upto 11 standard and above,
whereas only 5.00 per cent of farmers were illiterate.

Raghupathi (1994) carried out a study on agricultural modernization among farmers


in Upper Krishna Project Area of Karnataka reported that 32.00 per cent of command area
farmers were illiterate, 20.00 per cent of farmers had primary school education in the Upper
Krishna Project Area of Karnataka.

Hnumanaikar (1995) in his study conducted in Dharwad district on sunflower growers


found the 9.50 per cent were illiterates. Primary education was received by 38.00 per cent
and 35.00 per cent of the respondents studied upto S.S.L.C. and 17.50 per cent had college
education.

Yaligar (1997) conducted an analytical study on Soybean cultivation by farmers of


Belgaum district reported that 13.90 per cent were illiterate, 45.83 per cent were upto primary
and middle school, 31.94 per cent were upto high and P.U.C. and 8.33 per cent of the
respondents had education above P.U.C.

Maraddi (1999) carried out a study on cotton production technologies-constraints


analysis cotton growers categorized the respondents as illiterates (50.00%), up to primary
education (49.00%), up to high school (40.00%) and above high school (8.00%) level of
education.

Kanavi (2000) in his study on the knowledge and adoption behaviour of sugarcane
growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka found that 30 per cent of the respondents were
illiterates followed by high school (22.00%), middle school (15.33%), primary school
(11.33%), post graduates (9.33%) and 6 per cent in case of graduates.

Venkataramalu (2003) conducted a study on the knowledge level adoption and


marketing behaviour of chilli growers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh revealed that
majority of them studied up to primary school (25.83%) followed by illiterate (22.50%) and
high school (16.83%).

Sunil Kumar (2004) carried out a study on farmers knowledge and adoption of
production and post-harvest technology in tomato crop of Belgaum district in Karnataka
revealed that, in respect of formal education obtained,14.16 per cent were illiterate, 15.75 per
cent of the respondents had received education upto middle age school, whereas, 22.50 per
cent of them received education up to high school, while the other 10.80 and 10.00 per cent
of the respondents received education upto PUC and graduation level respectively.

Amol (2006) conducted a study on indigenous technical knowledge about rice


cultivation and bovine health management practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra
reported that, majority of the farmers (66.20%) were educated upto or below middle school.
Whereas, 21.13 per cent of the respondents were illiterate, followed by primary (40.85%),
middle school (23.35%) and only (2.82, 8.45%) of the respondents had studied high school
and pre-university level education. respondents belonged to middle age group.

Chandrashekhar (2007) from his analysis of onion production and marketing


behaviour of farmers in Gadag district of Karnataka revealed that, 43.33 per cent of the
respondents had high school level of education, followed by 26.67 per cent upto middle,
13.33 per cent upto primary, 7.50 per cent illiterate, 1.67 per cent of the respondents can read
and write category and 0.83 per cent fall in post graduate category.

From the above review of literature, it could be inferred that majority of the farmers
had better educational level.

2.1.3 Farming experience


Kumbar (1983) conducted a study on adopters behaviour and consultancy pattern of
grape growers of Bijapur district in Karnataka state reported that high percentage (59.19%)of
respondents were found in low(<10.13 years) farming experience. Whereas, low percentage
(40.81%) of respondents fell in high (>10.14 years) farming experience category.

Sakharkar et al. (1992) carried out a study on Correlates of knowledge and adoption
behaviour of soybean growers reported that 50 per cent respondents were cultivating
soybean in Nagpur district of Mharashtra from last four to six years. About one fourth of the
farmers had less than three years experience and remaining 27.33 per cent farmers were
cultivating soybean on their farm more than seven years.

Sakharkar et al. (1995) carried out a study on knowledge, fertilizer use pattern and
constraints in the cultivation of soybean by farmers of Nagpur district, Maharashtra reported
that majority of the respondents (67.34%) were cultivating soybean from the last five to eight
years. Fifteen per cent of the cultivators had four years and remaining 18.33 per cent had
more than eight years of experience in the cultivation of soybean crop.

Yaligar (1997) conducted an analytical study on Soybean cultivation by farmers of


Belgaum district reported that majority of the respondents (74.31%) were cultivating soybean
from the last three to five years, Nine per cent of the growers had two years and remaining
16.67 per cent had more than five years of experience in cultivation of soybean.

Natikar (2001) investigated on attitude of use of farm journal of subscriber farmers


and their profile – A critical analysis, found that majority of the respondents had medium
farming experience (48%), followed by high (45%) and low (7%) farming experience,
respectively.

Thiranjanagowda (2005) carried out a study on cultivation and marketing pattern of


selected cutflowers in Belgaum district of Karnataka noticed that 40.62 per cent of the
respondents belonged to high experience category. While, 35.93 and 23.45 per cent of the
respondents belonged to medium and low farming experience category, respectively.

Vinay Kumar (2005) from his study on knowledge and adoption of rose growing
farmers in Karnataka reported that, 53.33 per cent of the respondents belonged to low
experience category followed by medium (45.00%) and high (1.67%) farming experience.

Amol (2006) conducted a study on indigenous technical knowledge about rice


cultivation and bovine health management practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra and
reported that, majority (90.19%) of the respondents had high farming experience (>20 years).
While, not a single respondents had low farming experience (upto 10 years) and 9.86 per cent
of the respondents had medium farming experience.

Sidram (2008) carried out a study on analysis of organic farming practices in


pigeonpea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state and replaced that, nearly one third farmers
(30.83%) had high experience in farming whereas majority (69.17%) had low experience.

Above review of literature revealed that majority of the farmers belonged to high
farming experience category.
2.1.4 Land holding
Raghuprasad (1992) from his study on innovative proness of improved dairy practices
by dairy practicing women in Bidar district of Karnataka state reported that 86.00 per cent of
the respondents were big land holders followed by small land holders (10.67%) and few
(3.53%) were marginal land holders.

Sakharkar (1995) carried out a study on knowledge, fertilizer use pattern and
constraints in the cultivation of soybean by farmers of Nagpur district, Maharashtra reported
that one third of the soybean growers had land holding of 10.01 to 25 acres followed by
landings of 5.01 to 10 acres. Fourteen per cent of the respondents possessed land of more
than 25 acres.

Hanumanaikar (1995) in a study on a study on knowledge adoption of marketing


behaviour of sunflower growers in Dharwad district sunflower growers reported that, 70 per
cent of respondents were big farmers. Whereas, 17.50 and 12.50 per cent were medium and
small farmers, respectively.

Nagaraj (1996) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption pattern of improved


cultivation practices of groundnut among farmers of Pavagada taluk in Tumkur district and
reported that 48 percent of the participant farmers were found in medium land holding
category followed by 30.67 percent in small land holding Category, only 8 percent of the
participant farmers were big farmers.

Yaligar (1997) conducted an analytical study on Soybean cultivation by farmers of


Belgaum district reported that small land holders category occupied the highest percentage
(53.47%) followed by land holding of big (46.53%) nature respectively.

Maraddi (1999) conducted a study on the cotton production technologies-constraints


analysis categorized the cotton growers as small farmers (35.00%), medium farmers
(28.00%) and large farmers (37.00%).

Kanavi (2000) a study on the knowledge and adoption behaviour of sugarcane


growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka categorized sugarcane growers in to large farmers
(61.33%), medium farmers (30.66%), semi-medium farmers (6.55%) and small farmers
(1.33%). None of the farmers belonged to the category of marginal farmers.

Nagaraj (2002) conducted a study on knowledge of improved cultivation practices of


sugarcane and their extent of adoption by farmers in Bhadra command area in Davanagere
district, Karnataka and found that, majority of the respondents belonged to medium land
holding (48.75%) followed by semi medium land holding category (30.00%).

Raghavendra (2004) in his study on Knowledge and adoption level of post harvest
technologies by Redgram cultivators in Gulbarga district of Karnataka revealed that, majority
of the respondents belonged to medium land holding (48.75%), followed by semi-medium
land holding Category (30%).

Reddy (2005) in the study on knowledge, extent of participation and benefits derived
by participant farmers of the watershed development programme and reported that, 64 per
cent of farmers belonged to semi-medium land holding category, followed by 22 per cent in
medium category, where as 10.67 per cent of them had small land holding and a meager 3.33
per cent of them belonged to big land holding category.

Sidram (2008) conducted a study on analysis of organic farming practices in


pigeonpea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state and revealed that big land holders category
occupied the highest percentage (60.83%), while 23.33 and 15.83 per cent of the
respondents were in medium and small land holders category.

From the above review of literature, it could be inferred that majority of the farmers
belonged to medium land holding category.
2.1.5 Annual income
Malagi (1985) carried out a study on adopters behaviour and value orientation of
adopters and non-adopters of soybean in Kalaghatagi taluk of Dharwad district indicated that
adopters and non-adopters of soybean growers in Kalaghtagi taluka of Dharwad district had
high income (41.46 and 12.00%), medium income (29.34 and 36.00%) and low income group
(29.33 and 52.00%), respectively.

Hanumanaikar (1995) carried out a study on knowledge adoption of marketing


behaviour of sunflower growers in Dharwad district indicated that seventy three per cent of
the respondents of the sunflower growers in Dharwad district had income above Rs.11,500
per annum.

Nagaraj (1996) from his study on knowledge and adoption pattern of improved
cultivation practices of groundnut among farmers of Pavagada taluk in Tumkur district and
found that majority (44.00%) of participant farmers had income between Rs.5000 and
Rs.10,000. Twenty-five per cent of the participant farmers had an income of more than
Rs.10,000 annualy.

Chandran (1997) conducted a study on tapioca growers of Ernakulam district in


Kerala and found that 33.33 per cent of the respondents belonged to low income category,
while 40.00 and 26.37 per cent were under medium and high income category, respectively.

Yaligar (1997) conducted an analytical study on Soybean cultivation by farmers of


Belgaum district reported that majority of the respondents (78.47%) were belonged to medium
level of annual income group and 7.64 and 13.89 per cent of the respondents had low and
high level of annual income, respectively.

Vijay Kumar (2001) conducted a study on entrepreneurship behaviour of floriculture


farmers in Ranga reddy district of Andhra Pradesh reported that, 45.84 per cent of
respondents were under medium income group followed by 27.50 per cent and 26.66 per cent
of the respondents had low and medium income group, respectively.

Vedamurthy (2002) carried out a study on arecanut growers of Shimoga district in


Karnataka noticed that 48.66 per cent of the respondents belong to high income category,
while 34.00 per cent and 17.34 per cent were noticed in medium and low income category,
respectively.

Sunil Kumar (2004) conducted a study on farmers knowledge and adoption of


production and post harvest technology in tomato crop of Belgaum district in Karnataka found
that, majority of the respondents belonged to medium income category (48.33%), followed by
32.50 per cent and 19.16 per cent were under low and high income category, respectively.

Raghavendra (2005) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of recommended


cultivation practices of cauliflower growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka reported that,
majority of the respondents (15.00%) had annual income between Rs. 75,000 to Rs.
1,00,000, whereas, 31.60 per cent of respondents had an annual income above Rs. 1,00,000.
Rest of them 23.30 per cent had an income between Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 75,000 per annum,
whereas, only 10.00 per cent of them had income below Rs. 20,000 per annum.

Amol (2006) carried out a study on indigenous technical knowledge about rice
cultivation and bovine health management practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra and
reported that, majority of the farmers (85.92%) were in medium income category (Rs.
12,680,00 to Rs. 71,320,000), followed by (4.23%) had low annual income (upto Rs.
12,567.44). While, 9.86 per cent of the respondents had high annual income (Rs. 71,321.00
and above).

Chandrashekhar (2007) investigated on analysis of onion production and marketing


behaviour of farmers in Gadag district of Karnataka revealed that, half of the respondents
(50.00%) had annual income ranging from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000 followed by 24.17 per
cent of them had upto Rs. 25,000, 16.67 per cent had in between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 75,000,
5.83 per cent had Rs. 75,000 to 1,00,000 and 3.33 per cent of the respondents had income
above Rs. 1,00,000 per annum from all the sources.

The above studies revealed that majority of farmers belonged to medium income
category.

2.1.6 Innovativeness
Reddy (1997) in a study of the entrepreneurial characteristics and farming
performance of rice farmers in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh reveals that majority 62.00%
of the respondents had medium innovativeness, 20 percent had high and 18 percent had low
innovativeness.

Kumar (1998) conducted a study on knowledge, adoption and economic performance


of banana growers in his study reported that, 40 percent of the banana growers had less
innovativeness followed by 37 percent of them had medium and 23 percent of They had high
innovativeness.

Vijaykmar (2001) investigated that entrepreneurship behaviour of floriculture farmers


in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh indicated that 47.50 per cent of respondents full in
low category, followed by 31.66 per cent in medium category and 20.84 per cent in high
category.

Gandhi (2002) carried out a study on Knowledge and adoption behaviour of


vegetable growers with respect to integrated pest management of tomato crop in Kolar district
of Karnataka revealed that, majority of the beneficiaries belonged to medium Level
innovativeness category.

Shashidhara (2003) in his study on socio-economic profile of drip irrigation farmers in


Shimoga and Davangere district of Karnataka found out that, majority of The farmers
belonged to medium innovativeness category (47.50%) followed by low (31.66%) and high
(20.83%) innovativeness category, respectively.

Nagesh (2005) from his study on entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable seed


producing farmers in Haveri district of Karnataka and reported that, majority of the
respondents (63.33%) had medium innovativeness, followed by 18.33 per cent of them with
high and low innovativeness in vegetable seed production.

Raghavendra (2005) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of recommended


cultivation practices of cauliflower growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka reported that,
majority of the respondents (45.00%) belonging to medium level of innovativeness category.
While 29.16 and 25.83 per cent of respondents belonging to low and high level of
innovativeness category, respectively.

Venkatashivareddy (2006) conducted a study on knowledge level, adoption and


marketing behaviour of chilli growers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh and reported that,
majority (72.50%) of the respondents had medium innovativeness. But less percentage of the
respondents were noticed in high innovativeness of the respondents were noticed in high
innovativeness (15.60%) and low innovativeness (12.50%) categories.

Manjunath (2007) carried out a study on rehabitant farmers in upper Krishna Project
area of Bagalkot district and observed that majority of the respondents (56.25%) were found
in medium innovativeness category, while 27.25 per cent and 16.25 per cent of the
respondents belonged to low and high innovativeness category, respectively.

Sidram (2008) conducted a study on analysis of organic farming practices in


pigeonpea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state and found that, majority of the respondents
(45.00%) belonged to medium innovativeness category. While, 32.50 per cent and 22.50 per
cent of the respondents belonged to low and high innovativeness category, respectively.

From the above studies it could be inferred that, majority of the farmers belonged to
medium innovativeness category.
2.1.7 Risk orientation
Rathnisabapathi (1984) carried out a study on knowledge and extent of adoption of
integrated pest management for cotton reported that considerable per cent of the cotton
growers had medium level of risk performance (55.50%), followed by high level (24.20%) and
low level (20.30%).

Sakharkar (1995) conducted study on soybean growers in Nagpur district of


Maharashtra state and observed that 64.00 per cent of farmers showed medium risk taking
ability, whereas, 16.00 per cent and 20.00 per cent of farmers had low and high risk taking
ability respectively.

Gupta (1999) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption behaviour of rice


growers in Jammu district of Jammu and Kashmir observed that majority (64.00%) of the
respondents were average risk bearers, followed by low (24.67%) and high (11.33%) risk
bearers, respectively.

Meeran and Jayaseelan (1999) carried out a study on socio-personal, socio-


economic and socio-psychological profile of shrimp farmers reported high risk orientation
(72.00%) among shrimp farmers followed by medium (26.00%) and low (20.00%) risk
orientation.

Vijaykumar (2001) in his study on entrepreneurship behaviour of floriculture farmers


in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh indicated that 38.34, 35.00 and 26.66 per cent of
total respondents fell under low, medium and high risk taking ability categories.

Bhagyalaxmi et al. (2003) conducted a study on profile of the rural women micro
enterprocessors revealed that majority of the respondents (75.56%) had medium risk
orientation followed by low (15.56%) and high (13.33%) risk orientation categories.

Budihal (2002) conducted a study on utilization pattern of cotton production


technologies by farmers of Karnataka and revealed that, majority of farmers Belongs to
medium level of risk orientation category.

Nagaraja (2002) carried out a study on knowledge of improved cultivation practices of


sugarcane and their extent of adoption by farmers in Bhadra command area in Davanagere
district reported that a majority (74.85%) of the respondents were found to possess medium
risk, whereas, 15.83 per cent and 9.58 per cent of the respondents were found belonging to
high and low level of risk orientation, respectively.

Deepak (2003) carried out a study on perception on beneficiaries and non-


beneficiaries towards WYTEP programme in Dharwad district and reported that, majority
74.67and 72 percent of Non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries of WYTEP programme belonged
to medium risk Orientation category, respectively.

Shashidhar (2004) conducted a study on a study on influencing factors and


constraints in drip irrigation by horticulture farmers of Bijapur districts revealed that, majority
of the farmers (70.83%) had medium level of risk bearing ability and low (15.00%) level of risk
orientation.

Ninga Reddy (2005) carried out a study on knowledge, extent of participation and
benefits derived by participation farmers of the watershed development programme in
Raichur district of Karnataka state and reported that, 56 percent belonged to medium risk
Orientation category, followed by high 28 percent and low 19.33 percent risk Orientation
categories respectively.

Raghavendra (2005) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of recommended


cultivation practices of cauliflower growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka reported that,
majority of the respondents (55.00%) had medium level of risk bearing ability, whereas, 35.00
per cent and 10.00 per cent of them had low and high risk bearing ability, respectively.
Girish (2006) carried out an analysis of sustainable cultivation practices followed by
sugarcane growers in Karnataka and observed that, high level of risk orientation was noticed
in 18.89 per cent of sugarcane growers, whereas medium level of risk orientation was
possessed by 48.89 per cent and remaining 32.22 per cent of them had low risk orientation.

Sidram (2008) conducted a study on analysis of organic farming practices i n


pigeonpea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state and found that, majority of the respondents
(46.67%) belonged to low level of risk orientation. While, 29.17 per cent and 24.17 per cent of
the respondents belonged to medium and high risk orientation category, respectively.

From the above studies it can be concluded that, majority of the farmers had medium
risk bearing capacity.

2.1.8 Economic motivation


Malagi (1985) carried out a study on adopters behaviour and value orientation of
adopters and non-adopters of soybean in Kalaghatagi taluk of Dharwad district and indicated
that, majority (53.33%) of the adopters of soybean had high economic motivation. Twenty four
per cent and 22.72 per cent of them had low and medium level of economic motivation,
respectively. In contrast, 50.74 per cent of the non-adopters of soybean had low economic
motivation, followed by 30.77 per cent of them had medium level and very low percentage
(12.00%) of them had high economic motivation.

Rameshbabu (1987) conducted a study on adoption behaviour and economic


performance of grape growers of Bangalore and Kolar district reported that 38.33 per cent of
the respondents had high economic motivation whereas 61.33 per cent of the respondents
had low level of economic motivation.

Srinivasreddy (1995) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of recommended


mango cultivation practices among farmers of Kolar district and reported that 40.00 per cent
of mango growers had high level of economic motivation followed by medium (34.00%) and
low (26.00%) economic motivation, respectively.

Sakharkar (1995) carried out a study on knowledge, fertilizer use pattern and
constraints in the cultivation of soybean by farmers of Nagpur district, Maharashtra found that
majority of the soybean farmers (76.33%) had medium level of economic motivation. While,
14.00 and 9.67 per cent of the farmers belonged to low and high economic motivation
categories, respectively.

Sarvan Kumar (1996) carried out a study on management of mango gardens by


farmers in Krishnagiri taluk of Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu observed that majority of the
respondents (60.83%) had medium economic motivation. While, 16.67 per cent and 22.50 per
cent of the respondents belonged to low and high level of economic motivation, respectively.

Chandran (1997) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of farmers


cultivating tapioca in Ernakulam district of Kerala state revealed that, 46.66 percent of the
respondents belonged to medium economic motivation category.

Yaligar (1997) conducted an analytical study on Soybean cultivation by farmers of


Belgaum district reported that majority of the respondents (83.33%) had medium level of
economic motivation while, 10.42 and 6.25 per cent of the respondents were in low and high
economic motivation categories, respectively.

Siddappa (1999) carried out a Study on knowledge, adoption and marketing pattern
of pomegranate growers in Bagalkot district and reported that, majority of them belonged to
medium level of economic motivation (50.63%) where as, 28.75 and 20.68 percent of the
respondents belonged to high and low economic motivation categories, respectively.

Deepak (2003) from his study on perception on beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries


towards WYTEP programme in Dharwad district reported that, majority 54.67 and 52 percent
of non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries of WYTEP belonged to medium Economic motivation
category, respectively.
Sandesh (2004) conducted study on a profile study of Kannada farm magazine
readers in Karnataka in his study reported that, majority (51.67%) of the respondents
belonged to medium level of economic motivation. Whereas, 28.33 per Cent and 20.00 per
cent of the respondents belonged to high and low level of Economic motivation categories,
respectively.

Raghavendra (2005) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of recommended


cultivation practices of cauliflower growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka reported that,
majority of the respondents (52.50%) had medium level of economic motivation. While, 25.00
per cent and 22.50 per cent of respondents belonging to high and low level of economic
motivation category.

Chandrashekhar (2007) investigated an analysis of onion production and marketing


behaviour of farmers in Gadag district of Karnataka and reported that, majority of the
respondents (65.00%) had high economic motivation, while 34.17 per cent had medium
economic motivation and 0.83 per cent had low economic motivation.

The above studies revealed that, majority of the farmers belonged to medium
economic motivation category.

2.1.9 Extension participation


Majunath (1980) carried out a study on adopters and value orientation of adopters
and non-adopters of soybean in Kalaghatagi taluk of Dharwad district revealed that most of
the trained farmers had low extension participation.

Hanumanaikar (1995) in a study on knowledge adoption of marketing behaviour of


sunflower growers in Dharwad district observed that 47.50 per cent of the respondents
participated in extension activities, of which, 56.84 per cent attended exhibitions, 25.26 per
cent krishimela, 14.73 per cent training. 13.68 per cent discussion and 11.57 per cent
attended field trips.

Sakharkar (1995) carried out a study on knowledge, fertilizer use pattern and
constraints in the cultivation of soybean by farmers of Nagpur district, Maharashtra reported
that one third (35.67%) of the respondents had participated in one or more extension activities
whereas two third (64.33%) of the respondents did not participate in any extension activities.
Further, among those who participated in extension activities, majority of them attended
demonstrations (87.85%), followed by meeting (57.94%), krishimela (24.30-%), exhibition
(15.89%), field days (4.67%) and training programme (1.87%), respectively.

Yaligar (1997) conducted a study on soybean cultivation by farmers of Belgaum


district an analytical study reported that 34.42 per cent of soybean growers had participated in
one or more extensions activities. Further, among the participated respondents, 35.29 per
cent had attended demonstrations, followed by training programme (24.49%), krishimela
(23.24%) and meetings (15.68%).

Kanavi (2000) conducted a study on the knowledge and adoption behaviour of


sugarcane growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka reported that, none of the respondents
participated regularly in training and demonstrations. Nearly one third (31.33%) of
respondents participated in Krishimela. Whereas, very less number of respondents
participated in extension activities like farm visits (1.33%), group discussion (2.66%) and
study tour (4.00%), whereas, 20 per cent participated occasionally in Krishimela followed by
training (4.66%), group discussion (4.00%), demonstration and farm visits (2.00%) each and
study tour (0. 66%).

Venkataramalu (2003) conducted a study on the knowledge level adoption and


marketing behaviour of chilli growers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh indicated that,
majority of the farmers participated in discussion with village extension workers (70.00%),
Krishimela (62.50%) and some exhibitions on agriculture (61.67%).
Raghavendra (2004) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption level of post
harvest technology by red gram cultivators in Gulbarga district and found that, 24.66 and
22.67 per cent of the respondents were participated regularly in agricultural exhibitions and
demonstrations conducted in their villages, respectively.

Shashidhara (2004) conducted a study on drip irrigation farmers of Bijapur district and
revealed that, 45.83 per cent of the respondents participated in group meetings, followed by
exhibition (41.66 per cent) and 18.33 per cent of the respondents participated in Krishimela.

Sunil Kumar (2004) from his study on farmers knowledge and adoption of production
and post-harvest technology in tomato crop of Belgaum district in of Karnataka revealed that,
nearly 23.00 per cent of respondents participated regularly in agricultural exhibition followed
by 20.83 per cent in demonstrations. Majority of them never attended in activities like trainings
(66.67%), educational tours (94.17%) and field visits (92.05%).

Thiranjanagowda (2005) in his study on a cultivation and marketing pattern of


selected cut flowers in Belgaum district of Karnataka observed that 73.43 per cent of the cut
flower growers had extension participation regarding demonstration occasionally while 26.43
per cent participated regularly.

Jayaprada (2007) conducted a study on impact of Karnataka Vikas Grameen bank on


Agriculture Development of Beneficiaries in Dharwad district of Karnataka and reported that,
majority of the respondents (46.50%) had high extension participation followed by 32.70 per
cent had medium participation in extension activities whereas 20.80 per cent had low
extension participation.

The above studies revealed that, the majority of the farmers belonged to medium
level of extension participation.

2.1.10 Market orientation


Ahire (1997) conducted a study on the adoption of improved management practices by
grape growers and found that, majority (59.34 percent) of the respondents had ‘medium’
market orientation while 24.66 percent and 16.00 percent of the respondents were having
‘high’ and ‘low’ market orientation, respectively.

Manvar (1999) carried out a study on adoption of recommended package of practices


of mango by mango growers in Aurangabad district and revealed that, more than half of the
respondents (51.33 percent) had ‘medium’ market orientation, whereas, about one fifth of
them (22.00 percent) had’ high’ market orientation. At the same time 26.27 percent of the
respondents had low market orientation.

Missal (2002) conducted a study on adoption of paclobutrazol technology by mango


growers in Sindhdurg district and found that 46.00 percent of the respondents had medium
market orientation while 29.00 percent of the respondents had ‘low’ market orientation and
25.00 percent of the respondents had ‘high ‘market orientation. The average market
orientation score was 80.7.

Patil (2008) from his study on constraints analysis of grape exporting farmers to
Maharashtra state reported that more than half of the respondents (59.00%) belonged to
medium marketing orientation category, followed by high (34.00%) and low (7.00%),
respectively.

The above studies revealed that, majority of the farmers belonged to medium market
orientation category.
2.2 Technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean
cultivation practices
Gap in the adoption of recommended practices has been studied all over the country
in various fields of agricultural technology. Studies reviewed to know the extent of
technological gap are presented below:

Jaiswal and Rathore (1985) conducted a study on technological gap in adoption of


recommended technology in wheat among farmers growing irrigated and unirrigated wheat
observed that, the technological gap in wheat cultivation practices was 57.1 and 72.4 per
cent, respectively amongst the categories of irrigated and unirrigated category of farmers in
Damoh, Madhya Pradesh. It was revealed that the technological gap was highest in respect
of fertilizer application, seed treatment and plant protection for both categories of farmers.

Pillai and Subramonian (1986) carried out a study on technological gap in integrated
soil conservation practices of Kerala reported that, technological gap was high in agrostologic
practices like planting of grass species such as Congo signal all along the top and sides of
contour bunds. The composite technological gap in integrated soil conservation practices was
found to be 48.37 per cent.

Jaiswal et al. (1987) conducted a study on adoption gap of recommended wheat


technology among the farmers of Bundelkhand Region revealed that, 24 per cent adoption
gap in respect of wheat cultivation technologies in Bundelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh.

Srivastava and Singh (1990) conducted a study on identification of constraints of


paddy production under rainfed conditions and reported that, technological gap was highest in
respect of fertilizer application in all categories of farmers. It was 56 per cent and 76 per cent
in case of marginal farmers with regard to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer respectively.
While the same was 78 and 75 per cent in case of small farmers, it was 46 per cent and 90
per cent in case of medium farmers. The gap in Nitrogenous fertilizer application was 64 per
cent in case of large farmers, while the same in respect of phosphorus fertilizer was 78 per
cent.

Jaiswal and Duboliya (1994) conducted a study on adoption gap in wheat technology
and observed that, majority of farmers were in medium to high level of adoption gap with
respect to soil treatment, time of sowing, seed treatment, method of sowing, fertilizer
application, irrigation, weed control and plant protection in Surguja district of Madhya
Pradesh.

Mahawer et al. (1995) conducted a study on technological gap between beneficiaries


and non-beneficiaries of schedule caste area research project in Rajasthan and revealed that,
there was a wide gap (68%) in the knowledge possessed by the beneficiary farmers in
respect of plant protection measures, where as it was 89.34 per cent in case of non-
beneficiary farmers. The study showed that, there was significant difference in the knowledge
level of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in other areas of wheat production technology viz,
use of high yielding varieties, seed rate and seed treatment, fertilizer application, improved
agricultural implement and overall knowledge.

Patil and Deshmukh (1995) carried out a study on Impact of Training and Visit
System on Rice and reported that there was an overall technological gap of 39.57 per cent in
case of contact farmers and 57.73 per cent in case of potential farmers in respect of selected
practices of paddy cultivation. The gap was highest in case of use of chemical fertilizers for
main field (81.83%), use of chemical fertilizer nursery (50%) and seedbed preparation (40%)
for contact farmers. But the technological gap in case of potential farmers was highest for
plant protection (93.75%), followed by use of chemical fertilizer in main field (89.52%).

Patil (1995) Carried out a study on technological gap in rice cultivation and reported
that, mean technological gap in different cultivation practices of paddy was highest in respect
of application of fertilizers to nursery (88%) followed by seed treatment (81.75%) application
of FYM/Compost to nursery before sowing (79%), application of FYM/compost to main field
(71.15%), use of chemical fertilizers (57.58%) and preparation of raised beds for nursery
(37%).

Singh et al. (1996) investigated Correlates of Knowledge, Attitude and Risk


performance of Farmers towards dry farming technologies and reported that, there was 54.50
per cent technological gap in the use of recommended mustard production technologies. The
technological gap was highest in case of seed treatment (90%) followed by plant protection
measure (68%) and fertilizer application (54%).

Nikhade et al. (1997) conducted a study on technological gap in cultivation of


redgram, greengram and Bengal gram in Gulbarga district of Karnataka and reported that, a
wide gap (43%) was observed in the use of plant protection measures, followed by application
of nitrogenous (31%), phosphatic (25%) fertilizer and seed rate (29%) in cultivation of red
gram.

Singh and Sharma (1998) investigated adoption of improved paddy technology in


Madhya Pradesh and revealed that, more than half of the respondents (54.45%) did not adopt
seed treatment in paddy. Lack of knowledge and lack of availability of chemicals were the
major reasons for non-adoption. Majority of the respondents (37.7%) reported that they used
more seed rate because of damage caused by birds and animals and also due to poor
germination. The study revealed that none of the farmers adopted line sowing. It was found
that 32.5 per cent of the respondents applied more than the recommended dose of fertilizers,
while 70 per cent of the respondents applied less than the recommended dose. The study
revealed that 93 per cent of the farmers were in the non-adopter group regarding weedicide
application.

Satyanarayan and Kurmvanshi (1999) in their study on adoption pattern of soybean


cultivation in district Sagar of Madhya Pradesh and revealed that, overall adoption of modern
agricultural technology, indicated that only 13.33% of respondents adopted the overall
recommended technology. The remaining soyabean producers adopted at low or partial
levels. Regarding the constraints in adoption of technology, lack of awareness was the
prominent constraint (expressed by 19.25% of the total), followed by high cost of inputs
(18.50%).

Kaspe and Pimprikar (2000) conducted a study in technological gap in summer


groundnut cultivation and revealed that majority of respondents having higher technological
gap in respect of application of gypsum (52.86%) followed by use of plant protection
measures (37.17%), seed treatment (27.85%) application of chemical fertilizers (25.42%) and
intercultural operations (21.94%), respectively.

Dubolia and Jaiswal (2000) conducted a study on technological gap in groundnut


cultivation practices and revealed that majority of the farmers not adopted the recommended
package of practices of groundnut due to ignorance about the improved technology and poor
socio-economic conditions. Shortage of manual labor due to coal mines in the area was the
main problem for adoption of improved technologies.

Gupta and Srivastava (2002) investigated technological gap in soybean cultivation


and reported that, the magnitude of technological gap was alarming (43.42-94.5%) in almost
all of the improved practices of soyabean cultivation. Results show that, the maximum
technological gap was found in the use of seed treatment (94.51%), whereas the lowest was
found in irrigation management (43.42%). The results indicate that almost all of the improved
practices need to be taken into consideration to attain higher soyabean production.

Tomar and Sharma (2002) conducted yield and technological knowledge gap in
soybean cultivation in grid region of Madhya Pradesh and results showed that, seed yield of
soybean under demonstration plots were higher. It was also indicated that the knowledge gap
was reduced after the demonstrations in respect of all the practices except the plant disease
control.

The above studies revealed that, the highest technological gap was found in seed
treatment, seed inoculation, fertilizer application and plant protection measures.
2.3 Knowledge level of farmers about the soybean cultivation
practices
Malagi (1985) carried out a study on adoption behaviour and value orientation of
adopters of soybean in Kalghatagi taluk of Dharwad District and reported that, 45.31 Per cent
of the adopters had high knowledge and it was reverse in case of non adopters .45.3 per cent
had medium knowledge, while, only, 5.3 per cent of non adopters had high knowledge, 68.00
per cent and 26.7 per cent of them had medium and low knowledge, respectively.

Sahukar (1991) conducted a study on Knowledge and adoption behaviour of


members and non-members of Karnataka co operative oil-seeds growers federation
regarding groundnut cultivation practices in Raichur district and reported that there was not
much difference in Knowledge level of members and non-members of KOF with respect to
practices like sowing time (78.67% and 80.00%), variety (33.33% and 28.00%), seed rate
(81.33% and 82.67%), time of gypsum application (37.33% and 40.00%), number of
intercultivation (76.00% and 73..33%),time of last intercultivation (69.33%and 72.00%) and
chemical weed control (10.67% and 6.67%) in groundnut cultivation.

Hanumanaikar (1995) carried out a study on knowledge, adoption and Marketing


behaviour of sunflower growers in Dharwad district and indicated that, 61.50 per cent of
respondents had medium level of knowledge about recommended cultivation practices of
sunflower with mean knowledge score of 21.79.Twenty per cent of the respondents had low
level of knowledge with mean knowledge score of 14.35 and only 18.50 per cent of
respondents possessed high level of knowledge with mean knowledge score of 28.32.

Ingle (1999) carried out a study on Knowledge and adoption of farmers about
soybean cultivation practices and reported that, training is required in the use of the
recommended dose of fertilizers, and plant protection to increase yields per ha.

Govindagowda et al. (2000) conducted a study in Tumkur district of Karnataka state


on knowledge of farmers on dry land farming practices in groundnut Cultivation and found
that, a majority (72%) of the groundnut farmers belongs to Low/medium knowledge level
about dry land farming practices.

More et al. (2000) in their study on impact of training of Krishi Vigyan Kendra on
Knowledge and adoption of cotton cultivation practices by farmers in Parabhani and Nanded
districts of Maharashtra revealed that, majority of respondents (62.14%) had Medium level of
knowledge followed by high (27.86%) and low (10.00%) level of Knowledge about cotton
production practices.

Satyanarayana and Punna Rao (2000) conducted a study in West Godavari District of
Andhra Pradesh on knowledge of oil palm growers revealed that, about 60.00 per cent of the
oil palm growers possessed medium knowledge about the recommended technology.

Achuta Raju and Radha Krishnamurthy (2001) conducted a study in Guntur District of
Andhra Pradesh on knowledge level of betel vine growers observed that, 66.67 per cent of
the betel vine growers possessed medium knowledge while 17.50 Per cent and 15.83 per
cent had low and high knowledge about the recommended technologies, respectively.

Sophiasatyavathy (2001) carried a study on knowledge and adoption of sustainable


cultivation practices in sugarcane and cotton by farmers in Cuddlore district of Tamil Nadu
and reported that, 66.25 per cent of the farmers had medium knowledge level followed by
17.50 per cent with high knowledge level and 16.25 per cent with low knowledge Level about
sustainable cultivation practices in cotton. Whereas, 80.00, 12.50 and 7.50 per cent had
medium, high and low knowledge levels regarding sustainable Cultivation practices in
sugarcane, respectively.

Gupta et al. (2001) in their study on knowledge of the farmers about improved
cultivation practices of rice in Jammu revealed that, 62.00 per cent of the respondents had
medium level of knowledge followed by 20.67 per cent and 17.33 per cent had high and low
level of knowledge, respectively.
Venkatesh (2002) conducted Knowledge level and adoption behaviour of vegetable
growers with respect to IPM of tomato crop in Kolar district and reported that, equal
percentage of farmers were belonged to low (30.00%), medium (28.67%) and high (41.33%)
knowledge of integrated pest management in tomato crop.

Dharminder and Ravinder (2004) conducted a study on cotton growers in Bathinda


district of Punjab and reveled that, 73.77 per cent of farmers had medium knowledge level.
Whereas 21.30 per cent of them fell in the high knowledge category regarding IPM in cotton.

Noorjehan and Ganesan (2004) in their study on Knowledge level of rice farmers on
pest management practices and reported that, majority (90.00%) of paddy growers in Trichy
district of Tamil Nadu had noticed that the respondents had low to medium level of knowledge
on pest management practices in rice. Only 10.00 per cent of them were found to have
higher-level knowledge of pest management practices.

Kadam, et al. (2005) investigated Knowledge level of farmers about improved


soybean production technology in Parbhani district of Maharashtra state and reported that,
there is a scope for improving the knowledge level of the farmers about improved soyabean
production technology.

Sidram (2008) conducted a study on analysis of organic farming practices in


pigeonpea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka state and found that majority of the respondents
(63.33%) belonged to the medium knowledge level category, while 23.33 and 13.33 per cent
of the respondents belonged to high and low adoption categories, respectively.

The studies on knowledge of farmers on field crops highlighted that; majority of the
farmers had medium level of knowledge.

2.4 Marketing pattern


Adapur (1989) conducted a study in Dharwad district and reported majority of
chrysanthemum growers (86.66%) sold their produce through commission agents, while the
remaining 15.83 per cent sold their produce through village level trackers.

Vijaykumar (1989) in his study in Malur taluks of Kolar district found that 84.17 per
cent of the potato growers sold their produce through commission agents, while the remaining
15.83 per cent sold their produce through village level traders.

Shivamurthy (1991) conducted a study on arecanut and cardamom growers in


Shimoga district of Karnataka state and reported that the majority of the cardamom growers
sold their produce to the village traders (61.67%) followed by gardeners society (55.00%) and
commission agents (32.50%). None of the respondents had given cardamom to contractors.

Hanumanaikar (1995) in his study on the sunflower growers in Dharwad district found
that the majority of the respondents (91.50%) market their produce in the regulated market
and through commission agents and few respondents (8.50%) market their produce in the
village itself through traders.

Chandran (1997) conducted a study on knowledge and adoption of tapioca cultivating


practices in Ernakulam district of Kerala state and found that, majority of the tapioca growers
(70.70%) sold their produce to the consumer through the middlemen and 16.66 per cent
marketed their produce through the channel of middleman processing unit  trader 
consumer, a meager 1.67 per cent sold their produce to the consumer through the processing
unit and no respondents sold the produce directly to the consumer.

Mitrannavar (1997) investigated Marketing of potato in north Karnataka. An economic


analysis and revealed that, more than 100 per cent of the farmers in Belgaum district and 75
per cent of farmers in Hubli Market area directly sold their produce in regulated markets
through the commission agent-cum- wholesalers. Only 25 per cent of them disposed of their
produce to village merchants in Hubli area.
.Ragavendra (2005) carried out a study on marketing behaviour of cauliflower
growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka and reported that, majority of the farmers marketed
their product through commission agents (83.30%) where as, very few percentage of farmers
sold their produce by self marketing and expressed inadequate local market (16.60%).further,
majority suggested to establish exclusive market for cauliflower (63.30%) and storage
facilities (71.60%).

The above studies revealed that, majority of the farmers sold their produce through
commission agents.

2.5 Constraints in adoption of recommended cultivation practices


Kumar (1998) carried out a study on knowledge, adoption and economic performance
of banana growers in Bangalore district reported that, the farmers faced the problems of lack
of technical guidance, pests and diseases, high investment, low price for the fruits, fluctuation
in the prices and exploitation by the middleman.

Thyagarajan and Vasanthakumar (2000) conducted a study on constraints in getting


high yield in rice in south Arcot district of Tamil Nadu, and revealed that, ‘lack of reasonable
support price ’was found to be the first important constraint by 36.33% followed by ‘high cost
of inputs’ expressed by 34.00 per cent of respondents.

Mutkule et al. (2001) conducted a study on constraints in adoption of chilli technology


in Nanded district of Maharashtra, and observed that, majority of the respondents (93.33%)
experienced the constraints like ‘insecticides and pesticides were costly’ followed by
‘fluctuation of prices of chilli’ (86.00%).

Sunilkumar (2004) carried out a study on farmers knowledge and adoption of post
harvest technology in tomato crop of Belgaum district in Karnataka and reported that, majority
of the farmers (75.83%) faced the problem of lack of technical knowledge and guidance about
improved cultivation practices as well as post-harvest technology. Whereas, 65.00 per cent of
the respondents faced the problem of high fluctuation in market price followed by high
transportation cost (62.53%), labour shortage and high wages (55.83%) and lack of irrigation
facilities and power shortage (46.66%).

Thiranjangowda (2005) conducted a Study on Cultivation and Marketing Pattern of


Selected Cut Flowers in Belgaum District revealed that, high investment in poly house
(75.00%), problems of pests and diseases (65.00%), high cost of fertilizers (45.00%) and high
cost of plant protection chemicals (17.50%), are the main constraints regarding gerbera flower
cultivation.

It is evident from the above reviews that most important problems faced by the
respondents were lack of technical guidance, high cost of inputs and wide price fluctuation.
3. METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the general typology and description of the research methods and
procedures adopted in the present investigation are explained under the following major
headings:

3.1 Research design

3.2 Selection of the district

3.3 Selection of taluks

3.4 Selection of villages

3.5 Selection of respondents

3.6 Brief description of the study area

3.7 Variables for the study

3.8 Data collection

3.9 Statistical tools used

3.1 Research design


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

3.2 Selection of the district


The Research study was conducted in Dharwad district of Karnataka state, as this
district ranks second in area and production of soybean crop.

3.3 Selection of taluks


Keeping maximum area under soybean cultivation as criteria, the first two taluks viz.,
Kalaghatagi and Dharwad among the taluks of Dharwad district were selected for undertaking
the study.

Accordingly, Kalaghatagi taluk had an area of 6935.14 ha and Dharwad taluk had an
area of 1943 ha under soybean cultivation.

3.4 Selection of villages


The villages having maximum area under soybean cultivation were listed in
descending order in consultation with the state department of agriculture. From the list, first
five villages having maximum area were selected from each taluk as listed below:

Sl.No. Kalaghatagi taluk Dharwad taluk


villages villages

1. Hirehonnali Garag
2. Dhummawada Madhanbavi
3. Mishrikoti Managundi
4. Kurvinkoppa Navalur
5. B.Gudihal Mummigatti
Fig.1. Map showing study area
3.5 Selection of respondents
From each selected villages, fifteen farmers were selected by simple random
sampling procedure. Thus the sample from each taluka was 75 and making a total sample of
150 respondents.

3.6 Brief description of the study area


Location

Dharwad district is situated in Northern part of Karnataka state at 74028’ North latitude
0 ’
and 14 31 Eastern latitude. The district comes under the Northern transitional zone. It is
bounded by the Belgaum in the North, Haveri in the South; from North east to South east
bounded by Uttar Kannada district and North West to south west it is bounded by Gadag
district.

Climate

The district has healthy and conducive climate. The monsoon varies from April- May
to September-October with two peaks, one in July and other in September creating two
cropping seasons. The temperature ranges from a maximum of 39 0C to the minimum of 13
0
C.

Soil

The types of soils range from shallow to medium black and red sandy loam soils.

Rainfall

The annual rainfall ranging from 838.5 mm to 1235 mm, which is fairly well distributed
from April-May to September-October.

Irrigation facilities

Only 11.16 per cent of the total cultivable area is under irrigation in the district. The
major irrigation sources are canal (30651 ha).Ponds (257 ha), bore wells (11547 ha) and
other sources (454 ha).

Land utilization

The total geographical area of the district is (427329 ha) and about 77.06 per cent
area under cultivation (325549 ha), 8.24 per cent area under forest (35235 ha), around 3 per
cent under grazing land (3985 ha) and about 22.46 per cent of the area is sown more than
once (182780 ha).

Major crops

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

3.7 Selection of variables


3.7.1 Dependent variables
Considering the objectives of the study technological gap in critical farm operations of
Soybean was considered as the dependent variable. Critical farm operations were identified
based on discussion with Scientists and Extension Workers. The package of practices/
recommendations as given by University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) Dharwad was used
as the reference to assess the technological gap. The practices selected based on discussion
with subject matter specialists and their recommendations are as listed below.
Sl.
Name of the practice Recommendations
No.
1. Varieties J.S.335, P.K.1029, K.H.S.B.2, D.S.B.1
2. Sowing time i) Kharif : June15 to July end
ii) Rabi : Oct to Nov
ii) Summer : Middle of Sept to Dec end
3. Spacing in the field i) Row to Row 30 cm
ii) Plant to Plant 10 cm
4. Seed rate (acre) i) 20 Kg (J.S.335 )
ii) 25 Kg (Other variety)
5. Seed treatment i) Captan or Thiram 3 gm/Kg
ii) Vatavax 2 gm/Kg
6. Seed inoculation Rhizobium

7. FYM /acre 10 cart load/acre or 5 tonnes/acre

8. Chemical Fertilizers/acre N : 16kg/acre


P : 30 kg/acre
K : 10 kg/acre
Zink sulphate 5 Kg/acre
9. Time of application of fertilizers 10 cart load of FYM/Compost in soil 3 weeks
before sowing and entire dose of chemical
fertilizers, at the time of sowing.
10. Intercultural operations Hoeing and hand weeding 2 times after 30-40
days interval.
11. Weedicde i) 1 liter of allachlore 50 E.C in 400 liters of water
ii) 800 ml Chlomazon 50 E.C in 400 liters of water
iii) 15 gm Chlorimuran 25 E.C in 400 liters of
water
12. Plant protection measures:
Name of the pest Chemicals Dosage
a) 2ml/lit of water
Stem fly and Pod fly Prophenophos or
or
Mithomyl
0.6 gm/lit of water
b) Girdle beetle Phorate 4kg/acre
or or
Carbofuran 12kg/acre
Mixed in the soil at the
time of sowing.
c) Spodoptera, 1.25 mi/lit of water
Mobnocrotophos or
Semilooper and BHH or
Quinalphas
2 ml/lit of water
d) Leaf miner Monocrotophos 1.25 ml/lit of water
e) Thrips Phosphamedan
0.5 ml/lit of water
or Immidachloprid
13. Diseases : Disease control
Name of the diseases Chemicals Dosage
Purple seed stain Carbandizim 1 gm/lit of water
a) Bactrial leaf spot Agrimycin
0.5 gm/lit of water
Streptocyclin
or
or
2.5 gm/lit of water
Copperoxychloride
b) Rust Hexachonazol
1 ml/lit of water
Propiconozol
or
10 ml/lit of water
neem oil
c) Yellow mosaic Oxymetal methyl 10 ml/lit of water
or or
Trizonophos 1.5 ml/lit of water
d) Charcoal rot and Collar rot Thiram 2-3 gm/Kg of seeds
or captan or 2 gm

3.7.2 Operationalisation and measurement of dependent variables


Technological gap

Technological gap has been defined as the proportion of gap in the adoption of
practices recommended and it is expressed in percentage (Ray et. al., 1995). In the present
study technological gap was operationalised on the division in adoption of 12 recommended
Soybean cultivation practices by the farmers and expressed in percentage.

The technological gap of a particular practice expressed in percentage was:

Standard score – Actual score


Mean technological gap = x 100
Standard score

3.7.3 Knowledge and adoption level of recommended cultivation practices of


Soybean crop
3.7.3.1 Knowledge

It refers to the factual information possessed by farmers regarding recommended


cultivation practices of Soybean.

The “Teacher made test” suggested by Anastasi (1961) was employed to measure
the knowledge level of respondents. All the important operations of Soybean cultivation were
listed separately in consultation with the experts. The questions and answers were carefully
framed by referring to the package of practices of the University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad. The answers elicited from the farmers were quantified by giving ‘1’ score to correct
and ‘0’ to wrong answers.

Based on the response obtained, the knowledge level was quantified by using
frequency and percentage.

3.7.3.2 Adoption

It refers to the adoption of recommended cultivation practices of Soybean by the


beneficiaries as recommended by the UAS Dharwad package of practices book.

All the important operations in Soybean cultivation were listed. A total number of 14
common recommended practices were selected based on the judgment of the specialists.
The proper answers for these items were obtained with the help of package of practice book
and Soybean specialist of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad was quantified, by
giving ‘2’ score to full adoption,’1’score to partial adoption and ‘0’score to non- adoption.

Based on the responses obtained, the adoption level was quantified by using
frequency and percentage.

3.7.4 Independent variables


Personal, socio-economic and psychological characteristics of the respondents were
taken into consideration.
3.7.4.1 Age

It referred to the chronological age of the respondents in completed years at the time
of investigation. The procedure as followed by Raghavendra (2005) was used to quantify this
variable as

Category Age (years)

Young 18 – 30

Middle 31 – 50

Old 51 and above

3.7.4.2 Education

It was operationalized as the extent of formal education undergone by the rural


farmers. The respondents were grouped into different categories based on frequency and
percentage. The procedure followed by Vijay Kumar (1997) and also followed by
Raghavendra (2005).with slight modification was adopted.

Education Score

Illiterate 0

Primary school (1st – 4th std) 1

Middle school (5th – 7th std) 2


th th
High school (8 – 10 std) 3

PUC 4

Graduate 5

Post graduate 6

The maximum and minimum score obtained were 6 and 0, respectively.

3.7.4.3 Farming experience

It refers to total number of years of experience in cultivating soybean by the farmers.


The experience of the farmer in completed years at the time of investigation was considered
and the procedure followed by Padmaiah (1995) and as followed by Hanchinal (1999) was
used to categorize into three groups by taking mean standard deviation as measure of check.

Category Farming experience (years)

Low < 10
Medium 10 to 20
High > 20
3.7.4.4 Land holding

It refers to the number of acres of land possessed by the farmers. The criterion
prescribed by the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 38 of 1966 (Part B), 99, 195-96 under section
2(a) 32 as one acre of irrigated or garden land was equivalent to 3 acres of dry land.

The criterion prescribed by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India vide


th
circular No. 280-12/16/19 RD-III (Vol. II) dated 15 November 1991 and as followed by
Shashidhara (2003) and as followed by Raghavendra (2005) was used the respondents were
grouped into five different categories.

Category Land holding (in acres)

Marginal farmers Upto 2.50

Small farmers 2.51 – 5.00

Semi-medium farmers 5.01 – 10.00

Medium farmers 10.01 – 25.00

Big farmers Above 25.00

3.7.4.5 Annual income

It was operationalised by considering the total income earned by the respondents


both from agricultural and allied enterprises in one year as expressed in rupees. Based on
that, respondents were grouped into four categories as per the norms suggested by ministry
of rural development, Government of India (Anonymous, 1992) and as followed by Hanchinal
(1999) and Deepak (2003) with slight modifications.

Sl.No Category Annual income (Rs)

1. Low income group upto 17,000

2. Semi-medium income group 17,001 – 34,000

3. Medium income group 34,001 – 51,000

4. High income group above 51,000

Further, frequencies and percentage were used to present the data.

3.7.4.6 Extension participation

It refers to the extent of participation of farmers in different extension activities. This


variable was quantified by following the procedure as used by Raghavendra (2005) with slight
modification. A list of extension activities was prepared and the respondents were asked to
indicate their extent of participation in each of the activity. The scoring procedure followed
was as follows.
Sl. Extent of participation
Activities
No. Regularly Occasionally Never
1. Training programmes 2 1 0
2. Demonstrations 2 1 0
3. Field visits 2 1 0
4. Groups meetings 2 1 0
5. Exhibitions 2 1 0
6. Education tour 2 1 0

The data obtained was calculated by frequency and percentage.

3.7.4.7 Innovativeness

It is defined as a socio-psychological orientation of an individual to get linked or


closely associated with change, adopting innovative idea and practices.

This variable was quantified by using the innovativeness scale developed by Feaster
(1968) and as followed by Bhanu (2006) with slight modifications. The scales include eight
statements and were measured with three response category as ‘Agree’, ‘undecided’ and
‘disagree’. For the positive first four statements, a score of 2 was assigned to ‘agree’
response, a score of one for ‘undecided’ and zero score for ‘disagree’ response. The scoring
procedure was reversed in case of negative statements. The summation of the scores
obtained by the respondent for all the eight statements indicated his innovativeness score.

Based on the total scores, the respondents were grouped into three categories by
using mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.

Category Score

Low Less than (mean – 0.425 SD)

Medium Between (mean + 0.425 SD)

High More than (mean + 0.425 SD)

3.7.4.8 Risk orientation

It refers to the degree to which a farmer is oriented towards risk and uncertainty and
has courage to face the problems in farming. Risk orientation was measured with the help of
risk orientation scale developed by Supe (1969) and as followed by Amol (2006). This scale
included six items of which first and fifth items were negative and rest four were positive.
These items were rated on a three point continuum namely, agree, undecided and disagree
with weightages of 3, 2 and 1 for positive statements and 1, 2 and 3 for negative items,
respectively.

Based on the total scores, the respondents were grouped into three categories by
using mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.
Sl. No. Category Risk Orientation (Score)

1 Low Less than (mean – 0.425 SD)

2 Medium Between (mean + 0.425 SD)

3 High More than (mean + 0.425 SD)

3.7.4.9 Economic Motivation

Economic orientation was operationally defined as the degree to which a farmer was
oriented towards profit maximization in farming and the relative value placed by the farmer on
economic ends. The scale developed by Supe (1969) and as followed by Chandrasekhar
(2007) with suitable modification to quantify this variable. The scale consisted of six
statements of which one statement was negative. The responses were obtained on a three
Point continuum with scoring as follows.

Category A UD DA

Score for positive statements 3 2 1

Score for negative statements 1 2 3

The maximum score an individual could obtain on this scale was 18 and minimum
score was six.

Based on the total score the respondents were classified into three categories as
follows.

Category Score range

Low 6-9
Medium 10-13
High 14-18

3.7.4.10 Marketing pattern of the respondents

Respondents were asked to indicate when and where they sell their produce. The
responses thus obtained were expressed in frequency and percentage.

3.7.4.11 Constraints faced by respondents

The constraints in adoption of recommend cultivation practices of the soybean crop of


the study area elicited through open end questions. Based on the responses obtained from
the soybean growers, Frequency and percentages were calculated for each of the constraints
faced by them.
3.8 Method of data collection
The information was elicited from the respondents with the help of structured
interview schedule. The tentatively prepared schedule was presented in a non-sample area to
pre-test the relevancy and practicability. Based on the experience gained, the schedule was
modified wherever needed and finalized. The final schedule was used to elicit the information
from the respondents by personal interview technique.

3.9 Statistical tools


The statistical tools such as mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage, were
employed wherever found appropriate and the data were analyzed to draw valid inferences.
4. RESULTS
The results of the study are presented in this chapter under the following headings.
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers
4.2 Knowledge level of farmers about the soybean cultivation practices
4.3 Extent of technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation practices
4.4 Marketing pattern of soybean growers
4.5 Constraints in adoption of recommended cultivation practices by the soybean growers

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers


4.1.1 Age
The data in Table 1 reveals that 30.00 per cent of the respondents belonged to
young age group, followed by middle age with 62.00 per cent and only 8.00 per cent belonged
to old age group.
4.1.2 Education
It is clear from the Table 1 that, majority of the respondents had high school
education (31.33%) while, 25.33 per cent were illiterate. The other respondents were
educated upto primary school (18.67%), middle school (13.33%), PUC (8.67%) and graduate
level (2.67%).
4.1.3 Farming experience
The results in Table 1 indicate that, majority (58.67 %) of the respondents had
medium farming experience (10 to 20 years), while (30.66 %) of the respondents had high
farming experience (more than 20 years) and 10.66 per cent of respondents had low farming
experience.
4.1.4 Land holding
The data revealed that 45.33 per cent of farmers belonged medium land holding
category (10–25.0 acres) while 22.67 per cent of them belonged to semi-medium land holding
category (5.01–10.0 acres), whereas 16.67 per cent of them were small farmers (2.51 – 5.0
acres) 10.66 per cent were marginal farmers (<2.5 acres) and 4.67 per cent belonged to big
land holding category (>25 acres).
4.1.5 Annual income
Regarding annual income, it was observed in Table 1, 54 per cent of the respondents
had high level of annual income (> Rs.51,000), 28.67 per cent had medium annual income
(Rs.43,000-51,000),15.33 per cent of them belonged to semi-medium annual income (Rs.
17,001-34000) and only 2 per cent of them had low income (Rs.<17,000).
4.1.6 Innovativeness
The data presented in Table 1 reveals the innovativeness of the respondents that,
52.00 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium innovativeness category, followed by
high (32.67%) and low (15.33%).
The data presented in the Table 2 indicate the response of respondents towards the
individual items that, about 28.66 per cent of the respondents agree to the statement of ‘very
much interested in learning new ways of farming’, followed by 40.00 and 31.34 per cent of the
respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively.
Whereas, 47.34 per cent of the respondents expressed their disagreement to the
statement of ‘agricultural extension workers gives a talk on improved aspect of agriculture
would you attend’, followed by 34.66 and 18.00 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’
and ‘agree’.
Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers
(n = 150)
Sl. No Variable Category Number Percentage
Personal Characteristics

1. Young age (18-30 yrs) 45 30.00


Age Middle age (31-50 yrs) 93 62.00
Old age (above 50 yrs) 12 8.00

2. Illiterate 38 25.33
Primary 28 18.67
Middle school 20 13.33
Education
High school 47 31.33
PUC 13 8.67
Graduate 4 2.67
PG 0 0.00
3. < 10 Years 16 10.66
Farming 10 to 20 Years 88 58.67
experience
> 20 Years 46 30.66

Socio-economic characteristics

4. Marginal farmers (< 2.5 acres) 16 10.66


Small farmers (2.51-5.0 acres) 25 16.67
Semi-medium farmers (5.01-10 34 22.67
Land holding
acres)
Medium farmers (10.00-25 68 45.33
acres)
Big farmers (> 25 acres) 7 4.66
5. Low (upto Rs 17,000) 3 2.00
Semi medium (Rs 17,001 - 23 15.33
34,000)
Annual income Medium (Rs 43,001 – 51,000) 43 28.67
High (above Rs 51,000) 81 54.00
Psychological characteristics

6. Innovativeness Low (Mean – 0.425SD) 23 15.33


Medium (Mean ± 0.425SD) 78 52.00
High (Mean + 0.425SD) 49 32.67
7. Risk orientation Low (Mean – 0.425SD) 32 21.33
Medium (Mean ± 0.425SD) 88 58.67
High (Mean + 0.425SD) 30 20.00
8. Economic Low (Mean – 0.425SD) 28 18.67
motivation
Medium (Mean ± 0.425SD) 78 52.00
High (Mean + 0.425SD) 44 29.33

9. Low (Mean – 0.425SD) 34 22.67


Market Medium (Mean ± 0.425SD) 98 65.33
orientation
High (Mean + 0.425SD) 18 12.00
62.00
70.00

60.00

Percentage 50.00

40.00 30.00

30.00

20.00 8.00

10.00

0.00
Young age (18-30 yrs) Middle age (31-50 yrs) Old age (above 50 yrs)
Age

35.00 31.33

30.00 25.33
25.00
Percentage

18.67
20.00
13.33
15.00
8.67
10.00

5.00 2.67
0.00
0.00
Illiterate Primary Middle High PUC Graduate PG
school school
Education

58.67
60.00

50.00

40.00 30.66
Percentage

30.00

20.00 10.66

10.00

0.00
< 10 Years 10 to 20 Years More than 20 Years
Farming experiance

Fig.2. Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers


50.00 45.33

45.00
40.00
35.00

Percentage
30.00
22.67
25.00
16.67
20.00
15.00 10.66
10.00 4.66
5.00
0.00
M arginal f armers (< Small f armers (2.51- Semi-medium f armers M edium farmers Big f armers (> 25
2.5 acres) 5.0 acres) (5.01-10 acres) (10.00-25 acres) acres)
Land holding

54.00
60.00

50.00

40.00
Percentage

28.67
30.00
15.33
20.00

10.00 2.00

0.00
Lo w (upto Rs 17,000) Semi medium (Rs M edium (Rs 43,001– High (abo ve Rs
17,001-34,000) 51,000) 51,000)
Annual iincome

52.00
60.00

50.00

32.67
40.00
Percentage

30.00
15.33
20.00

10.00

0.00
Low Medium High
Innovativeness

Fig.2.Contd…
58.67

60.00

50.00

40.00
Percentage 21.33
30.00 20.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
Low M edium High
Risk orientation

52.00
60.00

50.00

40.00 29.33
Percentage

30.00 18.67

20.00

10.00

0.00
Lo w M edium High
Economic motivation

65.33
70.00

60.00

50.00
Percentage

40.00
22.67
30.00
12.00
20.00

10.00

0.00
Low Medium High
Market orientation

Fig.2. Contd….
Table 2: Innovativeness of the respondents towards individual items
(n=150)

Agree Undecided Disagree


Sl.
Statements
No.
No. % No. % No. %

Do you want to learn new ways of


1 43 28.66 60 40.00 47 31.34
farming

If the agricultural extension worker


2 gives a talk on improved aspects of 27 18.00 52 34.66 71 47.34
agriculture would you attend?

If the government would help you to


3 establish a farm elsewhere, would you 02 1.33 46 30.67 102 68.00
move?

Do you want a change in your way of


4 18 12.00 46 30.67 86 57.33
life?

A rural youth should try to farm the way


5 36 24.00 54 36.00 60 40.00
his parents did?

6. Do you want your sons to be farmers? 00 0 22 14.67 128 85.33

7. It is better to enjoy today and let


16 10.66 30 20.00 104 69.34
tomorrow take care of itself

8. A man’s fortune is in the hands of god 34 22.66 48 32.00 68 45.35


While, 68.00 per cent of the respondents said ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘if the government
would help you to establish a farm elsewhere, would you move’, followed by 30.67 per cent
undecided and 1.33 per cent were agreed.
Majority (57.33%) of the respondents were ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘do you want
to change in your way of life’, followed by 30.67 and 12.00 per cent of the respondents said
‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively.
It is observed that, 24.00 per cent of the respondents ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘rural
youth should try to farm the way his parents did’, followed by undecided (36.00%) and
disagree (40.00%).
About 85.33 per cent of the respondents said ‘disagree’ to the statement of ‘do you
want your sons to be farmer’, followed by undecided (14.67%) and it is interesting to note that
none of the farmers ‘agree’ of this statement.
Further, 10.66 per cent of the respondents ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘it is better to
enjoy today and let tomorrow take care of itself’, followed by 20.00 and 69.34 per cent of the
respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to the same statement, respectively.
Whereas, the 22.66 per cent of the respondents ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘a man’s
fortune is in the hands of god’, followed by 32.00 and 45.35 per cent of the respondents said
undecided and disagree, respectively.
4.1.7 Risk orientation
The data presented in Table 1 reveals the risk orientation of respondents and
indicated that, 58.67 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium level of risk orientation
category followed by high (20.00%) and low (21.33%).
The data in Table 3 reveals that, the risk orientation of the respondents towards the
individual items and indicated that, about 45.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the
statement of ‘growing to large number of crops mainly helps to avoid higher risk involved in
growing one or two crops’, followed by ‘undecided’(30.00%) and ‘disagree’ (24.66%).
While, 37.34 per cent ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should rather take more
of chance in making big profits than to be content with a smaller but less risky profits’,
followed by ‘undecided’ (22.66%) and ‘disagree’(40.00%).
Whereas, 41.34 per cent of the respondents expressed their ‘agreement’ to the
statement of ‘a farmer who is willing to take greater risk than the average farmer usually does
better financially’, followed by ‘undecided’ (32.00%) and ‘disagree’(26.66%).
Further, 32.00 per cent of the respondents, ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘it is good for
a farmer to take risk when he know his chance of success is fairly high followed by
‘disagree’(37.54%) and ‘undecided’(30.66%).
While, the 24.00 per cent of the respondents, ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘it is better
for a farmer not to try new farming methods unless most others have used them successfully’,
followed by 44.66 and 31.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to
the same statement, respectively.
About 32.00 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘trying of
entirely new methods in farming involves risk but, it is worthy followed by 28.00 and 40.00 pr
cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively.
4.1.8 Economic motivation
The data in table 1 indicated that, 52 per cent of the respondents belonged to
medium economic motivation category followed by 29.33 per cent and 18.67 per cent
belonged to high and low economic motivation category respectively.
The data in Table 4 revealed the economic motivation of soybean growers. About
65.33 per cent of the farmers said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘a farmer should work towards
more yield and economic profit’, followed by ‘undecided’ (30.00%) and ‘disagree’ (4.66%).
Table 3: Risk orientation of respondents towards individual items
(n=150)

Agree Undecided Disagree


Sl. No. Statements
No. % No. % No. %

1. A farmer should grow large


number of crops to avoid
68 45.34 45 30.00 37 24.66
greater risks involved in
growing one or two crops

2. A farmer should rather take


more of a chance in making a
big profit than to be content 56 37.34 34 22.66 60 40.00
with a smaller but less risky
profits

3. A farmer who is willing to take


greater risks than the average
62 41.34 48 32.00 40 26.66
farmer, usually does better
financially

4. It is good for a farmer to take


risks when he knows his 48 32.00 46 30.66 62 41.34
chance of success is fairly high

5. It is better for a farmer not to


try new farming methods
36 24.00 67 44.66 47 31.34
unless most other farmers
have used them with success

6. Trying an entirely new method


in farming by a farmer involves, 48 32.00 42 28.00 60 40.00
risk but it is worth
Whereas, 41.33 per cent of the respondents expressed their agreement to the
statement of ‘the most successful farmer is one who makes more profits’, followed by
‘undecided’ (25.33%) and ‘disagree’ (33.33%).
While, 45.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘a farmer
should grow cash crops to increase monetary profits in comparison to growing food crops for
home consumption’, followed by ‘undecided’ (32.00%) and ‘disagree’ (22.66%).
About 30.66 per cent of the respondents expressed their agreement to the statement
of ‘the farmer should try the new farming ideas which may earn him more money’, followed by
28.00 and 41.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively.
Further, 29.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘it is
difficult for the farmer’s children to make good start unless he provides them with economic
assistance’, followed by ‘undecided’ (46.00%) and ‘disagree’ (24.66%).
While, 27.34 per cent of the farmers said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘a farmer must
earn his living but the most important thing in life cannot be defined in economic terms’
followed by, 28.00 and 44.66 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to
the same statement, respectively.
4.1.9 Market orientation
The data presented in Table 1 reveal that majority of the respondents (65.33%) had
‘medium’ level of market orientation, followed by 22.67 per cent and 12.00 per cent of the
respondents had low and high level of market orientation, respectively.
4.1.10 Extension participation
The data related to extension participation presented in Table 5 indicated that, 19.34
per cent of the respondents were participated occasionally in meetings, whereas, 70.00 per
cent never participated and 10.66 per cent of the respondents participated regularly,
respectively.
The results indicated that, 28.66 per cent, of the respondents participated
occasionally in demonstration. Whereas, 48.00 per cent of the respondents never participated
and 23.34 per cent of the respondents participated regularly.
Further, it can be observed that, the 25.33 per cent of the respondents occasionally
participated in training programme, whereas 60.00 never participated and 14.67 per cent
never and regularly participated.
Regarding educational tour the result indicated that, 59.34 per cent of the
respondents never participated, whereas, 31.33 per cent occasionally participated and 9.33
per cent regularly participated.
With respect to field days it was observed that, 65.33 per cent of the respondents
never participated, whereas, 22.67 per cent had occasionally participated and 12.00 per cent
regularly participated.
A perusal of Table 5 revealed that, 18.00 per cent of the respondents participated
occasionally in group discussion, whereas, 62.66 per cent never participated and 19.34 per
cent of respondents participated regularly.
In case of field visits, the majority of the respondents (69.34%) never participated in
field visit. While, 17.33 per cent participated occasionally and 13.33 per cent of them regularly
visited.
Regarding Krishimela it was observed that, 50.66 per cent of the respondents
participated regularly, whereas, 30.67 per cent of the respondents never visited Krishimela
and 18.67 per cent of them visited occasionally.

4.2 Knowledge level of the soybean growers about individual


recommended cultivation practices
Majority of the soybean growers had knowledge about recommended varieties
(86.67%), followed by sowing time (94.67%), seed rate (89.33%), seed treatment (44.66%)
Table 4: Economic motivation of respondents towards individual items
(n=150)

Agree Undecided Disagree


Sl. No. Statements
No. % No. % No. %

1. A farmer should work towards more


98 65.33 45 30.0 7 4.67
yields and economic profits

2. The most successful farmer is one


62 41.33 38 25.33 50 33.33
who makes more profits

3. A farmer should grow cash crops to


increase monetary profits in
68 45.34 48 32.00 34 22.66
comparison to growing food crops for
home consumption

4. The farmer should try the new


farming ideas which may earn him 46 30.66 42 28.0 63 42.00
more money

5. It is difficult for the farmers children


to make good start unless he
provides them with economic 44 29.34 69 46.0 37 24.66

assistance

6. A farmer must earn his living but the


most important thing in life cannot be 41 27.34 42 28.0 67 44.66
defined in economic terms

Table 5: Extension Participation


( n=150)
Extent of participation
Extension activities Regular Occasional Never
No. % No. % No. %
1 Meetings 16 10.66 29 19.34 105 70.00
2 Demonstrations 35 23.34 43 28.66 72 48.00
3 Training programmes 22 14.67 38 25.33 90 60.00
4 Educational tours 14 9.33 47 31.33 89 59.34
5 Field days 18 12.00 34 22.67 98 65.33
6 Group discussions 29 19.34 27 18.00 94 62.66
7 Field visits 20 13.33 26 17.33 104 69.34
8 Krishimela 76 50.66 28 18.67 46 30.67
\

70.00 70.00 69.34


65.33
62.66
60.00 59.34
60.00

50.66
48.00
50.00

40.00
Percentage

31.33 30.67

30.00 28.66
25.33
23.34
22.67
19.34 19.34
18.00 18.67
20.00 17.33
14.67
13.33
12.00
10.66
9.33
10.00

0.00
Meetings Demonstrations Training Educational tours Field days Group discussions Field visits Krishimela
programmes
Extension activities

Fig.3. Extension participation


and only 21.33 per cent of the respondents had knowledge about seed inoculation with
rhizobium culture.
Regarding other recommended cultivation practices, 98.00 per cent and 88.00 per
cent of the respondents had knowledge of about FYM application and spacing. Whereas, with
regard to chemical fertilizers 88.00 per cent of them had knowledge about application of
nitrogenous fertilizers followed by phosphorus (96.00%), potash (65.33%) and zinc sulphate
(25.33%).
Further, 90.67 per cent of respondents had knowledge about correct time of chemical
fertilizer application at the time of sowing.
In case inter cultural operations i.e., two times hoeing and two times hand weeding,
the respondents had knowledge about 98.67 and 89.33 per cent, respectively.
Majority (63.33%) of the respondents had knowledge about weed control; followed by
pest control (58.67%) and disease control (62.67%).
4.2.1 Overall Knowledge level of soybean growers about improved cultivation
practices
A perusal of the data in Table 7 indicated that, overall knowledge level of the
respondents about recommended cultivation practices.
Majority of the respondents (70.66%) had medium level of knowledge about
recommended cultivation practices of soybean followed by high (18.00%) and low (11.34%)
knowledge level categories, respectively.
4.2.2 Extent of adoption of recommended practices by soybean growers
A perusal of Table 8 indicated that, 96.00 and 86.67 per cent of the respondents had
adopted the variety and sowing time as per the recommendation, While, 13.33 per cent of the
respondents were partially adopted the time of sowing. Majority (85.37%) of the respondents
adopted recommended spacing. Regarding seed rate 80.67 per cent of the respondents were
using recommended seed rate. However, 14.00 per cent of the respondents were partially
adopted and 5.33 per cent were not adopted recommended seed rate. 39.33 per cent of the
respondents were treating the seeds while, 60.67 per cent of the respondents were not
adopted the seed treatment practice. It was further observed that 27.33 per cent of the
respondents were treating seeds with rhizobium culture. While, 72.67 per cent of them were
not following the seed inoculation practice and 80.66 per cent of the respondents applied
recommended farm yard manure and among them only 19.33 per cent of the respondents
were partially adopted and it is interesting to note that none of the respondents indicated that
they are not applying FYM to their field.
Further, 86.66 per cent of the respondents applied nitrogenous fertilizer, out of which
4.00 per cent of the respondents partially adopted. Whereas, 12.66 per cent of the
respondents did not apply any nitrogenous fertilizers to their field.
With respect to phosphatic fertilizers majority of the respondents (86.66%) were fully
adopted whereas 5.33 per cent of the respondents partially adopted and 8.00 per cent who
did not apply any phosphatic fertilizer at all.
The data presented in the table 8 reveals that, 37 per cent of the respondents applied
potashic fertilizer; whereas only 9.33 per cent were partially practicing and 53.33 per cent of
the respondents did not apply potash. With regard to application of zinc sulphate, only 12.00
per cent of the respondents were fully adopted whereas, 88.00 per cent of the respondents
did not apply zinc sulphate to their field.
Eighty three per cent of the respondents adopted correct time of chemical fertilizer
application to their and only ten per cent of the respondents were not at all practicing correct
time of chemical fertilizer application.
Further hundred per cent of the respondents are practicing hoeing as an intercultural
operation to loosen the soil and to control weeds. Whereas 68.00 per cent respondents
practiced weeding and 32.00 per cent of the respondents partially adopted.
Table 6: Knowledge level of soybean growers about recommended cultivation practices
(n=150)

Sl.
Practices Number Percentage
No.

1. Recommended Varieties (J.S.335 P.K.1029, 130 86.67


K.H.S.B.2,K.B.79)

2. Sowing time

a) Kharif : July 15 to Jun end 142 94.67

b) Rabi : Oct to Nov 70 46.67

3. Spacing in the field (30 x 10 cm) 132 88.00

4. Seed rate (acre)

a) 20 Kg (J.S.335 ) 134 89.33

b) 25 Kg (Other variety) 98 65.33

5. Seed treatment (Captan or Thiram 3gm/kg) 67 44.66

6. Seed inoculation (Rhizobium culture - 150 gm ) 32 21.33

7. FYM ( 10 cart load/acre or 5 tones/acre ) 147 98.00

8. Chemical Fertilizer

a) N : 16kg/acre 132 88.00

b) P : 30 kg/acre 144 96.00

c) K : 10 kg/acre 82 65.33

d) Zink sulphate (5 Kg) 38 25.33

9. Time of application of chemical fertilizers 136 90.67

10. Intercultural operation

a. Hoeing (2 times) 148 98.67

b. Hand weeding (2 times) 134 89.33

11. Weedicide application (Allachlore, Chlomazon, 95 63.33


Chlorimuran)
12. Pest control (Stem fly and pod fly, girdle beetle, 88 58.67
Spodoptera,Semilooper and Black headed hairy
caterpillars, Leaf miner, Thrips)
13. Disease control (Purple seed stain, Bacterial leaf spot, 94 62.67
Rust, Yellow mosaic, Charcoal rot and Collar rot)
100.00 98.00 98.67
94.67 96.00
90.67
90.00
86.67 88.00 89.33 88.00 89.33

80.00

70.00
65.33 65.33
63.33 62.67
60.00 58.67
Percentage

50.00
46.67
44.66
40.00

30.00
25.33
21.33
20.00

10.00

0.00
t

ith

re

ng

l
es

ty

l
if

Zn

ro
ab

ro
en
ar

in

in
33

io

cid
rie

ac
iti

di

nt
nt
ac

oe
R

at
m
Kh

S.
re

ee

di
va

d/

co

co
n

ic
at
Sp

H
io
J.

ee
Va

ie

pl

w
tre
er

se
st
at

pl

ap

W
d

Pe
th

ul

ap

ea
ed

an
O

oc

of

is
Se

H
be
in

D
m
ed

to

Ti
Se

M
FY

Sowing time Seed rate Chemical fertilizer/acre Intercultural operation

Practices

Fig.4. Knowledge level of soybean growers about recommended cultivation practices


Table 7: Overall Knowledge level of soybean Growers about recommended cultivation
practices
(n= 150)

Sl. No. Category Number Percentage

1. Low (Mean-0.425 SD) 27 18.00

2. Medium (Mean ± 0.425 SD) 106 70.66

3. High (> Mean + 0.425 SD) 17 11.34

Total 150 100

Mean = 26.50 SD = 3.65


80.00 70.66

70.00

60.00

50.00
Percentage

40.00

30.00
18.00

11.34
20.00

10.00

0.00
Low Medium High

Fig.5. Overall knowledge level of soybean Growerrs about recommended cultivation practices
Table 8: Adoption level of soybean growers about recommended cultivation practices
(n=150)
Extent of Adoption
Sl. No. Cultivation practices FA PA NA

No. % No. % No. %

1. Recommended Variety (J.S.335, 146 96.00 00 0.00 6 4.00


P.K.1029, K.H.S.B.2, D.S.B.1)
2. Sowing time 130 86.67 20 13.33 0.00 0.00
(Before second week of july )
3. Spacing 126 85.33 20 13.33 4 2.66

4. Seed rate (25 kg/acre) 121 80.67 21 14.00 8 5.33


5. Seed treatment (Thiram or captan) 59 39.33 0 0.00 91 60.67

6. Seed inoculation (Rhizobium) 41 27.33 0 0.00 109 72.67

7. Application of FYM 121 80.66 29 19.33 0 0.00


( 10 C.L/acre)
8. Chemical fertilizer application

a. Application of nitrogenous 130 86.66 6 4.00 19 12.66


fertilizers (16 kg/acre)
b. Application of phophatic fertilizers 130 86.66 8 5.33 12 8.00
(32 kg/acre)

c. Application potassic fertilizers (10 56 37.33 14 9.33 80 53.33


kg/acre)
d. Application of zinc sulphate 18 12.00 0 0.00 132 88.00
(5 kg/acre)

9. Time of application of chemical 125 83.33 15 10.00 10 6.67


fertilizers
(At the time of sowing )
10. Intercultural operation

a. Hoeing (2 times) 150 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

b. Hand weeding (2 times) 102 68.00 48 32.00 0 0.00

11. Weedicide application 62 41.33 18 12.00 70 46.66


(Allachlore or chlomazone or
chlorimuran)
12. Plant protection measures 72 48.00 05 5.33 73 48.66
(1 or 2 spray)
Table 9: Technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation practices
(n =150)
Sl. No Recommended cultivation practices Mean technological gap
1. Application of zinc sulphate 88.00

2. Seed inoculation 72.67

3. Seed treatment 60.67


4. Application potassic fertilizers 58.00

5. Weed control measures 53.00

6. Plant protection measures 50.33


7. Hand weeding 16.00

8. FYM application 15.00

9. Application of nitrogenous fertilizers 14.67


10. Sowing time 13.33

11. Seed rate 12.67

12. Time of application of chemical fertilizers 11.67


13. Application of phophatic fertilizers 11.33

14. Spacing 9.33

15. Variety 6.67


16. Hoeing 0.00
90.00 88.00

80.00
72.67

70.00
60.67
60.00 58.00
53.00
50.33
Percentage

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00 16.00 15.00 14.67


13.33 12.67
11.67 11.33
9.33
10.00 6.67

0.00
0.00
t e n t s s s g n s e te s rs g ty g
ha tio en er re re in tio er tim ra er ze in rie in
a m liz su su ed ca iz iliz tili ac oe
lp ul at r ti e i til g d t Va
su oc tre fe e a e a w p l
fe
r i n
Se
e
fe
r
fe
r Sp H
c in c lm m d ap us So
w
al tic
in
ed ed si ro n an ic
of
z
Se as nt tio H YM no m ha
Se po
t
co t e c F ge e op
tio
n
n d ro tro ch ph
a tio ee tp ni of of
ic an of n
pl il ca W l t i o i on
Ap p P io
n
ic
a at
Ap ic
at pl lic
pl ap A pp
p o f
A e
m
Ti
Cultivation practices

Fig.6. Technological gap in adoption of recommendede soybean cultivation practices


Table 10: Overall Technological gap among the soybean cultivation practices
(n= 150)

Sl. No. Category Number Percentage

1. Low (Mean-0.425SD) 34 22.67

2. Medium (Mean ± 0.425SD) 92 61.33

3. High (> Mean + 0.425SD) 24 16.00

Total 150 100

Mean = 50.06 SD = 3.64


70.00 61.33

60.00

50.00
Percentage

40.00

22.67
30.00
16.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
Low Medium High

Fig.7. Overall Technological gap among the soybean cultivation practices


Table 11: Marketing pattern followed by the soybean growers
(n=150)
Sl.No. Statements Number Percentage
1. Source of price information

a. News paper 24 16.00

b. Radio 14 9.33
c. Personal visit to market 48 32.00

d. Relatives, neighbours, friends of who visit market 64 42.67

2. Selling
a. Local market at village level 66 46.00

b. APMC 84 56.00

3. Time of selling the produce


a. Sale after the harvest if prices are favorable 112 74.67

b. Store for some time and selling the produce 38 25.33

4. Mode of transportation
a. Bullock cart 32 21.33

b. Trucks 49 32.67

c. Tractor 66 44.00
d. Bus 03 2.00

5. Grading

i. Followed 28 18.67
a. Size and shape 12 42.86

b. Shrinked / Shrivelled 16 57.14


ii. Not Followed 122 81.33

6. Storage

i. Followed 82 54.67
a. Gunny bags 72 87.80

b. Metal bins 10 12.20

ii. Not Followed 68 45.33


42.67
45.00
40.00
32.00
35.00
30.00
Percentage
25.00
16.00
20.00
15.00 9.33

10.00
5.00
0.00
News paper Radio Personal visit t o mar ket Relat ives, neighbour s, f riends of
who visit mar ket
Sources of price information
ation

56.00

60.00 46.00

50.00

40.00
Percentage

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
Local market at village level APMC
Selling

74.67

80.00
70.00
60.00
Percentage

50.00 25.33
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Sale after the harvest if prices are Store for some time and selling the
favorable produce
Time of selling the produce

Fig.8. Marketing pattern followed by the soybean growers


44.00
45.00
40.00 32.67
35.00
30.00

Percentage
21.33
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
2.00
5.00
0.00
Bullock cart Trucks Tractor Bus
Mode of transportation

56.00
60.00
44.00
50.00

40.00
Percentage

28.00
30.00
16.00
20.00

10.00

0.00
Follow ed Size and shape Shrinked / Not Follow ed
Shrivelled
Grading

60.00 54.67

48.00
45.33
50.00

40.00
Percentage

30.00

20.00

6.67
10.00

0.00
Follow ed Gunny bags Metal bin Not Follow ed
Storage

Fig.8. Contd……
Forty one per cent of the respondents adopted recommended weedicide application. While,
18.00 per cent of them partially adopted and 46.66 per cent of the respondents they never
practicing weedicide application to their field.
It was found that, 48.00 per cent of the respondents were, fully adopted the plant
protection measures followed by 5.33 per cent partially adopted whereas, 48.66 per cent of
the respondents not at all practicing the plant protection measures.

4.3 Technological gap among the respondents


Table 9 shows the mean technological gap among the farmers, in respect of the
recommended cultivation practices of soybean. More than fifty per cent of technological gap
was found in some of the practices like application of zinc sulphate (88.00%), seed
inoculation with rhizobium culture (72.67%), seed treatment with captan or thiram (60.67%),
potassic fertilizer (58.00%) and plant protection measures (50.33%). The gap in respect of
hand weeding, FYM application and application of nitrogen were comparatively less with
16.00 per cent, 15.00 per cent and 14.67 per cent respectively. The technological gap in case
of sowing time, seed rate and application of phosphorous were, 13.33 per cent, 12.67 per
cent and 11.33 per cent respectively. There was very least 9.33 per cent and 6.67 per cent of
technological gap found with respect to spacing and variety respectively.
4.3.1 Distribution of the respondents based on overall technological gap
Table 10 shows that, majority of the respondents (61.33%) belonged to medium
category of technological gap, followed by low (22.67%) and high (16.00%) category of
technological gap.

4.4 Marketing pattern followed by soybean growers


The data presented in Table 11 reveals that, 42.67 per cent collect the price
information from their relatives, friends and neighbours who visit the market followed by,
personal visit to the market (32.00%) and through news papers (16.00%).
Majority of the respondents (56.00%) sold their produce in APMC followed by selling
local market at village level (38.66%).
About 74.67 per cent of the respondents reported that, they sell their produce
immediately after the harvest if the prices are favorable. While, 25.33 per cent of the
respondents store their produce for some time to get better price if the prices are less at the
time of harvest.
It could be seen from the Table 11 that, a vast majority of the farmers had transported
their produce to for off places, to market. Among the farmers who have transported their
produce to for off places, a majority of them by using tractor (44.00%), followed by truck
(32.67%), tempo (13.33%) and by bus (2.00%).
The Table 11 indicates that, only 18.67 per cent of the respondents had followed
grading of the produce and remaining 81.33 per cent of the respondents were not practicing
the grading of the produce. Whereas 42.86 per cent of the respondents had graded based on
shrinked /shriveled grains and remaining 57.14 per cent of the respondents had graded by
size and shape.
Further, Majority of the respondents (54.67%) had followed storage of their produce
and remaining 45.33 per cent of the respondents not stored their produce. However, 87.80
per cent of the farmers stored in gunny bag and 12.20 per cent of the farmers stored in metal
bins.

4.5 Constraints faced by the soybean growers


The data in Table 12 indicates the constraints faced by farmers in adoption of
recommended Cultivation practices. In order of priority were; Majority of the farmers (88.00%)
indicated ‘High cost of inputs’, shortage of labours (85.33%), and lack of knowledge of
disease control (77.33%).Whereas, 74.67 per cent of the farmers expressed non-availability
of ‘rhizobium, thiram and zinc sulphate. 70.67 per cent of the farmers expressed fluctuation in
the market price’. More than 50.00 per cent of the farmers expressed ‘financial constraints
(58.67%), non-availability of inputs in time (52.67%), ‘heavy risk due to failure of monsoon
rains (37.33%), some of them also expressed lack of timely advisory Service (36.67%) and
non-availability of drought tolerant crop varieties (24.00%) as some of the constraints of
farmers.

Table 12: Constraints faced by the soybean growers


(n=150)

Respondents
Sl. No. Constraints
Number Percentage

1. High cost of inputs 132 88.00

2. Shortage of labours 128 85.33

3. Lack of knowledge about disease control 116 77.33

4. Non availability of rhizobium,thiram and zinc 112 74.67


sulphate

5. Fluctuation in the price 106 70.67

6. Financial constraints 88 58.67

7. Non-availability of inputs in time 79 52.67

8. Heavy risk due to failure of monsoon rains 56 37.33

9. Lack of timely advisory service 55 36.67

10. Non-availability of drought tolerant varieties 36 24.00


88.00
90.00 85.33

77.33
80.00 74.67
70.67
70.00

58.67
60.00
52.67
Percentage

50.00

40.00 37.33 36.67

30.00
24.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
High cost of Shortage of Lack of Non availability of Fluctuation in the Financial Non-availability of Heavy risk due to Lack of timely Non-availability of
inputs labours knowledge about rhizobium,thiram price constraints inputs in time failure of advisory service drought tolerant
disease control and zinc sulphate monsoon rains varieties
Constraints

Fig.9. Constraints faced by the soybean growers


5. DISCUSSION
The results of the study are discussed in this chapter under the following headings.

5.1 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers

5.2 Knowledge level of farmers about the soybean cultivation practices

5.3 Extent of technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation


practices

5.4 Marketing pattern of soybean growers

5.5 Constraints in adoption of recommended cultivation practices by the soybean growers

5.1 Socio-economic characteristics of soybean growers


5.1.1 Age
The results presented in Table 1 revealed that, 62.00 per cent of respondents were
found to be middle age category (31-50 years). About 30.00 per cent of the respondents
belonged to young age category of 18-30 years and 8.00 per cent of the respondents
belonged to old age category of above 50 years.

Farmers of middle age with more farming experience work more efficiently than older
and younger ones. Further, individuals of 31 to 50 years of age feel more family responsibility
than the younger ones.

The results are in line with the findings of Saikrishna (1998), Karpagap (2000), Wase
(2001), Poonam Srivtsa et al. (2004) and Abdad (2006).

5.1.2 Education
It is clear from the Table 1 that, majority of the respondents had high school
education (31.33%) while, 25.33 per cent were illiterate. The other respondents were
educated upto primary school (18.67%), middle school (13.33%), PUC (8.67%) and graduate
(2.67%).

The rural social environment was the major cause for such trend. As the rural people
are still traditional bound they generally do not prefer to send their children to colleges and
they except their children to assist in farm and house hold activities. The distance of higher
study centers from village also might have prevented the parents from providing higher
education to their children.

These findings are in line with the studies of Pandya (1996), Yaligar (1997), Kanvi
(2000), Sunil Kumar (2004) and Amol (2006).

5.1.3 Farming experience


The results in Table 1 indicates that, majority of the respondents were educated upto
high school and middle school education level later on they might have started practicing
agriculture as their main occupation and probably they might have been the member of joint
families, under such a situation independence is delayed. These factors might have
contributed for 58.67 per cent of farmers to fall under the category of 10-20 years of farming
experience. Some of the farmers had more than 20 years of farming experience probably they
might have started agriculture occupation at an early age. Further, it was observed that only
10.66 per cent of the farmers had farming experience upto 10 years. As they have studied
upto pre-university and graduation level. After completing their education they might have
started agriculture as their occupation. Hence, majority of them belonged to medium farming
category and has the support with the findings of Sakhar et al. (1992), Sakarkar et al. (1995),
Yaligar (1997), Natikar (2001), Sunil Kumar (2004) and Thiranjan Gowda (2005).

5.1.4 Land holding


The data revealed that 45.33 per cent of farmers belonged medium land holding
category (10–25.00 acres) while 22.67 per cent of them belonged to semi-medium land
holding category (5.01–10.0 acres), whereas 16.67 per cent of them were small farmers (2.51
– 5.0 acres) 10.66 per cent were marginal farmers (<25 acres) and 4.67 per cent belonged to
big land holding category (>25 acres). The possible reason for this trend might be due to the
fact that, being agriculture as main occupation and their way of life, so they always would like
to possess more and more acres of land. The other reason might be that due to increase in
family members, the fragmentation of ancestors land from generation to generation might
have led to medium and small land holdings.

The above mentions findings are in consonance with the findings of Sakharkar
(1995), Nagaraj (1996), Bheemappa (2001), Natikar (2001), and Raghvendra (2004).

5.1.5 Annual income


The results regarding the annual income of the respondents indicated that, 54.0
percent had high level of annual income of above Rs. 51,000. The possible reason might be
that due to their large size land holdings and practicing income generating activities and
growing commercial crops. The existence of families with a size of 5-8 members where
number of earning members were more and found engaged in different occupations other
than agriculture might have also contributed for this kind of result. About 28.67 percent of
respondents belonged to medium income group between Rs. 34,001 to 51,000. The possible
reason may be that small land holding people, depend mainly on agriculture and also due to
having dry lands, which might have caused to obtain medium level of annual income. About
15.33 percent of respondents belonged to semi medium income of Rs.17,000 to 34,000. It
may be due to their lower socio-economic status and might not have adopted other sources of
income. The above findings are in conformity with the findings of Sridhar (2002), Vedamurthy
(2002), Nirmala (2003) and Khin Mar Oo (2005).

5.1.6 Innovativeness
An overall view of innovativeness of the respondents in Table 1 revealed that, 52.00
per cent of the respondents belonged to medium innovativeness category, followed by high
(32.67%) and low (15.33%).

The data presented in the Table 2 on the responses of respondents towards the
individual items indicated that, about 28.66 per cent of the respondents agree to the
statement ‘very much interested in learning new ways of farming’, followed by 40.00 and
31.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively.

Whereas, 47.34 per cent of the respondents expressed their disagreement to the
statement i.e., ‘agricultural extension workers gives a talk on improved aspect of agriculture
would you attend’, followed by 34.66 and 18.00 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’
and ‘agree’.

While, 68.00 per cent of the respondents said ‘disagree’ to the statement that, ‘if the
government would help you to establish a farm elsewhere, would you move’, followed by
30.67 per cent undecided and 1.33 per cent were agreed.

Majority (57.33%) of the respondents were ‘disagree’ to the statement i.e., ‘do you
want to change in your way of life’, followed by 30.67 and 12.00 per cent of the respondents
said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively.

It is observed that, 24.00 per cent of the respondents ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘rural
youth should try to farm the way his parents did’, followed by undecided (36.00%) and
disagree (40.00%).
About 85.33 per cent of the respondents said ‘disagree’ of the statement i.e., ‘do you
want your sons to be farmer’, followed by undecided (14.67%) and it is interesting to note that
none of the farmers ‘agree’ of this statement.

Further, 10.66 per cent of the respondents ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘it is better to
enjoy today and let tomorrow take care of itself’, followed by 20.00 and 69.34 per cent of the
respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to the same statement, respectively.

Whereas, the 22.66 per cent of the respondents ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘A
man’s fortune is in the hands of god’, followed by 32.00 and 45.35 per cent of the
respondents said undecided and disagree, respectively.

The possible reason for this kind of results may be due to the fact that, majority of the
farmers are middle aged, educated upto high school, medium land holding (10-25 acres) high
income (Rs.51000/year) so, all these factors might have influenced to know more and more
about recent technologies in order to earn more and hence majority belonged to medium
innovativeness category.
The findings of the present study are in conformity with the findings reported by
Reddy (1997), Ganghi (2002), Shashidhar (2004), Suresh (2004) and Ninga Reddy (2005).

5.1.7 Risk orientation


The data presented in Table 1 reveals the risk orientation of respondents and
indicated that, 58.67 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium level of risk orientation
category followed by high (20.00%) and low (21.33%).

The data in Table 3 reveals that, the risk orientation of the respondents towards the
individual items and indicated that, about 45.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the
statement of ‘growing to large number of crops mainly helps to avoid higher risk involved in
growing one or two crops’, followed by ‘undecided’(30.00%) and ‘disagree’ (24.66%).

While, 37.34 per cent ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘A farmer should rather take more
of chance in making big profits than to be content with a smaller but less risky profits’,
followed by ‘undecided’ (22.66%) and ‘disagree’(40.00%).

Whereas, 41.34 per cent of the respondents expressed their ‘agreement’ to the
statement of ‘a farmer who is willing to take greater risk than the average farmer usually does
better financially’, followed by ‘undecided’ (32.00%) and ‘disagree’(26.66%).

Further, 32.00 per cent of the respondents, ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘it is good for
a farmer to take risk when he know his chance of success is fairly high followed by
‘disagree’(37.54%) and ‘undecided’(30.66%).

While, the 24.00 per cent of the respondents, ‘agreed’ to the statement of ‘it is better
for a farmer not to try new farming methods unless most others have used them successfully’,
followed by 44.66 and 31.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to
the same statement, respectively.

About 32.00 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘trying of
entirely new methods in farming involves risk but, it is worthy followed by 28.00 and 40.00 pr
cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’, respectively.

The reason for this kind of result might be that, risk bearing capacity of an individual
depends upon the personal, psychological, socio-economic characteristics. The individual
with medium education, more farming experience and more land holding, more income might
have exhibited medium and low risk orientation.

The finding are in accordance with the finding of Guptha (1999), Budhal (2002),
Bhagyalaxmi et al. (2003),Suresh (2004), Shashidhar (2004) and Ninga Reddy (2005).
5.1.8 Economic motivation
The data presented in table 1 indicates that 52 per cent of the respondents belonged
to medium economic motivation category followed by high (29.33%) and low (18.67%)
economic motivation category.

The data in Table 4 revealed the economic motivation of soybean growers. About
65.33 per cent of the farmers said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘a farmer should work towards
more yield and economic profit’, followed by ‘undecided’ (30.00%) and ‘disagree’(4.66%).

Whereas, 41.33 per cent of the respondents expressed their agreement to the
statement of ‘the most successful farmer is one who makes more profits’, followed by
‘undecided’ (25.33%) and ‘disagree’ (33.33%).

While, 45.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘a farmer
should grow cash crops to increase monetary profits in comparison to growing food crops for
home consumption’, followed by ‘undecided’ (32.00%) and ‘disagree’ (22.66%).

About 30.66 per cent of the respondents expressed their agreement to the statement
of ‘the farmer should try the new farming ideas which may earn him more money’, followed by
28.00 and 41.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ respectively.

Further, 29.34 per cent of the respondents said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘it is
difficult for the farmer’s children to make good start unless he provides them with economic
assistance’, followed by ‘undecided’ (46.00%) and ‘disagree’ (24.66%).

While, 27.34 per cent of the farmers said ‘agree’ to the statement of ‘a farmer must
earn his living but the most important thing in life cannot be defined in economic terms’
followed by, 28.00 and 44.66 per cent of the respondents said ‘undecided’ and ‘disagree’ to
the same statement respectively.

The possible reason may be that as majority of them belonged to high income group
and more land holdings and innovativeness nature might have made them to earn more. It is
quit natural that, individual with capabilities would like to earn more and improve his standard
of living.

The findings are in accordance with the finding of Chandran (1997), Siddappa (1999),
Natikar (2001), Deepak (2003), Sandesh (2004) and Raghavendra (2005).

5.1.9 Market orientation


The data presented in Table 1 reveal that majority (65.33%) of the respondents had
‘medium’ level of market orientation, followed by (22.67%) and (12.00%) of the respondents
had low and high level. The farmer who is interested in selling the produce in market will try to
produce more than his own family requirements. For this he will use the production increasing
technologies to maximum possible extent. Hence, the present finding is similar to the finding
of Ahire (1997), Manvar (1999) and Misal (2002)

5.1.10 Extension participation


The data related to extension participation presented in Table 5 indicates that, 19.34
per cent of the respondents participated occasionally in meetings, whereas 70.00 per cent
never participated and 10.66 per cent of the respondents participated regularly.

It is clear from the result that, the majority (28.66%) of the respondents participated
occasionally in demonstration. Whereas 48.00 per cent of the respondents never participated
and 23.34 per cent of the respondents participated regularly.

Further, it can be observed that, the 25.33 per cent of the respondents occasionally
participated in training programme, whereas 60.00 and 14.67 per cent never and regularly
participated, respectively.
Regarding educational tours the results indicated that 59.34 per cent of the
respondents never participated, whereas 31.33 per cent occasionally participated and 9.33
per cent regularly participated.

With respect to field days was observed that, 65.33 percent of the respondents Never
participated in field days, whereas, 22.67 occasionally participated and 12.00 per cent
regularly participated respectively.

A perusal of Table 6 revealed that 18.00 per cent of the respondents participated
occasionally, in group discussion, whereas 62.66 per cent never participated and 19.34 per
cent of the respondents participated regularly.

In case of field visits, the majority of the respondents (69.34%) never participated in
field visit, while, 17.33 per cent participated occasionally and 13.33 per cent of them regularly
visited.

Regarding Krishimela it was observed that, 50.66 per cent of the respondents
participated regularly, whereas 30.67 per cent of the respondents never visited Krishimela
and 18.67 per cent of them visited occasionally.

It could be observed from the findings that there is a variety of response from the
respondents which may be due to lack of awareness about extension activities conducted in
the area and attending other works which is more important than attending the extension
activities.

The results are in accordance with the findings of Angadi (1999), Sakharkar (1995),
Venkataramulu (2003), Sunil Kumar (2004) and Thiranjan Gowda (2005).

5.2 Knowledge level of the soybean growers about individual


recommended cultivation practices
Majority of the soybean growers had knowledge about recommended varieties
(86.67%), followed by sowing time (94.67%), seed rate (89.33%), seed treatment (44.66%)
and only 21.33 per cent of the respondents had knowledge about seed inoculation with
rhizobium culture.

The findings of the present study are in conformity with the findings reported by
Yaligar (1997), More et al. (2000), Sophiasathyavati (2001) and Noorjehan and Ganesan
(2004).

Regarding other recommended cultivation practices, 98.00 per cent and 88.00 per
cent of the respondents had knowledge of about FYM application and spacing. Whereas, with
regard to chemical fertilizers 88.00 per cent of them had knowledge about application of
nitrogenous fertilizers followed by phosphorus (96.00%), potash (65.33%) and zinc sulphate
(25.33%).

These findings are in consonance with the findings of Hanumanaikar (1995), Yaligar
(1997), Borkar et al. (2000) and Venkataramulu (2003).

Further, 90.67 per cent of respondents had knowledge about correct time of
application at the time of sowing.

In case of inter cultural operation i.e., two times hoeing and two time hand weeding,
the respondents had knowledge about 98.67 and 89.33 per cent, respectively.

Majorities (63.33%) of the respondents had knowledge about weed control; followed
by pest control (58.67%) and disease control (62.67%).

Adequate knowledge about recommended package of practices is the pre-requisite


for their use in cultivation of crops. It is a fact that recommended practices are major
contributing factors to yield. So, inadequate knowledge about recommended practices leads
to their improper adoption. The farmers were not fully aware of practices like seed treatment,
seed inoculation application of zinc sulphate and calculation of fertilizer doses. The above
findings were observed that, at the time of collection of information from the respondents.

Apart from this, majority of the respondents had high school education (31.33%)
while, 25.33 per cent were illiterate. The other respondents were educated upto primary
school (18.67%), middle school (13.33%), PUC (8.67%) and graduate (2.67%).

More than half number of the respondents had 10 to 20 years farming experience.
This might be contributing factors for majority of the respondents to possess medium level of
knowledge about the recommended practices of soybean cultivation.

These findings were in conformity with the findings of the study conducted by
Hanumanikar (1995) and Yaligar (1997), who reported that most of the farmers had medium
level of knowledge about the recommended cultivation practices of crops studied.

5.3 Extent of adoption of recommended cultivation practices by


soybean growers
The adoption of any technology in general and soybean cultivation practices in
particular depends on various factors such as awareness about practices, extent of change
agencies efforts, complexity of practices, timely availability of inputs, characteristics of
farmers etc. However, it is true that all the recommended practices will not be adapted to
some degree by all the members in a given social system. The finding of present study is also
in link with this fact with respect to adoption of soybean cultivation practices by the
respondents which are presented in the table 8.

A perusal of Table 8 indicates that 96.00, 86.67 and 85.33 per cent of the
respondents had adopted the recommended variety, sowing time and spacing. It was found
that 13.33 per cent of the respondents were partially adopted i.e., (early sowing) these
respondents thought that early sowing prevents the attack of leaf spot (Kunkuma roga)
disease and it helps to increase the yield level.

The reasons for adoption of these practices as recommended are the simplicity and
low cost of the practices which can be practiced by making use of mere knowledge and their
own resources without reliance on any external agency. Further, farmers as a result of their
farming experience have themselves realized the usefulness of these practices.

Majority 80.67 per cent and 80.66 per cent of respondents were adopted
recommended seed rate and FYM application. The reason for adoption of these practices
might be that, most of the respondents were convinced about the profitability of the crop as it
is a cash crop, hence, they are assured of good returns on investment through FYM and
seeds. Whereas, 14.00 per cent of the respondents were partially adopting the actual
recommended practices i.e., they applied more than the recommended seed rate. This might
be due to use of seed drill for sowing which requires more seeds than normal hand dibbling
(putting seeds through labour). It was interesting to note that 19.33 per cent of the
respondents were partially adopted the FYM to their field, the possible reason might be that
high cost and non-availability of the FYM.

It was observed that 60.67 and 72.67 pre cent of the respondents did not treat and
inoculate the seeds before sowing it may be due to of lack of knowledge and also the non-
availability of thiram and rhizobium culture in the village. Only 39.33 per cent of the
respondents treated seeds as they had purchased certified seeds. Twenty seven per cent of
the respondents inoculated seeds before sowing as they had purchased rhizobium culture on
subsidy rate from state department of agriculture.

The data pertaining to use of chemical fertilizer and time of application of chemical
fertilizers depicted in Table 8 revealed that, an equal per cent (86.66%) of the respondents
applied nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizers. Whereas, only 37.33 per cent of the
respondents applied potassic fertilizer. More than half (53.33%) of the respondents did not
apply potassic fertilizer. This might be due to the fact that the respondents apply only
‘Diammonium phosphate’ fertilizer (DAP) to the crop.

Few farmers add single fertilizers to obtain the correct dosage that is recommended
for application. This is also evident by the result that only 4.00, 5.33 and 8.00 per cent
partially applied nitrogenous, phosphatic and potassic fertilizer. Lack of knowledge regarding
the advantage of applying recommended dose of chemical fertilizer may be other reason for
such type of result.

With regard to adoption of zinc sulphate, only 12.00 per cent of them had applied and
that too as per recommendation. Whereas, a large majority (88.00%) of the respondents did
not apply zinc sulphate. Most of the soybean cultivators did not know the importance of
applying zinc sulphate and few farmers expressed the high cost and non-availability of zinc
sulphate locally as the reasons for non-adoption.

With regard to the time of application of chemical fertilizer, it was noticed that
(83.33%) of the respondents apply chemical fertilizer in correct time and ten per cent of the
soybean growers were partially adopted chemical fertilizers either before sowing or at the
time of sowing. Six per cent of the respondents did not apply chemical fertilizer, it may be due
to lack of knowledge about timely application of chemical fertilizer.

Further hundred per cent of the respondents took up hoeing as an intercultural


operation to loosen the soil and to control weeds. Whereas 68.00 per cent respondents
practiced weeding and 32.00 per cent of the respondents were partially adopted.

Regarding weedicide application 41.33 per cent of the respondents were followed the
recommended weedicide application and only 12.00 per cent of the respondents were
partially adopted these practices. Whereas, 46.66 per cent of the respondents were not at all
practicing any weedicide application to their field, this may be due to lack of knowledge about
weedicide use and high cost.

Forty eight per cent of the respondents followed plant protection measures whereas
5.33 per cent of the respondents followed partially. The major reason attributed for taking up
plant protection measures was as bacterial leaf spot disease was a severe problem in recent
years. In order to control this disease the respondents took up Dithaenium-45 and Agromycin
spray.

The findings of the present study are in consonance with the Yaligar (1997), Dubolia
and Jaiswal (2000), Vedamurthy (2002) and Raghavendra (2004).

5.3.1 Technological gap among the respondents


Table 9 shows the mean technological gap in respect of recommended cultivation
practices of soybean crop. High technological gap was found in some of the practices like
seed inoculation with rhizobium culture (72.67%) and seed treatment with captan or thiram
60.67 per cent respectively, it may be due to lack of knowledge and also non-availability of
thiram and rhizobium culture in the village. The reason may be the fear of reduction in yield
and high cost.

Fifty three per cent of technological gap was observed in weedicide application.
Whereas, 50.33 per cent technological gap was found in plant protection measures. The
reason could be lack of knowledge and guidance regarding the safe use of the chemicals.
And also a large majority did not know about integrated pest management.

Fertilizer management calls for greater attention as the results showed greater
technological gap especially in case of potassic and zinc sulphate application. Application of
the major nutrients showed a greater bias for nitrogen and phosphorous and hence lesser
technological gap. Farmers tend to apply ‘Diammonium phosphate’ fertilizer only to the crop
as Diammonium phosphate, supply the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous to crop.
Application of only DAP fertilizer was prime cause for technological gap in respect of major
fertilizers application.
Whereas, (12.67%) of the technical gap was found in using the recommended seed
rate. This might be due to that, these respondents used seed drill for sowing which requires
more seeds than normal hand dibbling. The technological gap in case of sowing time
(13.33%) because the respondents thought that early sowing prevents the attack of leaf spot
disease and it helps to increase the yield level.

The findings further focused that the practice of applying farm yard manure and
spacing had a technological gap of 15.00 and 9.33 per cent, respectively. This brings to
inference that very less per cent of technological gap was found in these practices. The
reason for this kind of result may be that most of the respondents were convinced about the
profitability and practicability of using FYM.

These findings have similarity with the findings of Mahawar et al. (1995), Nikhade et
al. (1997), Kapse and Pimprikar (2000) and Tomar and Sharma (2002).

5.3.2 Distribution of the respondents based on overall technological gap


It can be observed from Table 10 that, majority of respondents (61.33%) belonged to
medium level of technological gap. Whereas, 22.67 per cent and 16.00 per cent of the
respondents belonged to low and high technological gap.

Thus, it indicated that majority of respondents had adopted simple practices. There
were another two groups of respondents who had adopted most of the practices and who did
not adopt even simple practices.

5.4 Marketing pattern followed by soybean growers


The data presented in Table 11 reveals that, 42.67 per cent collect the price
information from their relatives, friends and neighbours who visit the market. The possible
reason to prefer farmers who visited market due to the fact that they all belong to same
farming community and social groups and usually farmers believe their fellow farmers than
any others. Thirty two per cent of growers had personal contact with market officials,
whenever they visited the market for their purchase. News papers was preferred by 16.00 per
cent, because they carry general information and day to day market price list of different
commodities.

More than half of the respondents (56.00%) expressed that they sold their produce in
APMC the reason might be due to immediate cash payment and the fair price obtained as it is
a government agency. Whereas, 46.00 per cent of the respondents soled their produce in
local market at the village level, because of they might have taken loan or inputs on credit
basis with local traders.

About 74.67 per cent of the respondents reported that, they sell their produce
immediately after the harvest if the prices are favorable. While, 25.33 per cent of the
respondents store their produce for some time to get better price if the prices are less at the
time of harvest.

It could be seen from the Table 11 that, majority of the farmers had transported their
produce to market by using tractor (44.00%), followed by truck (32.67%), tempo (13.33%) and
by bus (2.00%). One of the contributing reason could be that as majority of the respondents
were medium land holders and they hire the tractor for ploughing and for transportation of
agricultural goods.

Where as 81.67 per cent of the respondents did not follow grading while only 18.33
per cent of them followed grading of their produce. The probable reason might be the lack of
knowledge, illiteracy and lack of grading facility amongst those who followed grading 57.14
per cent of the respondents graded based on size and shape and remaining 42.86 per cent of
the respondents graded based on shrinked / shriveled grains. The possible reason might be
that, the graded produce usually get good price.
Further, Majority of the respondents (54.67%) had followed storage of their produce
and remaining 45.33 per cent of the respondents not stored their produce. However, 87.80
per cent of the farmers stored in gunny bag and 12.20 per cent of the farmers stored in metal
bins. The sole reason for these findings might be lack of knowledge, illiteracy, damage during
the storage period, lack of storage facilities and also immediate need of money. The important
reasons for storing the produce by a few farmers were for getting good prices, for seed
purposes and for own consumption.

Because of these reasons the farmers are not getting the remunerative prices.
Normally there will be low price at the time of harvesting the produce due to glut in the
market. There is a need to train the farmers on scientific storage methods and the storage
facilities available. In this aspect establishment of warehouses even at taluka and hobli level
will facilitate the farmers to store their produce till they get good price.

The findings are in accordance with Hanumnaikar (1995), Mitrannanavar (1997) and
Nijagonda (2000).

5.5 Constraints faced by the soybean growers


The data presented in the Table 12 indicated the nature of constraints faced by the
respondents in adoption of the recommended soybean cultivation practices. As high as 88.00
per cent of the respondents expressed high cost of inputs as the major constraint in the
soybean cultivation. In recent years, the prices of inputs have gone up and naturally it has
attracted the attention of many farmers, especially the small and medium land holders, the
cost of inputs does not commensurate with the low price they get for the produce.

The next important constraint faced by soybean growers was shortage of labour
(85.33%). It is generally felt at the time of sowing and harvesting stages. The time available
for sowing is very much limited as no such operations are advised beyond 45 days. It is still
severe in under rainfed conditions as it has to be harvested simultaneously.

Seventy seven per cent of the respondents faced ‘lack of knowledge about disease
control’ since many years the soybean crop was severely affected by bacterial leaf spot
(Kunkuma roga) disease many farmers expressed that once disease enters into their field the
next morning whole field is going to be affected and so, it reduces more than half of the yield.
The other constraint faced by the seventy five per cent of the respondents was rhizobium,
thiram and zinc sulphate are not locally available. They have the feeling that only Department
of Agriculture supply these inputs on subsidy basis, more over, the corporations and agro
kendras are mainly confined to the taluka head quarters or town ships, thus, depriving easy
accessibility for interior villagers. Therefore, even though they are convinced about the merits
of these inputs but they could not adopt these because of non-availability.

The other constraint faced by farmers was ‘price fluctuation in the market’ (70.67%).
The farmers expressed that there was lot of variation in the prices that prevail at the
beginning of the season and that prevail at the time of harvesting. Since, there is no firm
assurance of price in the initial stages, the farmers naturally hesitate to adopt recommended
practices which involves additional investment. Thus the government should think of
announcing the price based on actual cost of cultivation well in advance of the season in
order to enable the farmers to plant properly and adopt the recommended practices.

The other constraint faced by farmers was the ‘financial constraints’ (58.67%)
because most of the respondents belonged to medium and semi-medium land holding
category.

The other constraint expressed by farmers was non-availability of inputs in time


(52.67%). This might be due to non-availability of seeds, fertilizers when needed because of
heavy demand as compared to other inputs during peak season.

Whereas, 37.33 per cent of the respondents expressed the problem of ‘heavy risk
due to failure of monsoon rains’ it is quite genuine and is beyond human control. However, it
is a challenge to the scientists to evolve drought tolerant high yielding varieties, which would
certainly mitigate the inadequacy and uncertainty of rainfall.

These findings are in line with the constraints reported by Hanumanaikar (1995),
Yaligar (1997), Mutkule et al. (2001) and Sunil Kumar (2004).
6. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Agriculture is the back bone of India and an important sector in Indian economy and
about 70-75 percent of the working population depends on agriculture for their livelihood. In
order to feed the millions and provide raw-materials for industry, agricultural production
should be increased. Soybean is an important crop which contains 20 per cent oil and 40 per
cent protein. It is a versatile crop with innumerable possibilities of improving agriculture and
supporting industries. The soybean protein is rich in lysine and oil which can be used as
edible oil. Soybean is often called the ‘cow of china’ because of its 4000 years history as the
main source of protein for Chinese. India is in short of proteins and large portion of the
population are vegetarians, under this situation crop like soybean with high protein content
and high yield potential may become increasingly important crop in India.
Soybean is not only a very cheap source of edible oil but it is a high quality protein
rich food for man and livestock. It is proved as a boon to the large population of children in
India suffering from acute protein malnutrition. Soybean being the rich source of protein,
agriculture scientists should evolve high yielding varieties and improve productivity. Efforts
need to be concentrated on establishment of processing units for soybean. The availability of
such facilities leads to profitable cultivation of soybean. It is therefore, felt necessary to study
the knowledge level and extent of technological gap of recommended practices by the
farmers and also to study the marketing pattern. Keeping the above facts in view, the present
study was undertaken with the following specific objectives.

1. To study the socio-economic characteristics of the soybean growers


2. To measure the knowledge level of farmers about soybean cultivation practices
3. To study the extent of technological gap in adoption of recommended soybean cultivation
practices

4. To analyse the marketing pattern followed by the soybean growers


5. To identify the constraints in adoption of the recommended cultivation practices by the
soybean growers

The present study was conducted in the year 2008-09 in Dharwad district of
Karnataka state. The district was selected purposively because soybean is the principal crop
of Dharwad district. Further, no research study has been conducted in Dharwad district on
technological gap in soybean cultivation practices.Dharwad district consists of five taluks,
keeping maximum area under soybean cultivation as criteria viz., Kalaghatagi and Dharwad
taluks were selected. From the two taluks, villages having maximum area under soybean
cultivation were listed in descending order in consultation with the state department of
agriculture. From list, the first five villages having maximum area were selected from each
taluk. From each selected villages, fifteen farmers were selected by simple random sampling
procedure. Thus the sample from each taluka was 75 making a total sample of 150
respondents. The dependent variables selected for the study were technological gap and
knowledge level, while, age, education, size of land holding, experience in soybean cultivation
practices, annual income, extension participation, innovativeness, risk orientation and
economic motivation were the independent variables selected for the study.

A schedule was developed to collect the information in the light of objectives of the
study. Package of practices recommended jointly by University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad and Karnataka State Department of Agriculture for the cultivation of soybean crop
was considered for the study. The Data collected were tabulated and analysed by using
suitable statistical tools.

Major findings of the study are as follows

 Most of the respondents (70.00%) had medium level of knowledge about recommended
soybean cultivation practices.
 Majority of the respondents (86.67%) had knowledge about recommended varieties and
93.33 per cent of them adopted it while 94.67 per cent had knowledge about sowing time
and 86.67 per cent of them adopted it.

 Majority of the respondents (89.33%) had knowledge about seed rate and 80.67 percent
adopted it.

 About 89.33, 98.00 and 88.00 per cent of the respondents had knowledge about use of
recommended seed rate, FYM and spacing and 80.67, 80.66 and 85.33 percent of
respondents adopted, respectively.

 About 63.33 per cent farmers had knowledge about weed control and also 46.90 and
52.00 per cent, respectively had knowledge about pest and disease control of which
41.33 per cent adopted weed control while 48.00 of the respondents adopted the plant
protection measures to control pest and diseases.

 More than fifty per cent of the respondents had knowledge about the use of chemical
fertilizers.

 Majority of the respondents (90.67%) knowledge about correct time of application of


chemical fertilizers and 83.33 per cent of them adopted.

 Cent per cent of the respondents had adopted the hoeing practices

 Majority of the respondents (61.33%) had belonged to medium category of technological


gap.

 There was poor adoption in case of seed treatment (39.33%) and seed inoculation
(27.33%).

 Majority, of the respondents (62.00%) were middle aged.

 Majority of the respondents had high school education (31.33%) while, 25.33 per cent
were illiterate.

 More than fifty per cent of the respondents were cultivating soybean from the last 10-20
years.

 Medium land holder’s category occupied the highest percentage (45.33%).

 More than half of the respondents (54.00%) had high annual income (>Rs. 51,000/year).

 Fifty two per cent of the respondents were found to have medium level of innovativeness,
while, 58.67 percent of them belonged to medium level of risk orientation.

 More than half of the respondents (52.00%) were found to have medium level of
economic motivation, while, 65.33 percent of them belonged to medium level of market
orientation.

 Half of the respondents (50.66%) regularly participated in Krishimela, while 23.34 per
cent of respondents participated in demonstrations.

 Majority of them expressed the constraints like high cost of inputs (88.00%), shortage of
labour at sowing time and harvesting time (85.33%), lack of knowledge about control of
diseases (77.33%) and non availability of rhizobium, thiram and zinc sulphate locally
(76.67%).

 More than forty per cent (42.67%) of respondents get market information through
relatives, neighbours and friends.

 Majority of the respondents (56.00%) sold their produce in the APMC.

 Forty four per cent of the respondents transported their produce by tractor
 Only 18.67 per cent of soybean growers were grading their produce.

 Forty five per cent of the respondents did not follow storage of produce.

Implications and recommendations

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

 A wide technological gap with respect to seed inoculation with rhizobium culture, seed
treatment with captan or thiram, application of plant protection measures and weedicide
application was observed. Since, these practices are important from the point of
increasing production and net return, it warrants the attention of extension workers and
scientists to intensify their efforts in these areas where wide gap observed and
appropriate educational activities like organising trainings, demonstrations, exhibitions,
field days etc should be undertaken to reduce the technological gap.

 More educational efforts are necessary on the part of extension agency to increase the
knowledge of farmers about recommended cultivation practices of soybean and in turn
motivate them for their proper use to obtain higher yields.

 The differential rate of adoption of soybean crop among farmers as well as area wise
spread calls for intensification of educational efforts by the extension agencies. It pin
points that the extension agencies should not wait for a technology to take it’s own time
to “trickledown” in a social system, but they should contact farmers belonging to different
category and persue them to adopt the innovations in the shortest possible time.

 Financial difficulty was the major hurdle in non adoption of complex and important
practices involving high cost. Therefore crop loan should be made available to the
farmers at right time and also necessary inputs like seeds, fertilizer, rhizobium culture
and plant protection chemicals be arranged in advance and made it available to the
farmers in time in local primary co-operative societies which have direct link with
farmers. The repayment of loan may be made in easy instalments.

 It was observed that high income, large land holding, higher educational level would
narrow down the technological gap. Hence, special attention should be given to illiterate
farmers and farmers having low income, small land holdings while educating through
demonstrations and trainings.

 Another important problem faced by the growers was severe incidence of bacterial leaf
spot disease. It cause for immediate action from the scientists, breeders and extension
personnel to take note of the situation and to evolve disease resistant high yielding
varieties.

 Policy makers, adminstrators and extension personnel should concentrate more on


small farmers, low and medium adopters in order to increase the yield level.

Future line of work


The present study was limited only to two taluks of Dharwad district. Therefore, it is
suggested that, further investigation may be taken up in other districts also, that, the change
agencies can make use of the findings to improve soybean cultivation. To make a meaningful
generalization, there is need for comprehensive research studies in other areas also.
REFERENCES
Abdad, A., Roy, J. and Sahu, K., 2006, Maternal and Child health care of Tribal. J. Family
Welfare, 52(1): 52-54.

Adapur, S. H., 1989, A study on adoption behaviour of chrysanthemum growers and their
information source utilization pattern in Dharwad district of Karnataka state. M.
Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Ahire, R. D., 1997, A study on the adoption of improved management practices by gap
growers. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Marathwada Agric. Univ., Parbhani, India

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

Anastasi, A., 1961, Psychological testing The Mcmillan Co. New York.

Angadi, S. C., 1999, A study on knowledge, adoption and marketing pattern of pomegranate
growers in Bagalkot district in Karnataka state. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis. Univ. Agric.
Sci., Dharwad, India

Anonymous, 1992, Karnataka at a Glance. Directorate of Economics and Statistics,

Anonymous, 2008, Dharwad District at a Glance 2007-08, District Statistical Office, Dharwad.

Atchutaraju, K. and Radhakrishnamurthy, 2001, Knowledge level of betel vine growers. J. Ext.
Edu., 13(1): 3271-3276.

Babanna, T., 2001, Information source consultancy and training needs of farmers in arecanut
cultivation under Tungabhadra command area in Shimoga district. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ, Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Bhagyalaxmi, K., Gopalkrishna Rao, V. and Sudarshan Reddy, M., 2003, Profile of the rural
women micro enterprocessors. J. Res., Acharya N.G. Ranga Agric. Univ.,
Hyderabad, 31(4): 51-54.

Bhanu, V. L., 2006, Study on aspirations of rural youth and their attitude towards rural
developmental activities in Dharwad district of Karnataka state. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agic. Sci, Dharwad, India.

Bheemappa, A., 2001, A comparative analysis of knowledge and technological gap in


adoption of paddy and cotton cultivation practices between migrant and non-
migrant farmers of TBP command area in Karnataka. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Agric.
Sci., Dharwad, India

Budihal, R. A., 2002, Utilization pattern of cotton production technology by farmers of


Karnataka. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Chandra Charan. V., 2005, Profile of sujala watershed project beneficiary farmers in Dharwad
district. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, India

Chandran, B., 1997, A study on knowledge and adoption of farmers cultivating tapioca in
Ernakulam district of Kerala state. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India

Chandrashekhar, S. K., 2007, Analysis of onion production and marketing behaviour of


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

Dharminder Singh and Ravinder Kaur, 2004, Knowledge level of the cotton growers regarding
integrated pest management practices. J. Ext. Edu., 15(2 & 3): 3611-3617.

Dolli, S. S., 2006, Sustainability of natural resources management in watershed development


project. . Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India.

Dubolia, S. R., and Jaiswal, P.K., 2000, Technological gap of groundnut cultivation among
groundnut growers. Maharashtra J. Agric. Ext., 19: 216-217.

Feaster, J. C., 1968, Measurement and determinants of innovativeness among primitive


agriculturalists. Rural Sociology, 33: 339-348.

Gandhi, V. R., 2002, Knowledge and adoption behaviour of vegetable growers with respect to
integrated pest management of tomato crop in Kolar district of Karnataka. M.Sc.
(Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Girish, N. M., 2006, An analysis of sustainable cultivation practices followed by sugarcane


growers in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

Govindagowda, V., Lakshminarayana, M. T. and Chandrashekhar, S. V., 2000, Knowledge of


farmers on dryland farming practices in groundnut cultivation. J. Ext. Edu.,
11(1): 2651-2655.

Gupta, A. K. and Srivastava, J. P., 2002, Technological gap in soybean cultivation. Bioved
13(1/2): 145-146.

Gupta, Mankar, D. and Sundaraswamy, B., 2001, Knowledge of the farmers about improved
cultivation practices of rice in Jammu. Maharashtra J. Ext.Edu., 20: 74-76.

Gupta, V., 1999, A study on knowledge and adoption behaviour of rice growers in Jammu
district of Jammu and Kashmir. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad,
India

Hanumanaikar, R. H., 1995, A study on knowledge adoption of marketing behaviour of


sunflower growers in Dharwad district. M .Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India

Ingle, P. O., 1999, Knowledge and adoption of farmers about soybean cultivation practices.
PKV Res. J., 23(1): 59-60.

Jaiswal, D. K. and Rathore, A. K., 1985, Technological gap in adoption of recommended


technology in wheat among farmers growing irrigated and unirrigated wheat.
Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., 4: 147-149.

Jaiswal, D. K., Mishra P. K. and Mishra Anupam., 1987, Adoption gap of recommended wheat
technology among the farmers of Bundelkhand Region. Maharashtra J. Ext.
Edu, 6: 205-06.

Jaiswal, P. K. and Duboliya, S. R., 1994, Adoption gap in wheat technology. Maharashtra J.
Ext. Edu., 13: 63-68.

Jayaprada, B., 2007, Impact of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank on Agriculture Development
of Beneficiaries in Dharwad district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Joshi, O. P., 2003 Future prospective of soybean in India, Soybean Res., 1 : 29-42
Joshi, P. V., 1992, A study on paddy cultivation pattern by Tibetian rehabilitants and their
socio-economic characteristics, Mundgod taluk, Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Kadam, R. P., Wangikar, S. D., Pawar, G. S. and Bhosale, P. B., 2005, Knowledge level of
farmers about improved soybean production technology. J. Soil Crops, 15(1):
210-212.

Kanavi, V. P., 2000, A study on the knowledge and adoption behaviour of sugarcane growers
in Belgaum district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India

Kapse, P.S., and Pimprikar, Y.K., 2000, Technological gap in summer groundnut cultivation.
Maharashtra J. Agric. Ext., 19:56-59.

Karpagam, C., 2000, A study on knowledge and adoption behaviour of sugarcane growers in
Belgaum district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ,Agric,Sci., Dharwad,
India

Khin Mar Oo, 2005, Knowldge and adoption of improved dairy management practices by
women dairy farmers in Dharwad district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India

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

Kumbar, S. V., 1983, A study on adoption behaviour and consultancy pattern of grape
growers of Bijapur district in Karnataka state. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric.
Sci., Bangalore, India

Madhavareddy, K. V., 2001, People’s participation in watershed development programme


implemented by government and non-government organization- A comparative
analysis. M. Sc. (Agri), Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, India

Mahawer, S. K., Punjabi, N. K. and Dashara, P. K., 1995, Technological gap between
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of schedule caste area research project.
Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., 14 : 51-64.

Malagi, S. N., 1985, Adopters behaviour and value orientation of adopters and non- adopters
of soybean in Kalaghatagi taluk of Dharwad district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Bangalore, India

Manjunath, L., 1980, Comparative study on knowledge level and adopters behaviour of
trained and untrained farmers in Ghataprabha command area of Karnataka
state. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, India

Manjunath, S. K., 2007, A study on re-habitant farmers in upper Krishna project area of
Bagalkot district in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad,
India

Manvar, V. S., 1999, A study on adoption of recommended package of practices of mango


by mango growers in Aurangbad district. M.Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Marahwada
Agric. Univ., Parbbhani, India

Maraddi, G. N., 1999, A study on the cotton production technologies-constraints analysis. M.


Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Haryana Agric. Univ, Hissar, India

Meeran, M. N. and Jayaseelan, M. J., 1999, Socio-personal, socio-economic and socio-


psychological profile of shrimp farmers. J. Ext. Edu., 10(2): 2445-2448.
Misal, M. M., 2002, A study on adoption of paclobutrazol technology by mango growers in
sindhdurg district. M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis, Dr. Balasheb Swant Konkan Krishi
Vidyapeet, Dapoli, India

Misal, M. M., 2002, A study on adoption of paclobutrazol technology by mango growers in


Sindhudurg district. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Dapoli.

Mitrannavar, D. H., 1997, Marketing of potato in north Karnataka. An economic analysis. M.


Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agri. Sci., Dharwad, India

More, M.R., Jadhav, S.N. and Penke, M.S., 2000, Impact of training Krishi Vigyan Kendra and
knowledge and adoption of cotton cultivation practices. Maharashtra J. Ext.
Edu., 19: 200.

Mutkule, S. R., Wattamwar, V. T., Narkar, G. S. and Geete, H. M., 2001, Constraints in
adopting chilli technology. Maharashtra J. Ext.Edu., 20 : 85-87.

Nagaraj, K. H., 1996, Knowledge and adoption pattern of improved cultivation practices of
groundnut among farmers of Pavagada taluk in Tumkur district. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Nagaraj, M. V., 2002, A study on knowledge of improved cultivation practices of sugarcane


and their extent of adoption by farmers in Bhadra command area in Davanagere
district, Karnataka state. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Nagesh, 2005, Study on entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable seed producing farmers in


Haveri district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci, Dharwad,
India

Natikar, K. V., 2001, Attitude of use of farm journal of subscriber farmers and their profile – A
critical analysis. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

Nijagonda, 2000, Study on attitude communication and marketing pattern of redgram growers
in Bidar district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore,
India

Nikhade, D. M., Bhople, R.S. and Kale, N. M., 1997, Technological gap in cultivation of
redgram, greengram, and Bengal gram in Gulbarga district of Karnataka. Indian
J. Ext. Edu., 33(1-2) : 72-75.

Nirmala, B., 2003, Impact of watershed development programme on socio-economic


dimensions of beneficiaries in Rangareddy district of Andhra Pradesh.
Unpublished. M. Sc. (Agri), Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, India

Noorjehan, A. K., Hnif and Ganesan, 2003, Technological gap in adoption of selected Pest
management practices in rice. J. Ext. Res., 5:58.

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

Patil, 2008, A study on constraints analysis of grape exporting farmers of Maharashtra. Ph. D.
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Patil, H. N. and Deshmukh, M. K., 1995, Impact of Training and Visit System on Rice
Economy. Indian J. Ext. Edu., 31(1-4) : 98-101.

Patil, S.S., 2000, A study on adoption of banana production technology under drip irrigation.
M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Mharashtra Agric. Univ, Parbhani, India
Patil, V. G., 1990, A critical analysis of technological gap and constraints in the adoption of
improved rice cultivation practices is Konkan region, Maharashtra state. Ph. D.
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Patil, V.G., 1995, Technological gap in rice cultivation. Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., 14 : 185-87.

Pillai, Balakrishna, G. and Subramonian, V. S., 1986, Technological gap in integrated soil
Conservation practices of Kerala. Kerala Agric. Res. J., 24(1): 52-55.

Poonam Srivastava, Priyanka Jaiand Prakash Singh., 2004, Mass media effect on Adoption
of Nutrition Practices. Indian J. Nut. Dietics., 44 : 115-117.

Raghavendra, M. R., 2004, Knowledge and adoption level of post harvest technologies by
redgram cultivators in Gulbarga district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Raghavendra, R., 2005, Knowledge and adoption of recommended cultivation practices of


cauliflower growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Raghupathi, D., 1994, Agricultural modernization among farmers in Upper Krishna Project
Area of Karnataka. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore India

Raghuprasad, K. P., 1992, A study on innovative proness of improved dairy practicing women
in Bidar district of Karnataka state, M .Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India

Raghvendra, R. and Natikar, K.V., 2008, A study on marketing behaviour of cauliflower


growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka. Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 42 (1): 92-96.

Rameshbabu, 1987, A study on adoption behaviour and economic performance of grape


growers of Bangalore and Kolar district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Bangalore, India

Rathinsabapathi, S., 1987, A study on knowledge and extent of adoption of integrated pest
management for cotton. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Coimbatore,
India

Reddy, N., 2005, A study on knowledge, extent of participation and benefits derived by
participation farmers of the watershed development programme in Raichur
district of Karnataka state. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

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

Sahukar, V., 1991, Knowledge and adoption behaviour of members and non members of
Karnataka co operative oil-seeds Growers federation regarding groundnut
cultivation practices in Raichur district. A comparative study.
M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

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

Sakharkar, V. S., 1995, A study on knowledge, fertilizer use pattern and constraints in the
cultivation of soybean by farmers of Nagpur district, Maharashtra.
Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Sakharkar, V.S., 1995, A study on knowledge, fertilizers use pattern and constraints in the
cultivation of soybean by farmers of Nagpur district, Maharashtra. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
Sakhrka, V. S., Nikhade, D. M. and Bhople, R. S., 1992, Correlates of knowledge and
adoption behaviour of soybean growers. Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., 11:
212-217.

Sandesh, H.M., 2004, A profile study of Kannada farm magazine readers in Karnataka. M.Sc.
(Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agri. Sci., Dharwad, India

Sarvana Kumar, R., 1996, A study on management of mango gardens by farmers in


Krishinagiri taluk of Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Satyanarayan Soni, Kurmvanshi, S.M., 1999, Technological status (adoption pattern) of


soybean cultivation in district Sagar of Madhya Pradesh. Crop. Res., Hisar,
18(1): 150-154.

Satyanarayana, G. and Punna Rao, P., 2000, Knowledge of oil palm growers. J. Ext. Edu.,
11(3): 2866-2870.

Shashidhar, D.N., 2004, A study on influencing factors and constraints in drip irrigation by
horticulture farmers of Bijapur district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Shashidhara, K. K., 2003, A study on socio-economic profile of drip irrigation farmers on


Shimoga and Davanagere district of Karnataka. M .Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Shivamurthy, G.R., 1991, A study on the knowledge and adoption behaviour of arecanut and
cardamom growers in Shimoga district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ,
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Siddappa, C.A., 1999, A study on knowledge, adoption and marketing pattern of pomegranate
growers in Bagalkot district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore,
India

Sidram, 2008, A study on analysis of organic farming practices in pigeonpea in Gulbarga


district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Singh, M. P., Chauhan, K. N. K. and Amtulawari, S., 1996, Correlates of Knowledge, Attitude
and Risk performance of Farmers towards dry farming technologies,
Maharashtra J. Ext. Edu., 18(1):146-149.

Singh, P. R. and Sharma, P. N., 1998, Adoption of improved paddy technology in Madhya
Pradesh. Agric. Ext. Rev., 10(2): 25-27.

Singh, R. N., 1973, Characteristics of farm innovations associated with the rate of adoptions.
Indian J. Agril. Econ., 24 : 71-78.

Sophiasatyavathy, 2001, A study on knowledge and adoption of sustainable cultivation


practices in sugarcane and cotton by farmers in Cuddlore district of Tamil Nadu.
M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India.

Sridhara, K., 2002, An evaluative study of watershed programme in Pavagada taluk of


Tumkur district in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri), Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad,
India

Srinivasareddy, M. V., 1995, A study on knowledge and adoption of recommended mango


cultivation practices among farmers of Kolar district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Bangalore, India

Srivastava, S.N. and Singh, R.P., 1990, Identification of constraints of paddy production under
rainfed conditions. Indian J. Ext. Edu., 26(3&4): 77-79.
Sunil Kumar, G. M., 2004, A study on farmers knowledge and adoption of production and
post-harvest technology in tomato crop of Belgaum district in Karnataka. M. Sc.
(Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

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

Thiranjangowda, B. T., 2005, A study on cultivation and marketing pattern of selected cut
flowers in Belgaum district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India

Thyagarajan, S. and Vasanthakumar, J., 2000, Constraints to high yield in rice at farm level.
J. Ext. Edu., 11(2) : 2747-2753.

Tomar, L. S. and Sharma, P.B., 2002, Yield and technological knowledge gap in soybean
cultivation in grid region of Madhya Pradesh. JNKVV Res. J., 36 (1/2): 115-117.

Vedamurthy, H. S., 2002, A study on arecanut management practices in Shimoga district in


Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Venkataramalu, 2003, A study on the knowledge level adoption and marketing behaviour of
chilli growers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Venkatashivareddy, 2006, Knowledge level adoption and marketing behaviour of chilli


growers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric.
Sci., Dharwad, India

Venkatesh Gandhi, R., 2002, Knowledge level and adoption behaviour of vegetable growers
with respect to IPM of tomato crop in Kolar district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India

Vijaykumar, A. C., 1991, A study on adoption pattern and certain aspects of marketing of
potato by farmers in Malur taluk, Kilar district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric.
Sci., Dharwad, India

Vijaykumar, K., 2001, Entrepreneurship behaviour of floriculture farmers in Ranga Reddy


district of Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agric.
Univ., Hyderabad, India

Vinay Kumar, R., 2005, Study on knowledge and adoption of rose growing farmers in
Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

Wase, R. B., 2001, Knowledge and adoption of farmers about Jayanti chilli cultivation. M. Sc.
(Agri.) Thesis, Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyalaya, Akola, India.

Yaligar, S. S. P., 1997, A study on soybean cultivation by farmers of Belgaum district an


analytical study. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.
APPENDIX
STUDY ON TECHNOLOGICAL GAP IN ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDE CULTIVATION
PRACTICES BY THE SOYBEAN GROWERS

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Respondent No.:

I) General information

1. Name of the farmer :

2. Name of the village :

3. Name of the taluk :

II) Personal characteristics

4. Age :

5. Formal education : Illiterate / literate

1) Primary (1st-4 thStd.)


th th
2) Middle school (5 -7 Std.)

3) High school (8th-10th Std.)

4) PUC (10+12th Std.)

5) Graduate and above

6. Land holding:

Please indicate details regarding land property

Sl. No. Type of land Acre Guntas

1. Dry land

2. Irrigated land

3. Garden land

Total
7. Annual income:
What crops did you grow during previous year please give the details:

Total yield
Area Total Total
Price/ of Total
Season Crops in Yield/acre yield income Price/(qtl) Total Gross Net
(qtl) byproducts income of
acre (qtl) of main expenditure income income
(qtl) Byproduct
product

Kharif

1.

2.

Rabi

1.

2.

Summer

1.

2.

8. Extension participation: (In the last one year)


Indicate your participation in extension activities by putting tick () mark against the
concerned item.

Extent of participation
Sl. no Extension activity
Regular Occasional Never
1. Training programme
2. Demonstration
3. Field day
4. Field visit
5. Extension group
meeting/interaction
6. Agriculture exhibitions
7. Krishi mela
8. Educational tour
9. Innovativeness:
A set of statements representing Innovativeness of farmers are given below. Please state the
degree of your agreement
(A – Agree, UD – Undecided, DA – Dis-Agree about each statement by putting tick () mark against
the concerned item.

Sl. No. Statements A UD DA

1. Do you want to learn new ways of farming

If the agricultural extension worker gives a talk


2. on improved aspects of agriculture would you
attend?

If the government would help you to establish a


3.
farm elsewhere, would you move?

4. Do you want a change in your way of life?

A rural youth should try to farm the way his


5.
parents did?

6. Do you want your sons to be farmers?

It is better to enjoy today and let tomorrow take


7.
care of itself

8. A man’s fortune is in the hands of god

10. Risk orientation:


A set of statements representing Risk orientation of farmers are given below. Please state
the degree of your agreement
(A – Agree, UD – Undecided, DA – Dis-Agree about each statement by putting tick () mark against
the concerned item.

Sl.No Statements A UD DA

1. A farmer should grow large number of crops to avoid greater risks


involved in growing one or two crops
2. A farmer should rather take more of a chance in making a big
profit than to be content with a smaller but less risky profits

3. A farmer who is willing to take greater risks than the average


farmer, usually does better financially
4. It is good for a farmer to take risks when he knows his chance of Contd…
success is fairly high

5. It is better for a farmer not to try new farming methods unless


most other farmers have used them with success
6. Trying an entirely new method in farming by a farmer involves,
risk but it is worth
11. Economic motivation:
A set of statements representing economic Motivation of farmers are given below. Please
state the degree of your agreement
(A – Agree, UD – Undecided, DA – Dis-Agree about each statement by putting tick () mark against
the concerned item.

Response pattern
Sl.No Statements
A UD DA

1. A farmer should work towards more yields and


economic profits
2. The most successful farmer is one who makes more
profits

3. A farmer should grow cash crops to increase


monetary profits in comparison to growing food
crops for home consumption
4. The farmer should try the new farming ideas which may
earn him more money
5. It is difficult for the farmers children to make
good start unless he provides them with economic
assistance
6. A farmer must earn his living but the most
important thing in life cannot be defined in
economic terms

12. Marketing Pattern:


Please Indicate your responses to the following statements by putting tick () mark against the
concerned item.
1. From which source do you collect the price information?
a) News paper
b) Radio
c) Personally visiting market
d) Others who visit the markets
e) If any other specify: a) b)
2. Where do you sell the produce?
a) Local market at the village level
b) APMC
d) If any other (please specify)
3. Time of selling the produce?
a) Sale after the harvest if the prices are favorable
b) Store for some time and selling the produce
c) If any other (please specify)
4. Do you transport the produce to the market? Yes/No
If yes, indicate mode of transportation you adopted.
a) Bullock cart
b) Tractor
c) Bus
d) If any other (please specify)
5. Do you grade the produce before market? Yes/No
If yes, indicate on which basis you are grading
a) Size and Shape
b) Shinked / Shrivelled
g) If any (please specify)
6. Are you storing the produce? Yes/No
If yes, indicate which storage method you are following.
a) Gunny bag
b) Metal bins
c) if any other (please specify)
Part – A

KNOWLEDGE AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED CULTIVATION PRACTICES IN SOYBEAN


Knowledge level Adoption level
Sl.
Statements Partially Not
No. Known Not known Adopted
adopted adopted

1. Varieties
a) J.S.335
b) P.K.1029
c) K.H.S.B.2
d) K.B.79
2. Sowing time
a) Kharif : June 15 to Jly end
b) Summer : Middle of Sept to Dec end
c) Rabi : Oct to Nov
3. Spacing in the field
a) Row to Row 30 cm
b) Plant to Plant 10 cm
4. Seed rate (acre)
a) 20 Kg (J.S.335 )
b) 25 Kg (Other variety)
5. Seed treatment
a) Captan or Thiram 3 gm/Kg
b) Vatavax 2 gm/Kg
6. Seed inoculation with
a) Rhizobium culture - 150 gm
7. FYM to be applied/acre
a) 10 cart load/acre or 5 tones/acre
8. Chemical Fertilizer/acre
a) N : 16kg/acre
b) P : 30 kg/acre
c) K : 10 kg/acre
d) Zink sulphate 5 Kg
9. Time of application of fertilizers
Mix all the quantities of FYM/Compost in
soil 3 weeks before sowing. after the land
is ready for sowing apply entire dose of
chemical fertilizers
10. Intercultural operation
Hoeing and hand weeding is done 2
times after 30-40 days interval.
11. Weed control (per acre)
a) What are the common weedicides
i. i) 1 liter of allachlore 50 E.C in 400 liters
of water
ii. ii) 800 ml Chlomazon 50 E.C in 400 liters
of water
iii. iii) 15 gm Chlorimuran 25 E.C in 400
liters of water
12. Pest control
a) What are the common
pest observed
i. Stem fly and pod fly
ii. girdle beetle
iii. Spodoptera,Semilooper and Black headed hairy
catterpiller
iv. Leaf miner
v. Thrips
b) What measures are to be followed to control major
pests

Name of the
Chemicals used Dosage
pest

2ml/lit of water
Prophenophos
Stem fly and
or or
Pod fly
0.6 gm/lit of water
Mithomyl

4kg/acre
Phorate
or
Or 12kg/acre
Girdle beetle

Carbofuran Mixed in the soil


at the time of
sowing.

Mobnocrotophos
Spodoptera, 1.25 mi/lit of water
Semilooper or or
and BHH 2 ml/lit of water
Quinalphas

Leaf miner Monocrotophos 1.25 ml/lit of water

Phosphamedan
Thrips 0.5 ml/lit of water
or Immidachloprid
13. Disease control

a) What are the major diseases observed


i.) Purple seed stain
ii.) Bactrial leaf spot
iii.) Rust
iv.) Yellow mosaic
v.) Charcoal rot and Collar rot
b) What control measures did you fallow to control major
diseases?
Name of the
Chemicals used Dosage
disease
Purple seed Carbandizim 1 gm/lit of
stain water

Agrimycin or 0.5 gm/lit of


Streptocyclin water
Bactrial leaf or
or
spot
Copperoxychloride 2.5 gm/lit of
water

Hexachonazol or 1 ml/lit of water


Propiconozol
Rust
or
10 ml/lit of
neem oil water

Oxymetal methyl 10 ml/lit of


water
yellow mosaic or
or
1.5 ml/lit of
Trizonophos water

Charcoal rot Thiram 2-3 gm/Kg of


and or seeds
Collar rot captan or 2 gm
Part – B

CONSTRAINTS FACED BY THE FARMERS IN ADOPTION OF RECOMMEND CULTIVATION


PRACTICES

Sl. No. Constraints Remarks

1. Non-availability of inputs in time

2. Lack of knowledge about disease control

3. High cost of inputs

4. Non availability of rhizobium, thiram and zinc sulphate

5. Financial constraints

6. Non-availability of drought tolerant varieties

7. Shortage of labours

8. Fluctuation in the price

9. Lack of timely advisory service

10. Heavy risk due to failure of monsoon rains


A STUDY ON TECHNOLOGICAL GAP IN ADOPTION
OF THE IMPROVED SOYBEAN CULTIVATION
PRACTISES

SURESH KUMAR 2009 DR.K.V.NATIKAR


(Major Advisor)
ABSTRACT
A study on technological gap in adoption of improved soybean cultivation practices in
Dharwad district of Northern Karnataka was carried out during 2008-09. By following the
simple random sampling, 150 respondents were selected from 10 villages of two taluks. The
data was elicited through personal interview method.
Majority of the respondents were possessed medium level of knowledge (70.66%)
and more than fifty per cent (61.33%) belongs to medium category of the technological gap.
More than fifty per cent of technological was found in some of the practices like
application of ZnSO4, seed inoculation, seed treatment, potassic fertilizer application and
plant protection measures and the gap in respect of hand weeding, FYM and nitrogen
application were comparatively less. And a very least per cent of gap was found with respect
to variety, spacing and sowing time.
Majority of the respondents 86.67 per cent had knowledge about selection of the
soybean varieties and 93.33 per cent of them adopted it followed by sowing time wherein
94.67 per cent knowledge and 86.67 per cent adopted and in respect of 89.33 per cent
knowledge and 80.67 per cent adopted.
About 89.33, 98.00 and 88.00 per cent of the respondents had knowledge about use
of recommended seed rate, FYM application, spacing respectively and 80.67, 80.66 and
85.33 per cent of the respondents adopted respectively.
About 63.33 per cent of them had knowledge about weed control and also 46.90 and
52.00 per cent, respectively had knowledge about pest and disease control, of which 41.33
per cent adopted weed control while 48.00 of the respondents adopted plant protection
measures to control pest and diseases.
Majority of the respondents belonged to middle age group, educated upto high school
and medium land holding. More than half of the respondents (52.00%) were found to have
medium level of economic motivation.