Extent of Adoption and Reasons for Non-adoption of Selected Resource Conservation Technologies by the Farmers of Ludhiana and Moga Districts of Punjab

Transcription

1 Extent of Adoption and Reasons for Non-adoption of Selected Resource Conservation Technologies by the Farmers of Ludhiana and Moga Districts of Punjab D. S. Dhillon, Sukhandeep Singh and V. K. Rampal Department of Extension Education Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (Punjab) ABSTRACT The present study was conducted to know the extent of adoption and reasons for non-adoption of selected resource conservation technologies by the farmers. A total sample of 180 respondents was taken from 12 villages of two selected districts for the present investigation. The data were collected with the help of interview schedule. The findings revealed that around half of the respondents adopted laser land leveler, but the extent of adoption of tensiometer, leaf colour chart and bed/ furrow/ ridge planting was low. Area wise extent of adoption of laser land leveler was also high i.e per cent. About 71.0 per cent of the respondents were willing to increase the area but only 7.5 per cent wanted to decrease the area under selected resource conservation technologies. The major reasons expressed by the respondents for non-adoption of laser land leveler were high cost and its non-availability whereas for non-adoption of tensiometer and leaf colour chart were their non-availability in the local market and lack of awareness. Keywords: Resource conservation technologies, Extent of adoption, Leaf colour chart, Tensiometer. INTRODUCTION The Punjab state is the major contributor to national food production and food grain reserves. The increase in production of cereals is due to the adoption of recommended agricultural practices followed by over exploitation of the natural resources. Presently, the major problems of agriculture in Punjab are depletion of water table, environmental pollution and deterioration of soil health. To combat with these problems, many resource conservation technologies have been developed by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana but these are not being adopted to the desired level by the farmers of Punjab. It may be due to the lack of knowledge and awareness about these technologies among the farmers, socio economic factors of the farmers and the factors related to technology itself. So there was a need to study the extent of adoption of these resource conservation technologies, reasons for their nonadoption. Hence, the present study was conducted to know the extent of adoption and reasons for non-adoption of selected resource conservation technologies by the farmers of Ludhiana and Moga districts of Punjab. MATERIALS AND METHODS The adoption of some resource conservation technologies included use of tensiometer for irrigation scheduling in paddy, use of laser land leveler, use of leaf colour chart for judicious use of nitrogenous fertilizers in paddy and bed/furrow/ ridge planting of crops. Twelve villages were selected to undertake this study and from each village 15 farmers were selected randomly to make a total sample of 180 farmers. The research instrument constructed for the present study consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of questions to measure the extent of adoption of selected resource conservation technologies adopted by the farmers. The second part contained structured and open-ended questions and statements to study the reasons for non-adoption of these technologies. The research instrument was pre-tested on 20 non-sampled respondents. Pre-testing was done with the Corresponding author daljitsdhillon@hotmail.com 36 Journal of Krishi Vigyan

2 objective to remove any ambiguities and to overcome the difficulties faced with respect to clarity and understanding of questions asked in the questionnaire. The data were collected from the respondents with the help of personal interview approach. The data were analyzed with the help of appropriate statistical tools such as frequencies, percentages, mean scores, and cumulative frequency cube root method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Adoption of selected resource conservation The data (Table 1) indicated that 49.4 per cent of the respondents used laser land leveler while 16.7, 15.0 and 8.3 per cent of the respondents used leaf colour chart in paddy, tensiometer for applying irrigation in paddy and bed/furrow/ridge planting of crops, respectively. However, 10.6 per cent of the respondents used none of the selected resource conservation technologies. 2. Experience of the respondents in using The data (Table 2) indicated that 43.5 per cent of the respondents had 2-4 yrs. of experience, 11.2 per cent had experience of 1-2 yrs. and only 0.6 per cent had 4 yrs. and above experience in using the laser land leveler. Likewise, 13.0 per cent of the respondents had experience of 1-2 yrs. of using leaf colour chart, while 5.6 per cent had experience of 2-4 yrs. As far as the use of tensiometer was concerned, 8.7 per cent had experience of 1-2 yrs. whereas, 7.5 and 0.6 per cent respondents had experience of 2-4 yrs. and 4 yrs., respectively. Similarly, for raising crops on bed/ furrow/ ridge farmers were possessing experience of 2-4 yrs. (4.4 %),1-2 yrs. (3.7 %) and about 4 yrs. (1.2 %). It was thus concluded that most of the respondents had 2-4 years of experience in using laser land leveler. 3. Area under selected resource conservation The data (Table 3) indicated that 18.0 per cent of the respondents used laser land leveler in 5-10 acres of area, 14.9 per cent of the respondents used laser land leveler in acres of area, 13.0 per cent used it in 15 acres and above area and only 9.3 per cent of them used it in area less than 5 acres. As far as the tensiometer is concerned, 8.7, 3.7, 1.9 and 2.5 per cent of the respondents used tensiometer in the area less than 5 acres, 5-10 acres, acres and more than 15 acres, respectively. Similarly, 9.3, 4.4, 3.1 and 1.9 per cent of the respondents used leaf colour chart in area less than 5 acres, 5-10 acres, acres and Table 1. Distribution of the respondents according to the adoption of resource conservation technologies. Sr. No. Name of the Resource Conservation Adopters Technology Frequency Percentage I. Tensiometer for irrigation in paddy II. Laser land leveler III. Leaf colour chart in paddy IV. Bed/Furrow/Ridge planting of crops Total Adopters Non-Adopters Table 2. Distribution of the respondents according to their experience in using resource conservation technologies. I. 1-2 years II. 2-4 years III. 4 years and above F - Frequency Journal of Krishi Vigyan 37

3 Table 3. Distribution of the respondents according to the area under resource conservation technologies. I. Below 5 acres II acres III acres IV. 15 acres and above F - Frequency more than 15 acres, respectively. The values for bed/ furrow/ ridge planting of the crops sown on area less than 5 acres ( 4.4 %), 5-10 acres (1.9 %), acres ( 1.9 %) and more than 15 acres (1.2 %). 4. Area wise extent of adoption of selected It was observed that the extent of adoption of laser land leveler w. r. t. area was found to be maximum i.e per cent followed by use of tensiometer (55.2 %), leaf colour chart ( 49.6 %) and bed/ furrow/ ridge planting (40.5 %) (Table 4). 5. Distribution of the respondents according to the future use of resource conservation It was evident from the data (Table 5) that majority of the respondents i.e per cent were willing to increase the area under the selected resource conservation technologies while 21.7 per cent wanted to keep that area constant and only 7.5 per cent of the respondents were willing to decrease the area under the selected resource conservation technologies. 6. Reasons for non-adoption of selected The data presented in Table 6 pointed out that high cost was the main reason of 57.1 per cent of the respondents for non-adoption of Laser Land leveler. While 27.5, 24.2, 19.8 and 18.7 per cent of the respondents didn t adopt Laser Land Leveler due to want of technical guidance, lack of finance, lack of availability and lack of knowledge respectively. However, 17.6, 9.9 and 6.6 per cent respondents reported hard work, ignorance and lack of awareness as the reasons Table 4. Area wise extent of adoption of selected resource conservation technologies. Resource Conservation Area under the Total Sampled Extent of Technology Resource Conservation Area under the Adoption (acres) Crop (acres) (%) I. Use of Tensiometer for irrigation in paddy II. Use of Laser Land Leveler III. Use of Leaf Colour Chart in paddy IV. Bed/Furrow/Ridge planting of crops Table 5. Distribution of the respondents according to the future use of selected resource conservation technologies. I. Willing to Increase II. Willing to Decrease III. Willing to keep constant Journal of Krishi Vigyan

4 Table 6. Distribution of the respondents according to the reasons for non- adoption of selected resource conservation technologies. Sr. No. Reasons for Non-Adoption Frequency* Percentage A Laser Land Leveler n=91 i Lack of finance ii Lack of availability iii Lack of Knowledge iv Lack of awareness v Need of technical guidance vi Requires hard work vii High Cost viii Ignorance B Tensiometer n=153 i Lack of availability ii Lack of Knowledge iii Lack of awareness iv Need of technical guidance v Ignorance vi Unwillingness to adopt C Leaf Colour Chart n= 150 i Lack of availability ii Lack of Knowledge iii Lack of awareness iv Need of technical guidance v Requires hard work vi Ignorance vii Time consuming D Bed/ Furrow/ Ridge planting n= 165 i Lack of Knowledge ii Need of technical guidance iii Requires hard work iv High Cost v Ignorance vi Labour intensive vii Time consuming *Multiple responses for non-adoption of laser land leveler. As far as Tensiometer was concerned, 29.4 per cent showed their unwillingness to adopt while ignorance was the reason of 28.1 per cent respondents for non-adoption of this technology. The other reasons as reported by 26.1, 24.2, 21.6 and 12.4 per cent of the respondents included lack of availability, lack of awareness, lack of knowledge and need of technical guidance respectively. Similarly, 34.0 per cent respondents cited ignorance as the reason for non-adoption of Leaf Journal of Krishi Vigyan Colour Chart, need of technical guidance and lack of availability were the other reasons for nonadoption reported by 29.3 and 28.0 per cent of the respondents. However 25.3, 23.3, 16.7 and 12.0 per cent of the respondents didn t adopt leaf colour chart due to the reasons of lack of knowledge, lack of awareness, hard work and time consuming, respectively. It was interesting to note that 35.2 per cent of the respondents did not adopt bed/ furrow/ ridge planting because of labour intensive, 25.5 and 20.6 per cent reported time consumption and hard 39

5 work as the reason for non-adoption of this technology. While 10.9, 7.3, 5.5 and 4.9 per cent of the respondents did not adopt bed/ furrow/ ridge planting due to high cost, need of technical guidance, ignorance and lack of knowledge respectively. CONCLUSION It was concluded that about half (49.4%) of the respondents used laser land leveler, while 16.7, 15.0 and 8.3 per cent of them used leaf colour chart in paddy, tensiometer for irrigation in paddy and bed/furrow/ridge planting of crops respectively. However, 10.6 per cent of the respondents used none of the selected resource conservation technologies. More than 43.0 per cent of the adopters of laser land leveler had 2-4 years experience, whereas this figure was found to be minimum for Bed/ Furrow/ Ridge planting of crops and use of Tensiometer and leaf colour chart. The extent of adoption of laser land leveler with respect to area was maximum i.e per cent followed by the adoption of tensiometer, leaf colour chart and bed/ furrow/ ridge planting of crops. Majority of the respondents were interested to increase the future use of laser land leveler technology, whereas the farmers were least interested to increase area under use of tensiometer and leaf colour chart and bed/ furrow/ ridge planting. The reasons for non- adoption of these resource conservation technologies were mainly lack of knowledge and awareness about the benefits of the selected resource conservation technologies among the farmers. Majority of them lacked proper guidance in using these technologies. The major reasons for non-adoption of laser land leveler at field level were high cost, non-availability of credit, difficulty in getting subsidy and cumbersome and lengthy loan procedure. 40 Journal of Krishi Vigyan