AN ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABLE CULTIVATION PRACTICES FOLLOWED BY SUGARCANE GROWERS IN KARNATAKA

Transcription

1 AN ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABLE CULTIVATION PRACTICES FOLLOWED BY SUGARCANE GROWERS IN KARNATAKA Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of philosophy In AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION By GIREESH N. MARADDI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION COLLEFE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD UNIVERSITY OF ARGICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD AUGUST, 2006

2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE DHARWAD AUGUST, 2006 (L.V. HIREVENKANAGOUDAR) MAJOR ADVISOR Approved by: Chairman : (L.V. HIREVENKANAGOUDAR) Members : 1. (J.G. ANGADI) 2. (L.B. KUNNAL) 3. (H.B. BABALAD) 4. (P.A KATARAKI)

3 CONTENTS Chapter No. Title I. INTRODUCTION II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE III. METHODOLOGY IV. RESULTS V. DISCUSSION VI. SUMMARY VII. REFERENCES APPENDICES

4 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 1. Profile of sugarcane growers 1a. Extension contact made by the sugarcane growers 1b. Organizational participation of sugarcane growers 1c. Mass media participation of sugarcane growers 1d. Socio-economic attributes 2. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their overall knowledge of sustainable cultivation practices in sugarcane 3. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to land preparation 4. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to planting (setts) 5. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to sugarcane based cropping system 6. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to integrated nutrient management (INM) 7. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to water management 8. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to integrated pest management (IPM) 9. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to ratoon management 10. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices with respect to maturity and harvesting 11. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their overall adoption of sustainable cultivation practices in sugarcane 12. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to land preparation 13. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to planting (Setts) 14. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to sugarcane based cropping system 15. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to integrated nutrient management (INM) 16. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to water management 17. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to integrated pest management

5 18. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to ratoon management 19. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers with respect to maturity and harvesting practices 20. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their overall technological gap of sustainable cultivation practices in sugarcane 21. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their attitude towards sustainable cultivation practices of sugarcane 22. Correlation coefficients of independent variables of sugarcane growers with their knowledge level of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices 23. Multiple regression analysis of knowledge level of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices with their selected independent variables of sugarcane growers 24. Step-down multiple regression of knowledge level of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices with their selected independent variables of sugarcane growers 25. Correlation coefficients of independent variables of sugarcane growers with their adoption level of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices 26. Multiple regression of extent of adoption of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices with their independent variables of sugarcane growers 27. Step-down multiple regression of extent of adoption of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices with their independent variables of sugarcane growers 28. Correlation coefficients of independent variables of sugarcane growers with their technological gap of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices 29. Multiple regression of technological gap of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices with their independent variables of sugarcane growers 30. Step-down multiple regression of technological gap of sustainable sugarcane cultivation practices with their independent variables of sugarcane growers 31. Constraints faced by sugarcane growers in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices 32. Suggestions as expressed by sugarcane growers

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 1. Graphical representation of the study area 2. Knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices (conceptual model) 3. Extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by the sugarcane growers (conceptual model) 4. Technological gap of sugarcane growers in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices (conceptual model) 5. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their overall knowledge of sustainable cultivation practices in sugarcane 6. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their overall adoption of sustainable cultivation practices in sugarcane 7. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their overall technological gap of sustainable cultivation practices in sugarcane 8. Distribution of sugarcane growers according to their attitude towards sustainable cultivation practices of sugarcane 9. Constraints faced by sugarcane growers in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices 10. Suggestions as expressed by sugarcane growers

7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix No. Title I. State-wise area, production and productivity II. III. IV. Area, production and average yield of sugarcane in Karnataka for Area under sugarcane during (Belgaum and Bagalkot district) Interview schedule

8 I. INTRODUCTION India is the seventh largest country in the world with geographical area of million hectares representing 2.45 per cent of the world s geographical area. The total population of the country is 1027 million, which is equal to per cent of world s population. Agriculture is the main sector in the country which provides livelihood to 67 per cent of the labour force, contributes to 27 per cent of the nation s GDP and accounts for about 21 per cent share of total value of the country s export. Agricultural sector showed a growth rate of 2.67 per cent per annum during the period to (Anonymous, 2002). Agriculture is the predominant sector of Indian economy that meets the basic requirements, food, clothing and shelter of the people, which contributes 26 per cent to national income. The role of agriculture on the economy of India may be considered in the light of contribution it makes in three important aspects i.e., national income, employment and foreign exchange. India has a wide diversity of crops, among them food grains occupy a major portion of the land area, while sugarcane and fibre crops occupy relatively lesser acreage. Inspite of low acreage under sugarcane, it commands greater significance due to their remarkable contribution to our national economy through foreign exchange earnings. In the recent past, though the productivity of these crops has increased, the magnitude has been very small. In order to increase our national income, the sustainable production of such cash crops is imperative because of its importance in foreign exchange earnings. Sugarcane is one of the important commercial crop in the tropics and sub-tropics and serves as the main source of sugar in world. Globally, it is cultivated over an area of million ha, with an annual production of million tonnes and productivity of tonnes per ha. India is one of the leading countries in sugarcane cultivation with an area of 4.41 million ha and annual production of 265 million tonnes and average recovery of per cent (Anonymous, 2002). In India, area under sugarcane during was 4.32 million ha as against 4.41 million ha in with slightly higher average productivity than world average (66.92 t/ha) and good recovery of period. Indian sugar industry, second largest after the textiles industry, has been playing a vital role in the socio-economic transformation of the country. About 50 million sugarcane farmers and their dependants have been involved in sugarcane cultivation. About 0.4 million skilled and unskilled workers are employed by the industry and additional employment is also generated by the allied industries. In India, the sugarcane areas are broadly classified into sub-tropical and tropical regions. The later harvests better cane yield with higher sugar recovery. The crop is cultivated under a number of biotic and abiotic stresses resulting into yield stagnation/fluctuation and low sugar recovery. At present, the total number of sugar units in India are more than 465. In Karnataka, sugarcane is mainly concentrated in Belgaum, Bagalkot, Mandya, Shimoga, Mysore, Bidar, Chitradurga, Bijapur and Gulbarga districts in Karnataka. Sustainable agriculture : Need of the hour There is an urgent need to develop farming techniques, which are sustainable from environmental, production and socio-economic point of view. That means to guarantee sufficient food production in the next decades and beyond is critical because modern agriculture production throughout the world does not appear to be sustainable in the longterm. The agricultural community is thus setting it hopes on sustainable agriculture, which will maintain the cycle of input- output and ecosystem balance. Definition of FAO (1991), seems appropriate in this context. Sustainable rural development is the management and conservation of natural resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to assure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for the present and future generations. Sustainable agriculture is a complex issue associated with producing food while maintaining our biophysical resources including soil, water and biota with no adverse impact on the wider environment. It should;

9 1. Maintain or improve the production of clean food. 2. Maintain or improve the quality of landscapes, which includes soil, water, biota and aesthetics. 3. Have minimal impact on the wide environment. 4. Be economically viable. 5. Be acceptable to society. The success in promoting sustainable agriculture can be achieved through genetic diversity, crop diversification, integrated nutrient management, integrated pest management and sustainable water management (Muthuraman, 1995). Genetic diversity emphasize on location specific varieties, which are essential for achieving sustainable advances in providing productivity. Diversity of crop varieties is a resultant of plant breeding efforts done according to the needs of rural families for enhancing the stability of yield. Crop diversification methods like crop rotation, intercropping, mixed cropping and double cropping reduce soil erosion, improve soil fertility and increase yields. Legumes grown in crop rotation and grown as an intercrop would reduce the need for nitrogenous fertilizer. Integrated nutrient management has several components viz., applying fertilizers, farmyard manure, compost, crop residues, green manures, rhizobium, blue green algae, azolla etc. besides efficient crop management practices. The major steps in integrated nutrient management are : 1) appropriate cropping systems 2) soil testing 3) agronomic techniques like split application of fertilizers, methods and placement of fertilizers and use of combination of organic and inorganic manures 4) use of green manures 5) conjunctive use of farm wastes 6) selection of appropriate variety and optimum cultural practices and 7) adoption of water management techniques including maintenance of farm drains. Integrated pest management in agriculture is ideally the most effective economical, safest, ecologically sustainable and biological method to limit the harmful effects of crop pests. A number of tools or components have been successfully used for integrated pest management in several crops. These include 1) use of pest resistant varieties 2) cultural practices like early or late planting, summer ploughing etc. 3) use of parasites, predators and pathogens of crop pests 4) quarantine measures and 5) judicious use of pesticides, attractants, repellents, sterilants, growth regulators, male sterile techniques and suppression programmes. Sustainable water management is possible when water is efficiently utilized and managed to achieve better crop production and productivity. This can be achieved by judicious use of water, supply of irrigation water on volumetric basis for economic use, water harvesting in command areas, proper design and management of irrigation systems to prevent salinization, leaching of the nutrients, affecting the C:N ratio and effects the other beneficial reaction in the soil health. Sugarcane is one such crop where there is lot of scope to incorporate the above said practices, systematically to harvest higher yields and to maintain soil productivity and agricultural scientists are overwhelmingly advocating the sustainable package of practices to harvest good tonnage in sugarcane. Considering the importance of sustainable practices in increasing the tonnage of sugarcane crop without any damage either to the soil or to the environment, scientists have been advocating a good number of practices for general adoption by the farmers of Karnataka. Inspite of educational efforts, it is observed that there has been a slow adoption of these practices by the farmers. Hence, in order to minimize the cost of production and maximize the productivity without affecting the environment, certain steps need to be taken for sugarcane cultivation. The issues that need to be addressed in sugarcane crop are detailed below.

10 Integrated nutrient management After the introduction of intensive cropping for the last three decades, there has been a decline of nutrients in the soil. Therefore, judicious efforts are needed to replenish the nutrients, particularly with a view to maintain the sustainability of yield. In this direction, it is important to include organic manures and pulses in the cropping sequence. Regarding sugarcane green manuring, trash mulching, use of factory waste like pressmud should be incorporated to enhance the soil fertility. In addition to this biofertilizer, which could reduce about 25 per cent of the cost spent on nitrogenous fertilizers, besides increasing the nitrogen uptake can be used in sugarcane cultivation. Integrated pest management The cost incurred on management of pests and diseases in sugarcane can be curtailed through a proper management practices. Major pests and diseases inflicting damage in the area should be spotted and appropriate management measures should be adopted by integrating cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical tools/methods as recommended by the scientists. By adopting these practices, the cost of cultivation can be reduced, especially in sugarcane by curtailing the huge amount spent on pesticides. Moreover, these practices are eco-friendly, which can overcome the threat of environmental pollution. Such practices which need more attention in the light of pest management are; use of pheromone traps, light traps, bio-control agents, botanical pesticides, ITK s and bio-fungicides. Water management Sugarcane is a long duration crop, which requires abundant water, but with the water table falling at an alarming rate all over the country, it is important to resort to judicious use of irrigation water. The alternative means to economize water viz., trash mulching, drip irrigation and alternate furrow irrigation can be adopted, which help in enormous saving of water so that it could be utilized for other crops. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that sugarcane crop command greater importance for attaining a better position in the world market, which would inturn contribute to our national income. At the same time, there is a need to concentrate on certain specific sustainable cultivation practices which are eco-friendly and cost effective. Since, the issues of higher cost of cultivation due to increased use of pesticides and fertilizers, decreasing trends of yield and other environmental issues are gaining paramount importance, greater emphasis is thus being laid on sustainable cultivation practices in the recent past. There are hardly few studies on such issues. Hence, an attempt has been made to analyse the sustainable cultivation practices followed by sugarcane growers with the following specific objectives. 1. To study the knowledge level of sugarcane growers about sustainable cultivation practices. 2. To find out the extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by the sugarcane growers. 3. To measure the technological gap of sugarcane growers in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices. 4. To study the attitude of sugarcane growers towards sustainable cultivation practices of sugarcane. 5. To find out the socio-economic and psychological variables of sugarcane growers and their relation with knowledge and adoption of sustainable cultivation practices. 6. To elicit the constraints in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices as perceived by sugarcane growers.

11 7. To get suggestions from the farmers to improve their knowledge and adoption of sustainable cultivation practices. LIMITATION OF THE STUDY The limitation of time and other resources in the present investigation restricted the selection of the locale and sample size and also the variables. Hence, the findings have to be viewed in the specific context of the conditions prevailing in the study area and hence cannot be generalized for a wider geographical area. However, careful and rigorous procedures have been adopted in carrying out the research as objectively as possible. Moreover, the study was handicapped to the extent that it was a single student research study with limitation of financial and physical facilities. Inspite of the individual bias made by the respondents in eliciting the necessary responses, it is believed that the findings and conclusions drawn in the present study would be the test of more rigorous field observations. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The study would be of great help to evaluate the knowledge level of farmers about the different sustainable sugarcane farming practices. In the process, the reasons for low sustainability could be analyzed and necessary corrective measures can be suggested to overcome those lacunae. The study also aims to delineate the differential characteristics of farmers who are practicing more sustainable sugarcane farming practices and farmers who are practicing less sustainable sugarcane farming practices. This would give ample opportunity for the extension workers to manipulate/promote those factors while educating sugarcane farmers. Operational definitions/meanings of the concepts used in the study Sustainability of sugarcane farming It is the degree to which the farmers manage soil and water relying mainly on on farm resources (i.e., the use of locally available resources, non-cash and low cost inputs/technologies and minimizing the use of chemicals) to maintain or enhance productivity without affecting the production environment. Land preparation Refers to ploughing the land and preparing the land to plant canes in ridges and furrows. Seeds (setts) and sowing Includes non-cash and low cost technologies in the selection of good quality setts and adopting recommended spacing. Sugarcane based cropping system Refers to practicing crop rotation and intercropping in sugarcane fields. Integrated nutrient management Extent of application of right quantity of organic and inorganic fertilizers and amendments to soil at proper time, method and combination aimed at deriving maximum benefits and causing minimum damage to the resource base.

12 Water management Extent of application of practices to obtain added benefits from rainfall and water flow through irrigation to store water in soil for crop production with proper drainage to keep the soil health intact. Integrated pest management Refers to management of pests (insects, diseases and weeds) by using preventive and curative measures through judicious combination of cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical means. Ratoon management Ratoon refers to subsequent harvesting taken from the cane stubble after first harvesting. Cultivation practices for ratoon crop includes all the practices as applied to main crop except land preparation and planting setts. Maturity and harvesting Includes practices like judging maturity of the crop, adopting timely and correct method of harvesting the crop.

13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE An intensive scrutiny of available literature is valuable in gaining an insight and understanding of the research problem. The review of literature was collected keeping in view the specific objectives of the study. Though, very few number of studies were conducted in the past regarding knowledge, adoption and technological gap and constraints in adoption of sugarcane in general recommendations, there was a paucity of literature on sustainable cultivation with respect to characteristics of farmers and the association of their characteristics with the knowledge, adoption and technological gap. Hence, in addition to the directly related literature, other closely related studies were also reviewed. The literature reviewed pertaining to the present problem under investigation is presented under the following headings. 2.1 Concept of sustainable agriculture 2.2 Profile of sugarcane growers 2.3 Knowledge of farmers regarding sustainable cultivation practices of sugarcane 2.4 Adoption of sustainable cultivation practices by sugarcane growers 2.5 Technological gap in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices in sugarcane crop 2.6 Attitude of the farmers towards sustainable cultivation practices of sugarcane 2.7 Relationship between independent variables of respondents with their knowledge level of sustainable cultivation practices 2.8 Relationship between independent variables of respondents with their extent of adoption of sustainable cultivation practices 2.9 Relationship between independent variables of respondents with their technological gap in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices 2.10 Constraints in adoption of sustainable cultivation practices of sugarcane. 2.1 CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE The science and practice of sustainable agriculture is as old as the origin of agriculture itself, although the contemporary use of the term is evolved more recently. The sustainable agriculture movement evolved from several reform movements in USA, Canada and Western Europe that developed in response to concern about impact of indiscriminate use of agricultural chemicals. In India, green revolution started in sixties with the introduction of high yielding varieties and input intensive agriculture helped to achieve the goal of targeted food production which became conspicuous by 1980s. Further, the indiscriminate use of inputs (chemical pesticides and fertilizers) has caused serious environmental problems in well endowed regions like Haryana and Punjab due to the instability and fluctuations in productivity. Since then the scientists of our country are making efforts to evolve certain technologies in agriculture which are low cost and ecologically safe besides maximizing productivity in long-run.

14 Sustainable agriculture can be defined as the management and conservation of the resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional changes in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development is environmentally non- degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1991). Paroda (1995) defined sustainable agriculture as the appropriate use of crop livestock systems and the agricultural inputs supporting their activities which maintain economic and social viability while preserving the high productivity and quality of land. Lakshminarayan (1997) defined sustainability of sugarcane farming as the degree to which the farmers manage soil and water relying mainly on 'on farm' resources (i.e., the use of locally available resources, non cash and low cost inputs/technologies and minimizing the use of chemicals) to maintain or enhance productivity without affecting the production environment. Subbarao (1999) reported that Rio-declaration (1992) emphasised four cardinal principles most relevant to sustainable agriculture as follows. Environmental policies must form an integral part of development polices and strategies. Human beings are the centre of concern for sustainable development and environmental issues are best handled with the participate co-operation of all concerned. No development can be considered complete unless it meets the criteria of productivity, equity and enviropmental safety for the present and future generations. To ensure development and sustainability it is necessary to remove all negative factors leading to unsustainability. Hegde (2000) said that sustainable agriculture is a set of farming practices which can continue to maintain the farm productivity, efficiency and productivity in the long run, without depleting the natural resources and environment. Singh et al. (2000) said that the concept of sustainability lies in maintaining harmony between buoyancy and dynamism in agricultural growth for meeting basic human needs along with emphasis on protection and conservation of natural resources. Amudhasurabi and Vasanthakumar (2001) emphasised that the basic challenge for sustainable agriculture is to make better use of internal resources by ultimate minimisation of external inputs. To have a sustainable agricultural system, the farmers should be made to realise the use of resource conserving and utilisation principles of organic farming, IPM, soil and water conservation, nutrient recycling, multiple cropping and waste utilisation. Kumaraswamy (2001) emphasised on the philosophy of sustainable agriculture. He said that the philosophy of sustainable agriculture is to maximize crop production through scientific methods of farming, growing crop varieties of high yielding and high quality potential and using optimum inputs of manures, fertilizers, bio-fertilizers and agricultural chemicals without exploiting and polluting the natural resources of soil, water and environment. Sustainable agriculture must be in harmony with the environment without exploiting and exhausting the natural resources. Kumaraswamy (2001) enumerated the principles of sustainable agriculture as follows. 1) Conservation of natural resources like soil and water is a essential part 2) Cost effective environment friendly weed control measures

15 3) Efficient soil oriented and crop oriented water management 4) Environment protection 5) High yielding and high quality varieties of crops must be chosen and grown. 6) Improved agronomic practices from land preparation to efficient harvest technology must be adopted. 7) Integrated soil fertility management practices to improve the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil using organic manures, fertilizers and biofertilizers must be followed. Ramanna and Chandrakandhan (2001) reported that the essential components of sustainable agriculture are; 1) Integrated fertility management It involves restricted use of chemical fertilizers and attempt to meet the nutrient needs of crops with organic materials such as farmyard manure, composts, green manure, sewage, sludge, maximum use of crop residues, use of bio-fertilizers, inclusion of legumes in the crop rotations. 2) Integrated pest management Pest control by cultural, mechanical, biological and genetic control of insect pests. 3) Integrated disease and weed management by reducing the dose of chemical 4) Integrated water management Water is a scarce resource for Indian agriculture and it should be utilized most optimally. All efforts should be made to harness all water resources and their profitable use in the crop production in order to achieve better water use efficiency. 5) Integrated farming system Farming system" integrates all farming enterprises such as crop production, livestock, poultry, forestry, bee keeping etc. in most compatible manner without dislocating the ecological balance. The studies mentioned above highlighted the concept of sustainable agriculture. It is evident from these studies that sustainable agriculture stresses on better use of internal inputs, restricted use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers so that the productivity of the crops can be maintained at lesser cost besides protecting the natural resource base. 2.2 PROFILE OF SUGARCANE GROWERS Age Reddy (1991) found that 51 per cent of the farmers were middle aged followed by young 34 per cent and only 7 per cent of the farmers were old. He also reported that 8 per cent of the respondents were illiterates, 21 per cent had received primary education, 35 per cent had received high school education, while 21 per cent and 15 per cent received preuniversity and graduation, respectively.

16 Channal (1995) conducted a study on share holders and non-shareholders of sugarcane factory and reported that 18, 62 and 20 per cent of share holders fell under the categories of young, middle and old age, respectively. Whereas, in case of non-share holders 26 per cent were young, 50 per cent in middle age and 24 per cent were under old age category. Hanumanaikar (1995) conducted a study on sunflower growers in Dharwad district of Karnataka revealed that 63 per cent of the respondents were under middle age group followed by young (31%) and old age (6%). Lakshminarayan (1997) observed that 37 per cent of sustainable sugarcane farmers were middle aged, 33 per cent were young and 30 per cent were old aged. He also reported that 35 per cent respondents had low extension agency contact while 34 per cent had medium and 31 per cent had high extension contact. Saikrishna (1998) conducted study on Andhra migrant farmers in Raichur district, Karnataka noticed that more than per cent of Andhra migrant farers were in middle aged (31-50 years), and per cent were in old age category. Maraddi (1999) in a study on cotton production in Dharwad district of Karnataka found that per cent of the respondents were young, per cent middle and per cent of farmers were under old age category. Kanavi (2000) in a study on the knowledge and adoption behaviour of sugarcane growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka state and reported that (42.66%) of the respondents were in middle age followed by young age (30.66%) and old age (26.66%) respectively. Nagaraja (2002) conducted a study on sugarcane growers in Davangere district of Karnatka, revealed that per cent of the respondents were found with middle age category, whereas, per cent and 6.25 per cent of respondents had fallen in the old and young age categories respectively. Shashidhar (2004) found that the majority of the respondents fall under middle age (48.33%) category followed by young age (31.66%) and old age (20%) groups. Sunil Kumar (2004) conducted a study in Belgaum district of Karnataka and indicated that majority of respondents belonged to middle age group. Education Raghupati (1994) reported that per cent of command area farmers were illiterate, per cent of farmers had primary school education in the Upper Krishna Project Area of Karnataka. Channal (1995) in a study on share holders and non-share holders of sugarcane growers in Belgaum district reported that per cent of the share holders were under the category of primary and middle school followed by high school and PUC (36.00%), illiterate (17.00%) and graduate (4.00%), while in case of non-share holders per cent had studied up to primary and middle school followed by high school and PUC (38.00%), graduates (12.00%) and illiterate (10.00%). Hanumanaikar (1995) in his study conducted in Dharwad district on sunflower growers found that 9.50 per cent were illiterates, primary education was received by per cent, and per cent of the respondents studied up to SSLC and per cent had college education.

17 Belligeri (1996) revealed that 56 per cent of the farmers had received primary education while 14.00, 4 and 5 per cent of them had undergone high school education, studied upto PUC and graduation, respectively and also revealed that 46 per cent of the farmers had medium level farmers while 28 and 16 per cent of them were big and small farmers, respectively. Only 10 per cent of them were marginal farmers. Saikrishna (1998) conducted a study in Raichur district on migrant farmers of Andhra Pradesh and found that per cent of higrant farmers were illiterate, six per cent of migrant farmers were illiterate, six per cent of farmers could read only, per cent of farmers could read and write only, and per cent had education up to primary school, whereas per cent of migrant farmers had education up to middle school. Gupta (1999) found that per cent of the respondents were educated up to middle school followed by per cent each in primary school and high school, whereas, only 0.67 per cent of them were graduates. Maraddi (1999) in his study on cotton growers, categoriied 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) found that (30%) 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 higher secondary and graduates. Palaniswamy and Sriram (2001) observed in their study on modernization characteristics of sugarcane growers that, per cent of respondents were in middle level of education. While, and per cent of respondents belonged to high and low education category, respectively. Nagaraja (2002) in a study on sugarcane growers categorized the respondents namely middle school (29.58%) and high school (30.83%), primary school (25.00%) whereas (8.33%) illiterate only 1.25 per cent of the respondents were graduate. Land holding Channal (1995) categorized share holder and non-share holder on the basis of total land holding. According to her per cent of the respondents were marginal farmers, six per cent small farmers and per cent were big farmers in case of share holders. Whereas, in case of non-share holders three per cent were marginal, four per cent small and per cent were big farmers. Lakshminarayan (1997) revealed that per cent of the respondents had small farm size while per cent of the respondents had large farm size. He also reported that about 34 per cent of the farmers had low farming experience while per cent and per cent farmers had medium and more experience, respectively. Yeligar (1997) in a study on soybean grower's has classified the respondents as small farmers (53.47%) and big farmers (46.53%). Maraddi (1999) categorized the cotton growers as small farmers (35.00%), medium farmers (28.00%) and large farmers (37.00%). Kanavi (2000) categorized sugarcane growers in to large farmer (61.33%), mediuln farmers (30.66%), semi-medium farmers (6.55%) and small farmers (1.33%). None of the farmers belonged to category of marginal farmers. Nagaraja (2002) in a study on sugarcane growers has classified the respondent as marginal farmer (2.50%), small farmer (2.08), semi-medium farmer (30.00%), followed by medium farmer (48.75%) and big farmer (16.66%).

18 Farming experience Natikar (2001) in his study found that majority of the respondents belonged to medium farming experience 48%) followed by high (45%) and low (7%) farming experience, respectively. Risk Orientation Balasubramanian (1985) reported that per cent of the cotton growers were found to have high level of risk preference. A little less than half of the (45.33%) respondents had low level of risk orientation. Rathinsabapathi (1987) reported that majority of the cotton growers had medium level of risk preference (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 per cent of farmers showed medium risk taking ability, whereas, per cent and per cent of farmers had low and high risk taking ability respectively. Gupta (1999) observed that majority (64.00%) of respondents were average risk bearers followed by low (24.67%) and high (11.33%) risk bearers. Palaniswamy and Sriram (2001) observed in their study on modernization characteristics of sugarcane growers that, per cent of sugarcane growers belonged to medium level of risk orientation category, while 21.01, 7.48 per cent of respondents belonged to low and high risk orientation category, respectively. Nagaraja (2002) reported that a majority (74.85%) of the respondents were found to posses medium risk, whereas per cent and 9.58 per cent of the respondents were found belonging to high and low level of risk orientation, respectively. Venkataramulu (2003) noticed that majority of the farmers had medium level of risk bearing capacity (73.33%). Raghavendra (2004) observed that per cent of the farmers had medium risk orientation followed by per cent had high risk orientation and only per cent respondents had low risk orientation. Shashidhar (2004) observed that majority of the farmers (70.83%) had medium level of risk bearing ability and low (15%) level of risk orientation. Scientific orientation Palaniswamy and Sriram (2001) observed in their study on modernization characteristics of sugarcane growers that, per cent of respondents belonged to medium level of scientific orientation category, whereas and per cent of respondents belonged to high and low level of scientific orientation category, respectively. Attitude towards sustainable cultivation practices Sriram (1997) conducted a study in Tamil Nadu had reported that majority (65.50%) of cotton growers had a favourable attitude towards eco-friendly agricultural practices, whereas and per cent had most favourable and less favourble attitude, respectively towards eco-friendly agricultural practices.

19 Meti (1998) had conducted a study in Tungabhadra command area of Karnataka reported that majority (56.67%) of farmers had farmers had favourable attitude towards improved agricultural technologies, whereas per cent of farmers noticed to possess less favourable attitude, however per cent had most favourable attitude towards improved agricultural practices. Sriram and Palaniswamy (1999a) reported that the farmers had favourable attitude towards eco-friendly agricultural practices in cotton. Management orientation Sakharkar (1995) noticed that two third of the respondents belonged to medium category of management orientation. However, an equal number of respondents had low and high level of management orientation. Achievement motivation Palaniswamy and Sriram (2001) observed in their study on modernization characteristics of sugarcane growers that, per cent of respondents belonged to medium level of achievement motivation category while 14.28, per cent of respondents belonged to high and low level of achievement motivation category. Innovative proneness Raghupathi (1994) reported that per cent of command area farmers were in the medium score range (10-15) and high (15-20 score range were in the medium score range (10-15) and high (15-20) score range whereas per cent were in low scores (5-10) of innovative proneness. Deferred gratification Raghupathi (1994) observed that per cent farmers of command area had medium level (8-12 score) of deferred gratification, whereas per cent were in low (4-8) and per cent found in high (12-16) deferred gratification. Palaniswamy and Sriram (2001) observed in their study on modernization characteristics of sugarcane growers that, per cent of respondents belonged to medium level of deferred gratification category, while 19.05, 8.84 per cent of respondents belonged to high and low level of deferred gratification category, respectively. Extension contact Belligeri (1996) observed that 53 and 47 per cent had regular and occasional contacts with Agricultural Assistant. About 54 per cent of the respondents had occasional contact with Assistant Agriculture Officer, followed by regular contact (41.00%) and 5 per cent never contacted. Organizational participation Patil (1990) observed that maximum technological gap index (48.89%) with farmers who had poor social participation whereas, technological gap index was observed among those farmers who had high social participation. However, per cent of the respondents noticed in medium social participation had technological gap index of

20 Channal (1995) reported that per cent of shareholder:') were reading news papers regularly followed by reading extension literatures (12.00%), listening radio (90.00%), viewing television (3.00%), whereas, in case of non-share holders per cent were reading news papers, three per cent were reading extension literatures, per cent were listening radio and only two percent were viewing television. Channal (1995) reported that 59 per cent of the shareholders were members of cooperative society followed by gram panchayat (14.00%), raitha sangh (8.00%) and yuvak mandai (3.00%). Whereas, in case of non- shareholders 68 per cent were members of cooperative society followed by gram panchayat (26.00%), raitha sangh (5.00%) and yuvak mandal (1.00%). Sai Krishna (1998) conducted a study in Raichur district on Andhra migrant farmers reported that six per cent of the respondents were members of milk co-operative society, only 1.33 per cent of farmers were office bearers. Only 3.33 per cent of farmers were the members of village panchayat and no one was its office bearer. Two per cent of migrant farmers were members of youth club and co-operative bank. Gupta (1999) reported thet all the respondents possessed radio per cent of the respondents possessed television sets of which per cent were regularly listening to agricultural programmes and per cent of farmers were listening other programmes, while, per cent and per cent of farmers were regularly viewing agricultural and general programmes, respectively on television. Maraddi (1999) reported that 27 per cent had low institutional participation. 68 per cent had medium and 5 per cent had high institutional participation. Kanavi (2000) reported that, per cent of the respondents possessed radio, whereas television was owned by per cent followed by per cent subscribers to news paper and 2 per cent subscribing to agricultural magazines. As far as radio and 6 per cent listened to agricultural, progammes regularly and occasionally respectively. In case of television (13.33%) viewed regularly the agricultural programme followed by news (38.66%) and general programmes (15.33%). Palaniswamy and Sriram (2001) noticed in their study on modernization characteristics of sugarcane growers that, majority of (90.48%) of the respondents belonged to medium level of social participation, whereas only 9.52 per cent respondents belonged to high social participation category. Nagaraja (2002) reported that (32.91%) of respondents were members of cooperative society, per cent were members of Raitha Sangh, 6.66 per cent were member of youth clubs and in local level government institutions, such as gram panchayat, taluk panchayat and zilla panchayat it was 2.50, 1.25 and 0.40 per cent respectively. Mass media participation Raghupathi (1994) noticed that per of command area farmers were in the medium score range (12-20) of mass media participation and per cent farmers were noticed in scores, but only 8.00 per of farmers were in high mass media category. Belligeri (1996) noticed that radio sets were possessed by majority of the respondents (76.66%). Among them 18 per cent of them were regular listeners of of Krishranga programme. Television, owned by 14 per cent viewed Krishidarshan. Newspaper was subscribed by 10 per cent and none of them subscribed farm magazines.

21 Shereif and Vasantkumar (1997) reported that the farm magazine, Kerala Karshakan had higher coverage in the topic Low cost farming technologies (14.80%) while in Kalpadhenu higher coverage was for environmental issues (16.90%). He also reported that Kerala Karshakan also covered use of biofertilizers (13.40%) use of biopesticides (11.70%), soil management practices (10.30%), environmental issues (8.90%), optimum use of organic materials (7.40%), IPM (5.80%), Agro-forestry (4.40%), natural resource management (2.90%) and organic farming (2.90%). Saikrishna (1998) observed that about percent and percent of farmers were regularly reading newspapers and farm magazines respectively. And about percent of farmers were in the habit of listening to radio programmes in television regularly. Cropping intensity Patil (1990) observed that majority (73.50% of Paddy farmers belonged to medium category followed by, high (15.50%) and low (11.00%) cropping intensity category. Kanavi (2000) conducted study on knowledge and adoption behaviour of sugarcane growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka and reported that per cent of sugarcane growers were under low category of cropping intensity and per cent of farmers under high category. Nagaraja (2002) reported that 90 per cent of the sugarcane growers were found in low category of cropping intensity and (10.0%) were found in high category. Annual income Channal (1995) in a study on share holders and non -share holders m Belgaum district of Karnataka state revealed that average income of share holders was Rs. 62, and that of non-share holders was Rs. 41, Sakharkar (1995) in a study conducted in Maharashtra state found that, the annual income of per cent of soybean growers were less than Rs. 11,000 and per cent had income between Rs. 11,000 and Rs.22,000, whereas, per cent belonged to the income group ranging Palaniswamy and Sriram (2001) observed in their study on modernization characteristics of sugarcane growers that, majority of the respondents (93.20%) belonged to high annual income group, while 4.76, 2.04 per cent of respondents belonged to medium and low annual income group, respectively. Shashidhar (2003) in his study revealed that per cent of respondents belonged to medium level of income (Rs. 1 2 lakhs) and in low income category, 30 per cent of respondents were noticed, whereas per cent of the farmers belonged to high income group. 2.3 KNOWLEDGE OF FARMERS REGARDING SUSTAINABLE CULTIVATION PRACTICES Juliana et al. (1991) corroborated that different levels of knowledge existed among three categories of cotton farmers regarding IPM. They also reported that differential knowledge level existed among farmers, big farmers were found to have more knowledge than small and marginal farmers. Nagarajan (1992) observed that according to Mr. Prafulchandra (an innovative sugarcane farmer of Shimoga in karnataka state), the following advantages could be derived from using sugarcane leaf trash to ratoon crop.

22 1. Loss of water by evaporation is prevented, thus saving about 50 per cent of irrigation water 2. Mulching trash saves cost on use of chemical fertilizers 3. The converted trash acts as a soil cover, which inhibits weed growth, the rich organic manure also increases the yield of next crop. 4. The method helps saves a minimum of Rs per hectare saving nearly 15 cart loads of FYM (Rs. 1500), minimizing use of fertilizers (Rs. 500) and eliminating weeding cost (Rs. 500). Wasnik (1993) conducted a study on sugarcane cultivation in Bachherwan block of Raibarely district and reported that per cent of the sugarcane growers had knowledge of improved varieties of cane followed by seed rate (71.25%), time of planting 68.75%), seed treatment (67.5%) and spacing (52.50%). Wasnik (1995) reported that majority (68.28%) of the farmers knew the improved cultivation practices in sugarcane viz. sugarcane varieties, seed rate and seed treatment. However, 50 per cent of farmers knew about fertilizer doses and its application techniques and 56 per cent farmers did not know about pest and diseases and their control measures. Alawat et al. (1996) results of experiments in South Gujarat revealed that when rabi pulses were grown after paddy on residual moisture. It was not necessary to apply any fertilizers to pulses. Further, it was found that when legumes were included in cropping sequence (greengram, paddy), it reduced the nitrogen requirement of paddy by 25 per cent. Jirali (1996) observed that majority of the vegetable growers had medium knowledge about integrated pest management practices (44.44%) followed by high (31.11%) and low level (24.44%) knowledge. In addition to this per cent of the farmers had high knowledge about mechanical control of pests followed by insecticide of plant origin (94.44%), cultural control (31.11%) and chemical control (21.11%). Shivaraj (1996) noticed that only 15 per cent of the farmers had knowledge of use of green lace wing (Chrysoperla cornea) predator, while majority of the farmers (57.50%) knew the use of nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) as a biocontrol measure and about 85 per cent of the respondents possessed knowledge of use of neem seed kernel extract in redgram. Bhairamkar et al. (1998) revealed that more than half of the beneficiaries (53.33%) of IPM programme had high knowledge, while per cent of them had no knowledge about IPM. On the other hand, per cent of the non-beneficiaries had medium knowledge and per cent of them had no knowledge about IPM programme. Goud (1998) corroborated that 86 per cent registered sugarcane growers had knowledge about earthing up followed by sugarcane varieties (75%), spacing (60%), fertilizer application (55.5%), plant protection measures (52%), seed rate (37.5%) and ratoon management (27.67%), whereas in case of non-registered sugarcane growers, 75 per cent had knowledge about earthing up followed by varieties (45%), fertilizer application (27.50%), seed rate and plant protection measures (25% each), spacing (21%) and ratoon management (11.67%) in Sameerwadi sugar factory, Bagalkot district, Karnataka. The above studies reviewed from 1983 to 1998 by knowledge of farmers on recommended practices of sugarcane crop in Karnataka.