Research Article PERFORMANCE OF KVKS IN NORTH EASTERN REGION OF INDIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Research Article PERFORMANCE OF KVKS IN NORTH EASTERN REGION OF INDIA"

Transcription

1 , pp Available online at Research Article PERFORMANCE OF S IN NORTH EASTERN REGION OF INDIA NATH DIPAK 1*, JAIN P.K. 2, TALUKDAR R. K. 3 AND HANSRA B.S. 4 1 ICAR - Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Divyodaya, Chebri, West, School of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi 3 Department of Extension Education, Faculty of Agriculture, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam Emeritus (Agriculture), Amity International Centre for PHT and CCM, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh *Corresponding Author: -spd020@yahoo.co.in Received: March 11, 2017; Revised: March 14, 2017; Accepted: March 18, 2017; Published: April 06, 2017 Abstract-The study was conducted with 200 randomly selected beneficiaries of s to find the performance of s of NE region under diffe rent administrative units. Ten s under different administrative units, viz., State department of agriculture; State Agricultural University (SAU) and Central Agriculture University (CAU); ICAR institutes and Non Governmental Organization () were selected purposively to represent all NE states. The performance of s at beneficiary level was measured in terms of knowledge gain, perceived utility of the training content, performance of s in terms of mandates, utility of s in improvement of production &productivity of selected crops and utility of other services of s. The performance of s at beneficiary level was calculated by the summing up of performance indicators. The overall performance of s at beneficiary level indicated that, West got rank I with per cent followed by, South ( %); Tirap ( %); South ( %); Tinsukia ( %); Imphal East ( %); Cachar ( %); West Garo ( %); Mamit ( %) and Phek ( %) with II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It was also found that the per formed best ( %) followed by State dept. of Agriculture ( %), SAU & CAU( %) and ( %) with rank II, III and IV respectively. Keywords- Performance, Krishi Vigyan Kendra (), North Eastern Region, Administrative unit Citation: Nath Dipak, et al., (2017) Performance of s in North Eastern Region of India., ISSN: & E-ISSN: , Volume 9, Issue 16, pp Copyright: Copyright 2017 Nath Dipak, et al., This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Academic Editor / Reviewer: Ingita Gohain Introduction The Krishi Vigyan Kendra (Farm Science Centre) is an innovative science based institute which undertakes assessment and refinement of technologies, frontline demonstrations to demonstrate the latest agricultural and allied technologies to the farmers and conducts trainings for farmers, farm women, rural youth and extension personnel. ICAR had launched the scheme as the training institutes in the country were not sufficient to meet the training needs of the farmers and consequently the process of transfer of technology had been slowed down [1]. Based on the recommendations of the Education Commission ( ) and Inter Ministrial Committee (1973), the ICAR decided to establish KrishiVigyan Kendra in the country, as they observed the s are of national importance which would help in improving socio- economic conditions of the farming community by accelerating the agricultural production. The first was established at Pondicherry under the management of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore in 1974 on the basis of Education Commission Report [2]. According to the mandate of, it conducts on-farm testing to identify the location specificity of agricultural technologies under various farming systems; organizes frontline demonstrations to establish production potential of various crops and enterprises on the farmers fields; organizing need based training of farmers to update their knowledge and skills in modern agricultural technologies related to technology assessment, refinement and demonstration, and training of extension personnel to orient them in the frontier areas of technology development; creates awareness about improved technologies to larger masses through appropriate extension programmes; production and supply of good quality seed and planting material, work as knowledge resource centre of agricultural technology for improving the agricultural scenario of the district [3]. The economy of North East India has got its definite identity due to its peculiar physical, economic and socio cultural characteristics. This region consists of eight states, viz., Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and. Materials and Methods The 78 s covering all the North Eastern (NE) states and under different host institutes were the universe for the study. Ten s under different administrative units, viz., State department of agriculture; State Agricultural University (SAU) and Central Agriculture University (CAU); ICAR institutes and Non Governmental Organization () were selected purposively to represent all NE states. The list of selected s is presented in [Table-1]. The performance of s at beneficiary level was measured in terms of knowledge gain, perceived utility of the training content, performance of s in terms of mandates, utility of s in improvement of production &productivity of selected crops and utility of other services of s. It was observed that Integrated Pest Management (IPM) & Integrated Disease Management (IDM) and Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) were the common thematic areas for organization of activities across all 10 s. Therefore, 20 farmers from each who undergone the training on these two thematic areas on paddy crop were selected randomly. Thus, a total of 200 beneficiary farmers were selected for the proposal. The performance of s was measured with the following performance indicators at beneficiary level. Bioinfo Publications 4120

2 Performance of s in North Eastern Region of India Table-1 List selected s SN Institute State Year of Establishment A. State dept. of Agriculture 1. Mammit State Dept. of Agriculture Mizoram Tirap State Dept. of Agriculture Arunachal 2004 Pradesh State Dept. of Agriculture 2005 B. 4. Tinsukia Assam Agricultural University Assam Cachar Assam Agricultural University Assam Imphal East Central Agricultural University Manipur 2005 C. ICAR Centre Phek NRC on Mithun Nagaland West Garo ICAR RC for NEH region Meghalaya West D. Sri Ramakrishna SevaKendra 1979 Knowledge gain: A simple procedure of structured interview schedule was used to measure the knowledge of the respondents. The knowledge test was conducted on the thematic area i) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) &Integrated Disease Management (IDM) and ii) Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) among the beneficiaries of selected s who undergone training in these areas. A total of 20 knowledge items were prepared under each thematic area after discussion with subject matter experts. The score 1 was given to the correct answer and 0 was given to incorrect answer. Finally, the knowledge level scores were calculated for each of the respondents. The minimum possible score was 0 and maximum possible score was 20 for each respondents. The respondents were classified into the following three categories based on their individual scores (Bhattacharyya, 1997) [4], viz., low (0-6), medium (7-13) and high (14-20). The total knowledge gain was measured by summing up the mean separately for the training content, viz., IPM & IDM and INM. Perceived utility of the training content: The perceived utility of the training content was measured in terms of perceived utility of the training content, viz., IPM & IDM and INM in applicability in field and utility in terms of increase in production and productivity. The perceived utility of 20 knowledge items was measured on based on a four point continuum, viz., very much useful, useful, useful to some extent and not at all useful with 3, 2, 1 and 0 scores respectively for both the thematic areas. The score for each respondent may vary between For frequency and percentage analysis, the respondents were grouped into the following three categories based on their scores, viz., low (0-20), medium (21-40) and high (41-60) (Bhattacharyya, 1997) [4]. Performance of s in terms of mandates: A total of 12 statements on the mandates of s were prepared and responses from the beneficiary farmers for each statement were recorded on a four point continuum, viz., very much, not very much, somewhat and not at all with 3, 2, 1 and 0 scores respectively. The theoretical range of score may vary between For frequency and percentage analysis, the respondents were grouped into the following three categories based on their scores, viz., low (0-12), medium (13-24) and high (25-36) (Bhattacharyya, 1997) [4]. Utility of s in improvement of production and productivity of selected crops: This refers to the usefulness of s in improvement of production and productivity of selected crop, i.e., paddy. This was measured with the help of the following five point continuum, viz., very low (0-20 per cent increase), low (21-40 per cent increase), medium (41-60 per cent increase), high (61-80 per cent increase), and very high ( per cent increase) with score 1,2,3,4 and 5 respectively. For frequency and percentage analysis, the respondents were further grouped into three categories, viz., low (Below Mean-SD), medium (Between Mean ± SD) and high (Above Mean+ SD). Utility of other services of s (beneficiary level): This refers to the usefulness of the other services of, viz., field visit, diagnostic visit, soil health camp, method demonstration, exposure visit, Kisan Mobile Advisory Service (KMAS) and technology showcasing in collaboration with line department. This was measured with the help of four point continum, viz., very much useful, useful, somewhat useful and not at all useful with 3, 2, 1 and 0 scores respectively. The theoretical range of score may vary between For frequency and percentage analysis, the respondents were further grouped into three categories based on their scores, viz., low (0-12), medium (13-24) and high (25-36) (Bhattacharyya, 1997) [4]. To measure the overall performance, all the indicators were added for each and were ranked accordingly. The data were collected both by personal interview. To analyze the data and to draw conclusions, two types of statistical techniques were used in the present study. The first set was the descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean. The second category includes F test to draw inference on difference between the means. Results and Discussion A. Knowledge gain Knowledge gain on IPM & IDM: The knowledge gain on IPM and IDM is presented in [Table-2]. It is observed from the Table that the average knowledge gain percentage on IPM & IDM was highest (72.25 %) in, South followed by, West (71.75 %); Imphal East (66.00 %); South (65.00 %); Tirap (63.50 %); Cachar (58.00 %); West Garo (55.50 %); Mamit (54.75 %); Tinsukia (53.00 %) and Phek (48.20 %).It is also observed that the highest percentage (71.75 %) of average knowledge gain was achieved by followed by State dept. of Agriculture, SAU & CAU and with per cent, per cent and per cent respectively. It can be seen from the [Table-2] that majority of respondents had high level of knowledge on IPM and IDM. This is probably because IPM & IDM are being more stretched in North Eastern states by government as well as scientist as one of their important activity. The findings are in agreement with the findings by Singh et. al., (2011) [5] who reported that majority of farmers had medium level to high level of knowledge. Table-2 Distribution of respondents based on Knowledge gain on IPM & IDM (N= 200) Low (0-6) (7-13) (14-20) 1. Mamit 6 (30) 10 (50) 4 (20) (54.75) VIII 2. Tirap 1 (5) 9 (45) 10 (50) (63.50) V 0 (0) 7 (35) 13 (65) (72.25) I Average (63.50) 4. Cachar 3 (15) 7 (35) 10 (50) (58.00) VI 5. Imphal East 0 (0) 9 (45) 11 (55) (66.00) III 6. Tinsukia 5 (25) 9 (45) 6 (30) (53.00) IX Average (59.00) 1 (5) 8 (40) 11(55) (65.00) IV 8. West Garo 5 (25) 7 (35) 8 (40) (55.50) VII 9. Phek 8 (40) 9 (45) 3 (15) 9.60 (48.20) X Average (56.15) 10. West 0 (0) 8 (40) 12 (60) (71.75) II Average (71.75) Figures in the parentheses are percentage, Maximum possible score= 20 F=0.052 F =0.041 P=0.96 ns P =0.98ns Bioinfo Publications 4121

3 Nath Dipak, Jain P. K., Talukdar R. K. and Hansra B.S. Knowledge gain on INM: Data presented in [Table-3] reveals that, West got highest percentage of knowledge gain on INM, i.e., per cent followed by, South (68.25 %);, South (67.00 %) with II and III rank respectively. It is seen from the [Table-3] that the lowest percentage (45.50 %) gain was in, Phek. It is observed from the [Table-4]. 24 that highest percentage (74.20 %) of average knowledge gain was achieved by followed by State dept. of Agriculture (61.05 %), SAU & CAU (58.50 %) and (54.30%).This may be due to the close contact of scientists with the farmers for performing their mandated activities with special reference to INM. Table-3 Distribution of respondents based on Knowledge gain on INM (N= 200) S.N. Name of Low (0-6) (7-13) (14-20) 1. Mamit 6 (30) 7 (35) 7 (35) (52.25) VIII 2. Tirap 0 (0) 10 (50) 10 (50) (64.00) IV 0 (0) 9 (45) 11 (55) (67.00) III Average (61.05) 4. Cachar 1 (5) 9 (45) 10 (50) (60.75) V 5. Imphal East 3 (15) 7 (35) 10 (50) (59.00) VI 6. Tinsukia 4 (20) 7 (35) 9 (45) (55.75) VII Average (58.50) 0 (0) 7 (35) 13 (65) (68.25) II 8. West Garo 6 (30) 10 (50) 4 (20) 9.85 (49.25) IX 9. Phek 8 (40) 10 (50) 2 (10) 9.10 (45.50) X Average (54.30) 10. West 0 (0) 5 (25) 15 (75) (74.20) I Average (74.20) Figures in the parentheses are percentage, Maximum possible score= 20 F=0.048 F=0.052 P=0.86 ns P=0.83 ns Total Knowledge gain (IPM & IDM and INM): The total knowledge gain on IPM & IDM and INM is presented in [Table-4]. Data presented in Table reveals that, West got rank I with total score and per cent followed by, South (69.63 %); South (66.62 %); Tirap (63.75 %); Imphal East (62.50 %); Cachar (59.37 %); Tinsukia (54.37 %); Mamit (53.50 %); West Garo (52.37 %) and Phek (46.75 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. The differences in knowledge gain in all the s was found to be significant (CD= 1.26 at 5 % level). It is also observed from the [Table-4]. 25 that average knowledge gain was highest (72.97 %) in s followed by State dept. of Agriculture (62.29 %), SAU & CAU (58.75 %) and (55.25 %) respectively. institute wise differences in total knowledge gain (IPM & IDM and INM) was also found to be significant. Perceived utility Perceived utility (applicability in the field) of the training content (IPM and IDM): Perceived utility in terms of applicability in the field of the training content (IPM & IDM) is presented in [Table-5]. Data presented in the Table reveals that highest percentage (68.83 %) of beneficiaries of, South perceived that the training content on IPM & IDM had applicability in the field while only per cent of beneficiaries of, Phek perceived that the training content had applicability in the field. The state of is already declared as an organic state and government as well the scientist and extension personnel always emphasized organic farming. The farmer is already having a positive attitude towards organic agriculture for which probably they scored highest. wise distribution of applicability of the training content in the field showed that highest applicability (67.67 %) was in followed by State dept. of Agriculture (62.33 %), SAU & CAU (60.92 %) and (58.28 %). It may be because of the fact that, West lays more emphasis on organic aspects of agriculture. Table-4 Distribution of respondents based on Total Knowledge gain (IPM & IDM and INM) (N= 200) S.N. Name of Category Rank IPM & IDM INM Total % 1. Mamit VIII 2. Tirap IV II Average Cachar VI 5. Imphal East V 6. Tinsukia VII Average III 8. West Garo IX 9. Phek X Average West I Average Max possible score=40 (20 for IPM & IDM, 20 for INM) F=17.57 F=3.28 P=0.0001** P=0.048** CD value for 5 %= 1.26 CD value for 5 %=3.06 Perceived utility (applicability in the field) of the training content (INM): The perceived utility in terms of applicability in the field of the training content (INM) was studied to find out the performance of s at beneficiary level [Table-6]. Data presented in the Table reveals that perceived utility was highest (70.58 %) in, West followed by, South ; South ; Cachar; Tirap; Imphal East; Tinsukia; West Garo ; Phek and Mamit with per cent, per cent, per cent, per cent, per cent, per cent, per cent, per cent and per cent respectively. It is also observed that perceived utility in terms of applicability in the field was highest (70.58 %) in followed by SAU & CAU (62.45 %), (60.25 %) and State dept. of Agriculture (59.50). Table-5 Distribution of respondents on Perceived utility (applicability in the field) of the training content (IPM and IDM) (N= 200) Low (0-20) (21-40) (41-60) 1. Mamit 7 (35) 7 (35) 6 (30) (54.83) VIII 2. Tirap 1 (5) 9 (45) 10 (50) (63.33) V 0 (0) 6 (30) 14 (70) (68.83) I Average (62.33) 4. Cachar 3 (15) 8 (40) 9 (45) (60.91) VI 5. Imphal East 1 (5) 8 (40) 11 (55) (64.83) IV 6. Tinsukia 4 (20) 9 (45) 7 (35) (57.00) VII Average (60.92) 0 (0) 9 (45) 11 (55) (66.08) III 8. West Garo 5 (25) 9 (45) 6 (30) (57.00) VII 9. Phek 8 (40) 7 (35) 5 (25) (51.75) IX Average (58.28) 10. West 0 (0) 7 (35) 13 (65) (67.67) II Average (67.67) Figures in the parentheses are percentage, Maximum possible score= 60 F =0.056 F=0.062 P =0.63 ns P=0.76 ns Bioinfo Publications 4122

4 Performance of s in North Eastern Region of India Perceived utility (applicability in the field) of the training content (IPM & IDM and INM): The perceived utility in terms of applicability in the field of the training content IPM & IDM and INM was measured to find out the performance of s at beneficiary level. The score obtained by each along with percentage is presented in [Table-7]. Data presented in the Table reveals that, West achieved rank I with per cent followed by, South (67.83 %); South (67.67 %); Tirap (63.42 %); Imphal East (63.33 %); Cachar (63.08 %), Tinsukia (58.75 %); West Garo (57.42 %), Phek (52.58 %) and Mamit (51.67 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It is also observed from the [Table-7] that the percentage for perceived utility in terms of applicability in the field of the training content IPM & IDM and INM was highest (69.17 %) in followed by SAU & CAU, State dept. of Agriculture and with per cent, per cent and per cent respectively. It may be due to the fact that, West ; South and also South emphasized for popularization of organic farming. Table-6 Distribution of respondents on Perceived utility (applicability in the field) of the training content (INM) (N= 200) Low (0-20) (21-40) (41-60) 1. Mamit 9 (45) 9 (45) 2 (10) (48.50) X 2. Tirap 1 (5) 9 (45) 10 (50) (63.50) V 0 (0) 8 (40) 12 (60) (66.50) III Average 35.7 (59.50) 4. Cachar 0 (0) 10 (50) 10 (50) (65.17) IV 5. Imphal East 2 (10) 9 (45) 9 (45) (61.75) VI 6. Tinsukia 3 (15) 9 (45) 8 (40) (60.41) VII Average (62.45) 0 (0) 7 (35) 13 (65) (69.58) II 8. West Garo 5 (25) 8 (40) 7 (35) (57.83) VIII 9. Phek 7 (35) 9 (45) 4 (20) (53.33) IX Average (60.25) 10. West 0 (0) 6 (30) 14 (70) (70.58) I Average (70.58) Figures in the parentheses are percentage, Maximum possible score= 60 F =0.79 F =0.89 P =0.51 ns P =0.62 ns Perceived utility (increase in production and productivity) of the training content (IPM and IDM): The perceived utility in terms of increase in production and productivity of the training content IPM & IDM was measured to find out the performance of s at beneficiary level [Table-8]. Data presented in [Table-4]. 29 reveals that, South achieved rank I with per cent followed by, West (66.58 %), South (64.33 %), Tirap (61.75 %), Cachar (60.67 %), Imphal East (58.00 %), Tinsukia (54.00 %), West Garo (52.08 %), Mamit (50.08 %) and Phek (48.50 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It is noted that there was significant difference (CD= 5.56 at 5 %) among the s. The [Table-8] also reveals that among the host organization the utility of the training content in terms of increase in production and productivity was highest (66.58 %) followed by State dept. of Agriculture, SAU & CAU, with per cent, per cent and per cent respectively. This may be because of the fact that works more closely with the farmer and so famer s needs and interest are more reflected in s programmes. Perceived utility (increase in production and productivity) of the training content (INM): Data related to the perceived utility in terms of increase in production and productivity of the training content INM is presented in [Table-9]. The Table reveals that, South had highest (72.08%) perceived utility in terms of increase in production and productivity followed by, West (71.17 %), South (69.42 %), Tirap (67.17 %), Cachar (62.00 %), Imphal East (60.08 %), Tinsukia (58.58 %), West Garo (57.92 %), Phek (54.75 %) and Mamit (50.33 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It is noted that there was significant difference (CD= 6.23 at 5 %) among the s. The [Table-9] also reveals that achieved highest (71.17 % ) percentage of utility in increase in production and productivity for the training content INM followed by State dept. of Agriculture (62.30 %), (61.58 %) and SAU &CAU (60.22 %). Table-7 Distribution of respondents on Perceived utility (applicability in the field) of the training content (IPM & IDM and INM) (N= 200) Training content Total Average % Rank IPM & IDM INM 1. Mamit X 2. Tirap IV III Average Cachar VI 5. Imphal East V 6. Tinsukia VII Average II 8. West Garo VIII 9. Phek IX Average West I Average Max possible score= 60 F=1.70 F=0.52 P=0.21 P=0.67 Table-8 Distribution of respondents on Perceived utility (increase in production and productivity) of the training content (IPM and IDM) (N= 200) Low (0-20) (21-40) (41-60) 1. Mamit 9 (45) 7 (35) 4 (20) (50.08) IX 2. Tirap 1 (5) 9 (45) 10 (50) (61.75) IV 0 (0) 9 (45) 11 (55) (64.33) III Average (58.72) 4. Cachar 2 (10) 9 (45) 9 (45) (60.67) V 5. Imphal East 4(20) 9 (45) 7 (35) (58.00) VI 6. Tinsukia 6 (20) 8 (45) 6 (35) (54.00) VII Average (57.55) 0 (0) 6 (30) 14 (70) (67.92) I 8. West Garo 8 (40) 8 (40) 4 (20) (52.08) VIII 9. Phek 10 (50) 6 (30) 4 (20) (48.50) X Average (56.17) 10. West 0 (0) 7 (35) 13 (65) (66.58) II Average (66.58) Figures in the parentheses are percentage, Maximum possible score= 60 F =0.074 F=0.89 P = 0.039** P=0.67 CD value at 5 %= 5.56 Bioinfo Publications 4123

5 Nath Dipak, Jain P. K., Talukdar R. K. and Hansra B.S. Table-9 Distribution of respondents on Perceived utility (increase in production and productivity) of the training content (INM) (N= 200) Low (0-20) (21-40) (41-60) 1. Mamit 7 (35) 11 (55) 2 (10) (50.33) X 2. Tirap 0 (0) 9 (45) 11 (55) (67.17) IV 0 (0) 7 (35) 13 (65) (69.42) III Average (62.30) 4. Cachar 2 (10) 9 (45) 9 (45) (62.00) V 5. Imphal East 2 (10) 10 (50) 8 (40) (60.08) VI 6. Tinsukia 4 (20) 8 (40) 8 (40) (58.58) VII Average (60.22) 0 (0) 5 (25) 15 (75) (72.08) I 8. West Garo 4 (20) 10 (50) 6 (30) (57.92) VIII 9. Phek 6 (30) 10 (50) 4 (20) (54.75) IX Average (61.58) 10. West 0 (0) 6 (30) 14 (70) (71.17) II Average (71.17) Figures in the parentheses are percentage, Maximum possible score= 60 F =0.64 F=0.92 P =0.049** P=0.76 CD value at 5 %= 6.23 Perceived utility (increase in production and productivity) of the training content (IPM & IDM and INM): The perceived utility in terms of increase in production and productivity of the training content IPM & IDM and INM is presented in [Table-10]. Data presented in the Table reveals that utility percentage was highest (70.00 %) in, South followed by, West (68.87 %), South (66.87 %), Tirap (64.45 %), Cachar (61.33 %), Imphal East (59.03 %), Tinsukia (56.28 %), West Garo (55.00 %), Phek (51.62 %) and Mamit (50.20 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X rank respectively. The difference among the s in terms of perceived utility was significant (CD= 4.16 at 5 % level). It is observed from the [Table-10] that got rank I with per cent followed by State dept. of Agriculture, SAU & CAU and ICAR Institutes with per cent, per cent and per cent respectively. Perceived utility (applicability in the field and increase of production and productivity) of the training content (IPM & IDM and INM): The perceived utilities in terms of applicability in practical filed and increase in production and productivity of the training content IPM & IDM and INM is presented in [Table-11]. Data presented in the Table reveals that, West achieved rank I with per cent followed by, South (68.92 %), South (67.27 %), Tirap (63.93 %), Cachar (62.20 %), Imphal East (61.18 %), Tinsukia (57.52 %), West Garo (56.20 %), Phek (52.10 %) and Mamit (50.93 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It is noted that there was difference among the s (CD= 1.96 at 5 % level). It is also observed from the [Table-4]. 32 that the had achieved highest percentage (69.02 %). All the other three categories of host institutes were similar in this dimension. Performance on mandates The performance of s on the basis of mandates at beneficiary level ispresented in the [Table-12]. The Table shows that, West got rank I with per cent followed by, South (56.11 %);, Tirap (50.59 %),, South (50.55 %),, Tinsukia (49.17 %),, Imphal East (45.42 %),, Cachar (41.53 %),, West Garo (38.19 %),, Phek (37.22 %) and, Mamit (34.72 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It is mentioned that there was a difference (CD= at 10 % level) among the s in terms of utility as perceived by the farmers in improvement of production and productivity. Table-10 Distribution of respondents on Perceived utility (increase in production and productivity) of the training content (IPM & IDM and INM) (N= 200) Training content Total Average % Rank IPM & IDM INM 1. Mamit X 2. Tirap IV III Average Cachar V 5. Imphal East VI 6. Tinsukia VII Average I 8. West VIII Garo 9. Phek IX Average West II Average Max possible score= 60 F=10.36 F=1.302 P=0.0005** P=0.388 CD value at 5 %= 4.16 It is observed from the [Table-12] that among the all host institutes, got highest percentage (65.69 %) followed by State dept. of Agriculture, SAU & CAU and with %, % and % respectively. The host institute was difference (CD= at 10 % level) was also observed. This may be due to the flexible operational rules and procedures of s which help in promoting overall performance based on mandates. Utility of s in improvement of production and productivity The utility of s in improvement of production and productivity is presented in [Table-13]. Data presented in the Table reveals that, West got rank I with per cent followed by, South (68.00 %), Tinsukia (65.00 %), Tirap (61.00 %), South (50.00 %), Imphal East (46.00 %), West Garo (39.00 %), Phek (34.00 %), Cachar (33.00 %) and Mamit (30.00 %) with rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It is also mentioned that there was difference in performance amongst the s (CD= at 5 % level). The Table also reveals that the got highest percentage (71.00 %) followed by State dept. of Agriculture, SAU & CAU and with per cent, per cent and per cent respectively. E. Utility of other service of s The utility of other services is presented in [Table-14]. Data presented in the Table reveals that, West achieved rank I with per cent. The other s, viz., Tirap (65.42 %), South (61.39 %), South (60.83 %), Tinsukia (52.92 %), Imphal East (49.44 %), Cachar (47.78 %), West Garo (44.72 %), Mamit (41.52 %) and Phek (40.55 %) got rank II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. It is observed from the [Table-4]. 35 that highest percentage (68.47 %) was achieved by followed by, SAU & CAU and with %, % and % respectively. F. Overall Performance of s at Beneficiary level The performance of s at beneficiary level was calculated by the summing up of performance indicators, viz., Knowledge Gain (KG), Perceived Utility of the Training Content (PUC), Performance on mandates (PM), Utility of s in Bioinfo Publications 4124

6 Performance of s in North Eastern Region of India improvement of production and Productivity (UIPP) and Utility of Other Services of s (UOS). The overall performance of s at beneficiary level is presented in [Table-15]. Data presented in the Table reveals that among all the selected s;, West got rank I with per cent followed by, South ( %); Tirap ( %); South ( %); Tinsukia ( %); Imphal East ( %); Cachar ( %); West Garo ( %); Mamit ( %) and Phek ( %) with II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively. Further, overall performance at beneficiary level differed amongst the s (CD= at 5 % level). Table-11 Distribution of respondents on Perceived utility of the training content (IPM & IDM and INM) (N= 200) Average Utility dimension Total Average % Rank Utility in practical field Utility in increase of production and productivity 1. Mamit X 2. Tirap IV III Average Cachar V 5. Imphal East VI 6. Tinsukia VII Average II 8. West Garo VIII 9. Phek IX Average West I Average Max possible score= 60 F=40.45 F=1.26 P=0.0001** P=0.32 CD value at 5 % = 1.96 Table-12 Distribution of respondents on Performance on mandates (N= 200) S Name of N Low (0-11) (12-24) (25-36) 1. Mamit 12 2 (10) (34.72) X (60) 6 (30) 2. Tirap 6 (30) 5 (25) 9 (45) (50.69) III 6 (30) 10 (50) (56.11) II 4 (20) Average (47.17) 4. Cachar 9 (45) 6 (30) 5 (25) (41.53) VII 5. Imphal 5 (25) 6 (30) (45.42) VI East 9 (45) 6. Tinsukia 7 (35) 7 (35) 6 (30) (49.17) V Average (45.36) 6 (30) 8 (40) (50.55) IV 6 (30) 8. West Garo 10 6 (30) 4 (20) (38.19) VIII (50) 9. Phek 6 (30) 3 (15) (37.22) IX 11(55) Average (40.14) 1 West 6 (30) (65.69) I 0. 1 (5) 13 (65) Average (65.69) Max possible score= 36, Figures in parentheses is percentage F=2.09 F=3.1 P=0.07* P=0.56 CD value at 10% =5.76 It is also observed from the [Table-15] that the performed best ( %) followed by State dept. of Agriculture ( %), SAU & CAU( %) and ( %) with rank II, III and IV respectively. Table-13 Distribution of respondents on utility of s in improvement of production and productivity of selected crops(n= 200) Low 1. Mamit 14 (70) 6 (30) 0 (0) 1.50 (30.00) X 2. Tirap 0 (0) 19 (95) 1 (5) 3.05 (61.00) IV 0 (0) 17 (85) 3 (15) 3.40 (68.00) II Average 2.65 (53.00) 4. Cachar 13 (65) 7 (35) 0 (0) 1.65 (33.00) IX 5. Imphal 7 (35) 13 (65) 0 (0) 2.30 (46.00) VI East 6. Tinsukia 0 (0) 19 (95) 1 (5) 3.25 (65.00) III Average 2.4 (48.00) 1 (5) 19 (95) 0 (0) 2.50 (50.00) V 8. West Garo 10 (50) 10 (50) 0 (0) 1.95 (39.00) VII 9. Phek 13 (65) 7 (35) 0 (0) 1.70 (34.00) VIII Average 2.05 (41.00) 10. West 0 (0) 16 (80) 4 (20) 3.55 (71.00) I Average 3.55 (71.00) Maximum possible score=5, Figures in parentheses is percentage F=2.62 F=1.23 P=0.34 P=0.53 Further, host wise performance difference was significant with CD= at 5 % level. The performance of s was probably best due to better infrastructure facility more staffs, flexibility in procedures, minimum hierarchy and Bioinfo Publications 4125

7 Nath Dipak, Jain P. K., Talukdar R. K. and Hansra B.S. comfortable working environment. s had been implementing many externally funded projects wirh different categories of beneficiaries and as such contact with scientist was maximum. It is noted that lengthy official procedure leads to delay in timely sanction of proposals which was also a major constraint in case of other s leading to poor performance. Subhashchandra, 2007 opined comparative performances of s managed by were performing better, due to its commitment and flexibility in simple operational procedures; hence the other s need to have greater operational flexibility. Table-14 Distribution of respondents on utility of other services (N=200) Low (0-11) 12-24) (25-36) 1. Mamit 10 (50) 7 (35) 3 (15) (41.52) IX 2. Tirap 1 (5) 9 (45) 10 (50) (65.42) II 2 (10) 9 (45) 9 (45) (61.39) III Average 20.2 (56.11) 4. Cachar 6 (30) 7 (35) 7 (35) (47.78) VII 5. Imphal East 4 (20) 10 (50) 6 (40) (49.44) VI 6. Tinsukia 2 (10) 10 (50) 8 (40) (52.92) V Average (50.05) 2 (10) 8 (40) 10 (50) (60.83) IV 8. West Garo 9 (45) 7 (35) 4 (35) (44.72) VIII 9. Phek 12 (60) 7 (35) 1 (5) (40.55) X Average (48.69) 10. West 0 (0) 8 (40) 12 (60) (68.47) I Average (68.47) Maximum possible score=36, Figures in parentheses is percentage F=0.06 F=0.04 P=0.87 P=0.68 Table-15 Distribution of s on the basis of Performance (beneficiary level) Performance Indicators KG (%) PUC (%) PM (%) UIPP (%) UOS (%) Total (%) Rank (Individual ) State dept. of Agriculture 1. Mamit IX 2. Tirap III II Average Cachar VII 5. Imphal East VI 6. Tinsukia V Average IV 8. West Garo VIII 9. Phek X Average West I Average Rank ( Institute) II III IV I F= F= P= *** P=.0040 ** CD value for 5 % = CD value for 5 %=13.17 Conclusion The overall impact and visibility of s can be improved substantially on the eyes of the beneficiaries enhancing the number and quality of On Farm Trail conducted at farmers field. Increased number of training specifically targeted for practicing farmers and farm women will lead to better impact of the s. It was also found that the beneficiary s gain in knowledge in their perception about utility of the training programme has resulted in perceived performance of s. As such, more quality trainings will definitely improve the performance of the s. Comparative performance of ten s revealed that s managed by were performing better, due to its commitment and flexibility in simple operational procedure, hence the s under State dept. of Agriculture, SAU & CAU and need to have greater operational flexibility, it was suggested that the number of higher archy may be reduced, so that the Programme Coordinator reports directly to the top management. It was observed that the s under State dept. of Agriculture, SAU & CAU and were poor in performance may be due to delayed release of funds and rigid procedures etc. Enhancing financial autonomy of Programme coordinator and direct allocation of funds to s were suggested to improve the functioning of s. Convergence with the Bioinfo Publications 4126

8 line department for implementation of central and state sponsored projects can be solution for increasing performance of s as s had been implementing different sponsored projects. A follow up workshop of the trained farmers may be conducted once in every two years to identify and tackle operational difficulties. Considering the growing importance of s as a vital extension and development institution, there is a need to strengthen those in terms of man power, financial resources and infrastructural facilities for effective functioning. As the host institute wise performance of s has been found to differ, it is right time to consider bringing all the s under one authority for execution, reporting and monitoring. Acknowledgement / Funding: All the Programme Coordinator, Subject Matter Specialist, Programme Assistant, Farm Manager of selected s. Abbreviations: -Krishi Vigyan Kendra, SAU-State Agricultural University, CAU-Central Agriculture University, ICAR-Indian Council of Agricultural Research, -Non Governmental Organization, IPM-Integrated Pest Management, IDM- Integrated Disease Management, INM-Integrated Nutrient Management, Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Conflict of Interest: None declared References [1] Subhashchandra, G. Aski, (2007) An analysis of s managed by university of agricultural sciences, Dharwad and in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India). [2] Hansra B. S. and Das P. (1999) Krishi Vigyan Kendra- A Reality, Division of Agricultural Extension, ICAR, KAB, Pusa, New Delhi. [3] ( Official website of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi [4] Bhattacharyya A. K. (1997) A study on performance appraisal of a few selected training institutes for lower level functionaries in the North Eastern Region of India. Ph. D. Thesis, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam (India). [5] Singh et. al., (2011) Interacademicia, 15(3), Performance of s in North Eastern Region of India Bioinfo Publications 4127