ARMER S ATTITUDE TOWARDS MODERN ARM MECHANIZATION PANKAJ THAKUR 1 AND DD SHARMA* 1 Department of Business Management, College of Horticulture *Department of Social Sciences, College of orestry, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and orestry, Nauni, Solan 173230 HP *Corresponding Author:D.D.Sharma Abstract The study conducted on farmers selected from 10 villages of Solan block (Himachal Pradesh) revealed that a majority of the respondents were male, matric/higher secondary passed, had nuclear family consisting of 2 to 5 members and possessed more than 10 bighas of land holding with annual farming income of more than 90,000/ rupees. Power sprayers, polyhouses, microirrigation system (Drip Irrigation), power tillers and threshers etc. were the prominent agricultural implements/techniques possessed by them. A majority of them had neutral attitude i.e. neither favourable nor unfavourable towards modern farm mechanization, though they had good scientific orientation and economic motivation. Hence, the study implies that the field level extension functionaries should make sincere and concerted efforts to change the neutral attitude of farmers into favourable one in order to promote the adoption of modern farm mechanization among them, so that they can raise the standard of living and improve the socioeconomic status in the society. Keywords Neutral attitude; economic motivation; scientific orientation; extension functionaries; farm mechanization; socioeconomic status I. INTRODUCTION Agriculture is the backbone of Indian economy as it provides direct employment to about 70 per cent of the working people and a source of livelihood for them. Indian agriculture is now becoming more and more mechanised. Modern arm Mechanization enhances the agricultural production besides assuring better quality of work. The adoption of modern farm machinery/ tools like tractors, power tillers, combine harvester, irrigation pumps, drip irrigation etc. has brought a drastic change in Indian agriculture, resulting in replacement of traditional means and methods used by the farmers for different operations. It was generally believed that the benefit of modern farm technology have been restricted only to the farmers with large land holdings, depriving the small and marginal farmers of its benefits. Keeping this in view, the present study was undertaken with the following specific objectives: i. To identify the main modern farm machinery/ tools used by the farmers in their fields. ii. To determine the attitude of farmers towards these modern farm machinery/tools and implements. II. METHODOLOGY The study was conducted in Solan District of Himachal Pradesh. Out of the four development blocks viz; Dharampur, Solan, Kunihar and Kandaghat, Solan block was purposively selected as it is famous for production of vegetable crops and known as mushroom city of India. A list of village panchayats falling in the selected block was obtained from the office of block development office Solan. Out of this list, five village panchayats were randomly selected. rom each selected panchayat, two villages were randomly selected. rom each selected village, a random sample of 10 farmers was taken. In this way, a random sample of 100 farmers constituted the sample for the present study. However, the data could be collected from respondents due to certain @IJAPSA2016, All rights Reserved Page 158
Volume 02, Issue 08, [August 2016] eissn: 23945532, pissn: 2394823X unavoidable reasons like unavailability of respondents at the time of data collection, reluctance in providing response even through repeated visits, etc. MEASUREMENT O VARIABLES Attitude armers attitude towards modern farm implements/techniques was measured as per the criteria given by Edwards and Kilpatrick (1948). or this purpose a scale was constructed consisting of twelve statements. The response of the respondents was obtained on a three point continuum scale viz; Agree, Undecided and Disagree with their respective scoring of 3, 2 and 1 for the positive statements and in case of negative statements, the scoring was reversed. On the basis of total score, the respondents were divided into the following three categories as per the cumulative frequency cube root method suggested by Singh (1975): I. avourable = (32.10 and more) II. Neutral = (29.65 to 32.09) Unfavourable = (<29.65) Economic Motivation Economic Orientation of the respondents was measured with the help of the scale developed by Supe, (1969). Economic Orientation scale consisted of six statements. The respondents response was obtained on a five point continuum namely Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree with their respective scoring of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for the positive statements. In case of negative statements, the scoring was reversed. On the basis of total score, the respondents were divided into the following three categories as suggested by Singh (1975): I. High = (23.89 and more) II. Medium = (21.98 to 23.88) Low = (<21.98) Scientific Orientation The Scientific Orientation of the respondents was measured by taking their response on five point continuum that is Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree with their respective scoring of 5,4,3,2 and 1. The data were collected with the help of wellstructured and pretested interview schedule. The data were tabulated and analysed by applying suitable statistical tests. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographic Profile The socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents are being discussed in Table 1. Table 1: Respondents Profile (n=) Sr. No. Socio economic Traits % age I. Age (Years) 2535 10 12.5 3545 18 22.5 45 and above 52 65.0 II. Gender Male 78 97.5 emale 02 2.50 Qualification Matric 40 50.0 Higher Secondary 18 22.5 Graduation 20 25.0 PostGraduation 02 2.50 Total Land Holding (In Bighas) High (More than 20) 40 50.0 Medium (1020) 28 35.0 Low (110) 12 15.0 V. amily Background @IJAPSA2016, All rights Reserved Page 159
Volume 02, Issue 08, [August 2016] eissn: 23945532, pissn: 2394823X Rural 100 Urban Annual arming Income (Rupees) Less than 50,000/ 12 15.0 50,00070,000/ 12 15.0 70,00090,000/ 06 7.5 90,000110,000/ 12 15.0 More than 110,000/ 38 47.5 amily Type Nuclear 48 60 Joint 32 40 V Number of amily Members 25 46 57.5 69 28 35.0 1013 06 7.5 It can be concluded from the data that a majority of the respondents were male (97.5%), had nuclear family (60%) and consisting 2 to 5 members. They possessed more than 10 Bighas of Land Holding (85%) and earning more than 90,000/ Rupees as annual farming income (63%). All the respondents belonged to rural area with qualification of Matric/Higher Secondary (62.0%). Status of Possession of Modern Agricultural Implements/Tools and Techniques The respondents were asked which modern agricultural implements/tools and techniques they possessed, the response is depicted in Table 2 Table 2: Status of Possession S. No. Tools/Implements Possessed * (%) I. Tractors 12 15.0 II. Power Tillers 40 50.0 Power Sprayers 58 72.5 Micro Irrigation System 52 65.0 V. Poly House 52 65.0 Threshers 18 22.5 Others (Secateurs, Pruning Saw and Seed Drillers etc.) 18 22.5 * Multiple Response It can be concluded that a majority of them possessed Power Sprayers, Poly Houses, Micro Irrigation System and Power Tillers. While the status of possession of Threshers, Tractors and other tools (Secateurs, Pruning Saw, and Seed Drillers etc.) were found to be quite low. Respondents Economic Motivation The farmer s occupational success in terms of profit maximization and the relative value an individual places on economic ends was measured by the economic motivation scale and the response on each statement has been given in the Table 3(a). Table 3 (a): Perceived Economic Orientation Sr. No. STATEMENTS SA* A UD DA SDA TEOS MEOS A farmer should work toward I. Mhigher yield and economic profits A farmer should try new II. farming ideas which may earn him more money @IJAPSA2016, All rights Reserved Page 160
Volume 02, Issue 08, [August 2016] eissn: 23945532, pissn: 2394823X Many things in life are more 58 22 important than becoming rich (72.5) (27.5) 168 2.1 A farmer with modest income 48 32 is happier than those who have (60.0) (40.0) lots of money 208 2.6 V. Very few important goals in 62 18 life can be achieved without (77.5) (22.5) money 328 4.1 In deciding about making changes in his farm, a farmer s 78 02 first consideration should be (97.5) (2.5) 392 4.9 Is it Profitable? Overall Mean Economic Orientation Score=3.95 * igures in parenthesis are percentages * SA Strongly agree, A Agree, UD Undecided, DA Disagree, SDA Strongly Disagree, TEOS Total Economic Orientation Score, MEOS Mean Economic Orientation Score It is evident from the data that all the respondents strongly agreed on the statements like A farmer should work towards higher yield and economic profits, A farmer should try new farming ideas which may earn him more money and In deciding about making changes in their farm, a farmers first consideration should be was it profitable. Similarly, a majority of them agreed on the statements like Many things in life were more important than becoming rich (72.5%) and A farmer with modest income was happier than those who had lots of money (60.0%). On the basis of the total economic motivation score, the overall level of economic motivation of the respondents was calculated by using the formula given by Singh, (1975) and the findings are presented in Table 3 (b) Table 3 (b): Overall level of Economic Motivation Sr. No. ECONOMIC MOTIVATION % I. HIGH 36 45.0 II. MEDIUM 40 50.0 LOW 04 5.0 It has been observed from the data that the average farmers had medium level of economic motivation. Those who had high level of economic motivation were 45.0 per cent while the remaining 5.0 per cent were found to have low level of economic motivation. This indicates that a majority of the farmers had moderate to high level of economic motivation i.e. they had a great desire to earn more profit and income. Respondents Scientific Orientation The Scientific Orientation of the respondents was measured through the Scientific Orientation scale and the response is depicted in Table 4. Table 4: Respondents perceived Scientific Orientation Sr. No. STATEMENTS SA A UD DA SDA TSOS* MSOS I. II. New methods of farming give better results to a farmer than the old methods The way a farmer s forefathers farmed is still the best way to farm today Even a farmer with lots of experience should use new method of farming 1.0 @IJAPSA2016, All rights Reserved Page 161
Volume 02, Issue 08, [August 2016] eissn: 23945532, pissn: 2394823X New method of farming bring harm to the community 1.0 V. V A good farmer experiments with new ideas in farming Agriculture methods that were used by our forefathers cannot be improved upon A farmer can only progress when scientific developments are brought in Traditional methods of farming have to be changed in order to raise the level of living of a farmer Overall Mean Scientific Orientation Score=3.5 1.0 * igures in parenthesis are percentages *TEOS Total Scientific Orientation Score, MEOS Mean Scientific Orientation Score rom the data, it is clear that all the respondents strongly agreed to adopt new farming methods for better results as compared with old methods of farming and to experiment new ideas in farming. Also all of them had a strong view that in order to enhance productivity and level of living, the traditional methods of farming have to be changed and new methods of farming should be used. Scientific developments were considered as an important tool for the progress of the farmers by all the respondents. The whole percentage of the respondents strongly disagreed on the statements that new methods of farming bring harm to community and old methods cannot be improved upon. The overall mean scientific orientation score of 3.5 indicates that the farmers had good scientific orientation, that is, good rational thinking. Attitude towards Modern Agricultural Implements and Techniques The attitude of the respondents on agricultural implements and techniques was obtained on three point continuum scale viz; Agree, Undecided/Don t Know and Disagree, the response is depicted in the Table 5 (a). Table 5 (a): Respondents Attitude toward modern farm mechanisation Sr. No. Statements Agree Undecided Disagree I. The use of modern implements give better results to a farmer than old implements II. Modern mechanisation helps in saving time, labour and enhance net return Old agricultural implements/tools were better 02 78 than modern ones (2.5) (97.5) The use of modern implements has adversely 08 72 affected soil fertility (10.0) (90.0) V. Modern mechanisation has improved the crop 64 16 yield of farmers (.0) (20.0) There is no effect of modern mechanisation on the 10 70 income of farmers (12.5) (87.5) Modern farm mechanisation has made most of the 16 64 family members idle (20.0) (.0) V Modern mechanisation has improved the socio 76 04 economic status of farmers (95.0) (5.0) IX. Lack of incentives by the government has resulted 58 22 @IJAPSA2016, All rights Reserved Page 162
Volume 02, Issue 08, [August 2016] eissn: 23945532, pissn: 2394823X in less use of mechanisation (72.5) (27.5) It is difficult for the farmers to make good profits 00 X. without modern farm mechanisation Modern farm mechanisation is nothing but just a XI. wastage of money Modern farm mechanisation has resulted in 26 54 XII. farmers indebtedness (32.5) (67.5) * igures in parenthesis are percentages It can be concluded from the data that all the respondents had agreed on the statements namely, The use of modern implements give better results to a farmer than old implements, Modern Mechanisation helps in saving time, labour and enhance net return and It is difficult for the farmers to make good profits without modern farm mechanisation. A majority of the respondents (95.0%) agreed that modern mechanisation had improved socio economic status of farmers and crop yield of the farmers (.0%). All the respondents disagreed on the statement that modern mechanisation was nothing but wastage of money, while a significant majority of them (97.5%) disagreed that Old agricultural implements/tools were better than modern ones and The use of modern implements had adversely affected the soil fertility (90%). Overall attitude (Statement wise) The statement wise mean attitude score of the respondents was depicted in Table 5 (b). Table 5 (b): Overall Statement wise Attitude Sr. No. Statements TPAS* MPAS I. The use of modern implements give better results to a farmer than old implements II. Modern mechanisation helps in saving time, labour and enhance net return Old agricultural implements/tools were better than modern ones 236 2.95 The use of modern implements has adversely affected soil fertility 224 2. V. Modern mechanisation has improved the crop yield of farmers 208 2.60 There is no effect of modern mechanisation on the income of farmers 220 2.75 Modern farm mechanisation has made most of the family members idle 112 1.40 V Modern mechanisation has improved the socioeconomic status of farmers 232 2.90 IX. Lack of incentives by the government has resulted in less use of mechanisation 124 1.55 X. It is difficult for the farmers to make good profits without modern farm mechanisation XI. Modern farm mechanisation is nothing but just a wastage of money XII. Modern farm mechanisation has resulted in farmers indebtedness 188 2.35 Overall Mean Attitude Score= 2.61 *TPAS Total Perceived Attitude Score, MPAS Mean Perceived Attitude Score It has been revealed from the data that the respondents attitude was most favourable on the statements like the use of modern implements gave better results to a farmer than old implements (MPAS=3.00), modern mechanisation helps in saving time, labour and enhance net return @IJAPSA2016, All rights Reserved Page 163
Volume 02, Issue 08, [August 2016] eissn: 23945532, pissn: 2394823X (MPAS=3.00) and it was difficult for the farmers to make good profits without modern farm mechanisation. However, respondents had shown unfavourable attitude for the statements like modern farm mechanisation was nothing but wastage of money (MPAS=1.00), old agricultural implements were better than modern ones (MPAS=1.05) and the use of modern implements had adversely affected the soil fertility. Respondents overall attitude on modern farm mechanisation The overall attitude of respondent farmers towards the use of modern agricultural implements/techniques has been depicted in Table 5(c) Table 5 (c): Overall attitude Sr. No. Perceived Attitude/Perception % I. avourable 16 20.00 II. Neutral 50 62.50 Unfavourable 14 17.50 It is clear from the data that a majority of the respondents (62.5%) had neutral attitude towards modern farm mechanisation and those who had unfavourable and favourable attitude were 20 per cent and 17.5 per cent respectively. Therefore, the study implies that the field extension functionaries should make concerted efforts to change this neutral attitude of farmers into favourable one by organising training programs, educational tours to the fields of progressive farmers and through the use of mass media like radio, TV, local newspapers etc., so that by applying these modern farm implements/ tools, they can increase their production and may improve their socio economic status. V. CONCLUSION It has been concluded from the study that a majority of respondents had neutral attitude towards modern farm mechanization despite having good economic and scientific orientation. Hence, the study implies that the concerted efforts should be made by the extension functionaries to transform the neutral attitude into favourable one so that by adopting the modern farm mechanization the farmers may improve their socio economic status. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Edwards, AL and Kilpatrick. 1948..P. A Technique for the Construction of Attitude Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 32(4): 374384 [2] Singh Ravindera. 1975. On Optimum Stratification for Proportional Allocation. Sankhya Indian Journal Statistics, Seriesc, Part 1 37(1): 109115 [3] Supe SV and Singh SN. 1988. Dynamics of Rational Behaviour of Indian armers: decision making among farmers. New Heights Publication, Delhi. p. 156 [4] Vasta DK. 2013. Mechanizing Agriculture in Hills of Himachal Pradesh, India: A Review.Agriculture for Sustainable Development 1(1): 8993 @IJAPSA2016, All rights Reserved Page 164