PROFILE OF AGROFORESTRY FARMERS IN CENTRAL ZONE OF UTTAR- PRADESH Naveen Kumar Gautam 1, Kuldeep Maurya 2 and Dr. V. K. Singh 3 1,2 Ph.D. student Dept. of agricultural extension in C.S.A.U.A. & T. Kanpur 3 Prof. & H.O.D. Dept. of agricultural extension in C.S.A.U.A. & T. Kanpur Abstract This paper examined the Unnao district of Uttar-Pradesh state to access the profile of farmers who are involve in agroforestry. This study conducted in five villages viz. Harishchandrapur, Dubai, Paahi, Raypur and Jhagarpur. A scale was developed by Department of extension education to measure attitude of 80 farmers were approached personally by the investigator for collection of relevant data. Most of the respondents belongs to young age group. That great majority of the respondents were formally educated. The reason for this might be due to the facility for primary to higher secondary education available at the village. Most of the farmers had low to medium level of mass media exposure & clear majority of the respondents had annual income up to 50,000 Rs. Keywords- Agroforestry, Social contact, V.D.O., income and land holding I. INTRODUCTION From origin to till India is an Agriculture country and Agriculture plays an important role in India s Economy, over 58% of the rural household depend on the agriculture. Along with the fisheries and forestry is one of the largest contributors to the gross domestic product(gdp). Developments of extension in agroforestry draw on the application of the innovation -diffusion process in agriculture. To be effective agroforestry extension needs to fit the dynamic of the target farming system, the local socioeconomic and technological system, and land use constraints. The purpose of this examination is to evaluate agroforestry's present role as well as its potential in contributing to sustainable development. To know the profile of agroforestry farmers II. OBJECTIVE III. METHODOLOGY The present investigation was conducted in Unnao district of Uttar-Pradesh state. All the five village of Unnao district under were selected for the study. Sixteen respondents from each village were selected randomly and thus total 80 farmers were selected as respondents, personal interview method was used. The statistical tool like correlation of coefficient, frequency and percentage were used to analyze the data. Age: IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The age group of the respondents was studied and the category of the age group of the respondents is given below: DOI:10.22623/IJAPSA.2018.4009.S0PAS Page 4
Table No.1: Respondents and their age group S.No. Age group of respondents No. of respondents Percentage 1. 20 to 30 years 25 31.25 2. 31 to 50 years 35 43.75 3. 50 years & above 20 25 The study in table no.2 reveals that maximum 43.75% respondents belonged to the age group of 31 to 50 years, followed by 31.25% from the age group of 20 to 30 years and 25% from the age group of 50 years and above. The age group of 31 to 50 years was found more effective in the decision-making process for the adoption of new techniques of agroforestry. The caste and religion of the respondents was studied, and the results have been given in the following table. Caste: Table no.2: Respondent and their castes S.No. Caste of the respondents No. of Respondents Percentage 1. Upper Caste 22 27.50 2. Backward Caste 40 50.00 3. Scheduled Caste 18 22.50 It is clear from table no.2 that out of 80 repondent,40 respondents or 50% belonged to the backward castes, followed by 22.5% scheduled castes and 27.5% upper caste. Hence it was observed that most of the farmers belonged to backward castes. Thus, it is established that maximum number of respondents who belonged to backward castes participated in agroforestry programme. Scheduled castes and upper castes farmers took comparatively little interest in the plantation programme. Education: Table no.3: respondents and their level of education. S.No. Educational Status No. of Respondents Percentage 1. Illeterate 5 6.25 2. Up to Primary 10 12.50 3. Up to junior high school 25 31.25 4. High school and above 30 37.50 5. Miscellaneous 10 12.50 Table no.3 show that maximum 37.5% respondents possessed education up to high school and above, followed by 31.5% and 12.5% who got their education up to junior high school and primary level, respectively. 5 Respondents or 6.25% were illiterate and none possessed specific professional training, etc. Thus, the data indicate that education was found more effective the adoption of innovation in the rural areas. @IJAPSA-2018, All rights Reserved Page 5
Family: Table no.4: respondents and their type of family. S.No. Type of family No. of Respondents Percentage 1. Joint family 35 43.75 2. Nuclear family 45 56.25 The data of this table reveals that 45 respondents or 56.25% out of 80 respondents were the member of nuclear family and remaining 35 respondents or 43.75% belonged to the joint family. Thus, these farmers who belonged to the nuclear family pattern participated more in agro forestry programme in comparison to those who belonging to joint family. Occupation: Table no.5: Distribution of respondents according to their occupational status S.No. Occupation of respondents No. of Respondents Percentage 1. Farming 10 12.5 2. Farming with A/H 50 62.5 3. Miscellaneous 20 25 It is evident from the data in table no.5 that majority of the respondents 50 or 62.5% were engaged in farming with animal husbandry as subsidiary occupation and 10 respondents or 25% were engaged in only farming, remaining 25% or 20 respondents were having miscellaneous occupation, e.g.- mat making, rope making, mazdoori, etc. Respondents having family with animal husbandry favored agro-forestry programme more in comparison to those who were having family or miscellaneous occupation. Land holdings: Table no.6: Respondents and their category according to ownership on land S.No. Size of holdings Category of No. of Percentage farmers Respondents 1. 0-1.25 Acre (irrigated) Marginal 20 25.00 2. 1.25-2.50 Acre (irrigated) Small 35 43.75 3. Above 2.50 Acre Big 25 31.25 (irrigated) It is obvious from the table no.6 that maximum number of farmers, that is 35 were the owner of land of category no.2 i.e. 1.25-2.5 acres irrigated, followed by 25 farmers above 2.5 acres irrigated and 20 farmers belonging to the category no.1, i.e. up to 1.25 acres irrigated land. The study makes it clear that maximum participation in agro forestry programme was availed by the farmers belonging to small category and lowest participation in agro forestry programme by marginal category of farmers. Source of irrigation: Table no.7 Respondents and sources of irrigation S.No. Source of irrigation No. of Respondents Percentage 1. Tubewell 60 75 2. Canal 18 22.5 @IJAPSA-2018, All rights Reserved Page 6
3. Tank 2 2.5 4. Others 0 0 It is obvious from table no.7 that majority of respondents, i.e. 75% were irrigating their crops by tubewells, followed by 22.5% by canals and 2.55 by tanks. The findings of the study reveal that maximum respondents irrigated their crops by tubewells and minimum of respondents by other sources of irrigation. Income: Table no.8: Respondents and annual income. S.No. Total annual income No. of Respondents Percentage 1 Up to 50000 20 25 2 50000 to 100000 35 43.75 3 100000 and above 25 31.25 Table no.8 indicates that maximum no. of respondents 35 or 43.75% were found falling in the income group of Rs. 50,000 to 10,0000 and 25 respondents or 31.25% respondents belonged to the income group of Rs.10,0000 and above. Credit source: Table no.9: Respondents and credit sources S.No. Credit resources No. of Respondents Percentage Formal 1. Nationalized banks 30 37.5 2. Co-operative banks 20 25 3. Land development Bank 12 15 Informal 1. Money lenders 6 7.5 2. Mortage, Land ornament, etc. 8 10 3. Relative and friends 4 5 Table no.9 indicates the majority of respondents i.e 37.5% got credit from nationalised banks followed by 25% from village co-operatives and 15% from land development bank. Informal credit resources were less utilized by these respondents, only 8 respondents or 7.5% got credit from village money lenders and 4 respondents or 5% from relatives and friends. Social contact: Table no.10: Respondents on the basis of their social contact S.No. Social contact No. of Respondents Percentage 1. V.D.O. 28 35 2. A.D.O. 25 31.25 3. B.D.O. 15 18.75 4. C.D.O. 12 15 @IJAPSA-2018, All rights Reserved Page 7
The above table denote the highest majority12 percent respondents had received relevant information from V.D.O. directly where as 12 percent from A.D.O. and 12 percent B.D.O. and 12 percent contacted C.D.O. respectively. This is clear that maximum respondents had received maximum relevant information through V.D.O. and minimum thorough C.D.O. V. CONCLUSION The majority of the respondents belongs to the middle age group (31-50) and that majority of respondents were formally educated. The reason behind this is facility for primary to higher secondary education available at the village and nearby cities. Vast majority of farmers had annual income between 50000 to 100000, the reason for this might be their small land holding. In the study we clearly found that maximum respondents had received maximum relevant information through V.D.O. and minimum thorough C.D.O., we also found that now most farmers are relying on government banks to fulfill the need of funds. Our study shows that tubewell is the main means of irrigation. We can say that farmers, who are educated, socially active, middle age and having proper means of irrigation, have shown interest in agroforestry. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Maya Kant Awasthi (2014). Socioeconomic determinants of farmland value in India Land Use Policy; vol.39 pp78-83. [2] Naresh V. Thevathasan (2012). Agroforestry Research and Development in Canada: The Way Forward Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use; vol.9 pp 247-283. [3] Surabhi Singh & Rachel George (2017). Organic Farming: Awareness and Beliefs of Farmers in Uttarakhand Journal of Human Ecology; 37(2) pp 139-149. [4] Syed Ajijur Rahman,Muhammad Hasan Imam, Denyse J. Snelder, Terry Sunderland (2012). Agroforestry for Livelihood Security in Agrarian Landscapes of the Padma Floodplain in Bangladesh Small-scale Forestry; 11(4) pp 529-538. @IJAPSA-2018, All rights Reserved Page 8