Thumbnail Image

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa

In the imperial Gazetteer of India 1878, Pusa was recorded as a government estate of about 1350 acres in Darbhanba. It was acquired by East India Company for running a stud farm to supply better breed of horses mainly for the army. Frequent incidence of glanders disease (swelling of glands), mostly affecting the valuable imported bloodstock made the civil veterinary department to shift the entire stock out of Pusa. A British tobacco concern Beg Sutherland & co. got the estate on lease but it also left in 1897 abandoning the government estate of Pusa. Lord Mayo, The Viceroy and Governor General, had been repeatedly trying to get through his proposal for setting up a directorate general of Agriculture that would take care of the soil and its productivity, formulate newer techniques of cultivation, improve the quality of seeds and livestock and also arrange for imparting agricultural education. The government of India had invited a British expert. Dr. J. A. Voelcker who had submitted as report on the development of Indian agriculture. As a follow-up action, three experts in different fields were appointed for the first time during 1885 to 1895 namely, agricultural chemist (Dr. J. W. Leafer), cryptogamic botanist (Dr. R. A. Butler) and entomologist (Dr. H. Maxwell Lefroy) with headquarters at Dehradun (U.P.) in the forest Research Institute complex. Surprisingly, until now Pusa, which was destined to become the centre of agricultural revolution in the country, was lying as before an abandoned government estate. In 1898. Lord Curzon took over as the viceroy. A widely traveled person and an administrator, he salvaged out the earlier proposal and got London’s approval for the appointment of the inspector General of Agriculture to which the first incumbent Mr. J. Mollison (Dy. Director of Agriculture, Bombay) joined in 1901 with headquarters at Nagpur The then government of Bengal had mooted in 1902 a proposal to the centre for setting up a model cattle farm for improving the dilapidated condition of the livestock at Pusa estate where plenty of land, water and feed would be available, and with Mr. Mollison’s support this was accepted in principle. Around Pusa, there were many British planters and also an indigo research centre Dalsing Sarai (near Pusa). Mr. Mollison’s visits to this mini British kingdom and his strong recommendations. In favour of Pusa as the most ideal place for the Bengal government project obviously caught the attention for the viceroy.

Browse

20231
Reset filters
Subject: Agricultural Extension Education × Author: PAL, BHASKAR × End date: 2023 × Start date: 2022 × Thesis Type: M.Sc ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    A STUDY OF LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION OF RURAL HOUSEHOLD IN PURBA BARDHAMAN DISTRICT (WB)
    (RPCAU, Pusa, 2023) PAL, BHASKAR; Paswan, Arun Kumar
    The study entitled “A Study of Livelihood Diversification of Rural Household in Purba Bardhaman District (WB)”was carried out in Purba Bardhaman district of West Bengal. The district Purba Bardhaman was selected purposively since it has a greater number of small and marginal farmers and they are highly diversified. Two blocks namely Ketugram 1 and Raina 1 selected randomly. From each block two villages were taken randomly. A total 80 respondents of different land holding size constituted the total sample size for the study purpose. Sixteen independent variables like age, education, caste, farm household work force, number of dependents, size of land holdings, membership in organization, annual Income, farming experience, training received, livestock possession, irrigation, off-farm diversification, market orientation, access to credit and migration. The extent of livelihood diversification was selected as dependent variables. For measuring the extent of livelihood diversification Simpson Index was used. Data was collected through structured interview schedule. The collected data was, quantified and analyzed by using mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage, co-efficient of variation, correlation and multiple regression analysis. The study revealed that among all the respondents 18.75% farmers were under medium category, 20.00% farmers were small, 37.50% of the farmers were marginal and 23.75% were landless. Majority of the respondents (43.75%) were in old aged, illiterate (31.25%), general caste (43.75%) and had two household workforce (45.00%), two dependent in households (50.00%), no membership in any organisations(60.00%), medium level annual income(75.00%), more than 15 years of farming experience (33.75%), no training from any organisations (85.00%), medium level livestock possession (61.25%), 100% irrigated land (90.16%), two off farm activities (43.75%), medium level market orientation (63.75%), no access to credit (42.50%), and no migrated members (61.25%). The extent of livelihood diversification was measured in terms of income diversification. As per the findings, in case of extent of diversification, majority of the medium (73.33%), small (56.25%), marginal (63.33%), and landless households (63.15%) had moderate level diversification. In the case of medium land holders, majority (73.33%) of them had medium level income. As regards small landholders, majority (81.25%) of them had medium level of income. Most of the marginal landholding households (73.33%) had medium level income while majority of landless households (73.68%) had moderate level income. The mean value of annual income obtained from medium landholding households, small landholding households, marginal landholding households and landless households was Rs 265600.00, Rs 228968.80, Rs 179030.00, Rs 170263.20 respectively. Highest mean value of annual income obtained from medium land holders, and lowest from landless category. Mean value represents the average annual income. So, it is revealed that average annual income is highest in case of medium farmers in spite of lower diversification. The findings indicated that in case of medium land holders, majority (53.33%) of them had medium level social security. As regards to small landholders, majority (62.50%) of them had medium level social security. Most of the marginal landholding households (60.00%) had medium level social security while majority of landless households (63.20%) had moderate level social security. The findings revealed that majority (80.00%) of the medium landholding households had only two income activities; for most of the medium landholding households (73.33%) farm income accounts for more than 50% out of total family annual income. majority (43.75%) of small landholding households had three income activities; for majority of small landholding households (68.75%) non-farm income accounts for more than 50% out of total family annual income. Half of the (50%) marginal landholding households had three income activities. In case of marginal landholding households for majority of (70.00%) them non-farm income accounts for more than 50% out of total family annual income. Whereas majority (52.63%) of landless households of had three income activities and for all of them (100%) non-farm income accounts for more than 50% out of total family annual income The findings of correlation analysis revealed that seven variables were found to have significant relationship with the extent of livelihood diversification. The independent variables such as education, number of people in workforce, livestock, off farm diversification, migration had positive and significant relationship with extent of livelihood diversification at one percent level of significance. The variable market access had positive significance with the extent of livelihood at five percent level of significance. The variable land holding had negative and significant relationship with the extent of livelihood diversifications at one percent level of significance. The findings of regression analysis showed that four variables were found to contribute significantly to the extent of livelihood diversification. The variables education, no of household workforce, off farm diversification positively contributed to the extent of livelihood diversification at one percent level of significance and the variable land holding negatively contributed to the extent of livelihood diversification at one percent level of significance. The findings revealed that in case of small, marginal and landless households, annual income had positive significant relationship with the extent of livelihood diversifications. So, it can be stated that in case of small, marginal and landless groups livelihood diversification had positive impact on annual income of the households. Regression analysis of social security with the extent of livelihood diversification. revealed that in case of medium, small, marginal and landless landholders, social security had significantly positive relationship with the extent of livelihood diversifications. So it can be stated that in case of medium, small, marginal and landless landholders livelihood diversification had positive impact on social security of the households. The rural households face so many constraints to diversify their households in an efficient way to get a long-term sustainability. In the study area the most severe constraints as perceived by the respondents were lack of finance for heavy initial investment to startup new venture, high cost of agricultural production, Farmers are not getting price as per MSP at market, lack of cash in hand due to heavy expenses for running family leading to distress sale and Lacking of proper market information.