IMPACT OF KVK FLDS ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FARMERS IN JAMMU AND KATHUA DISTRICTS
Loading...
Date
2017
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu
Abstract
Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) is the key institute for the holistic development of village community by adopting proper agricultural and allied practices towards sustainability. In order to increase the productivity of crops per unit area and get the feedback of farmers on the performance of new varieties and technologies, the Front Line Demonstration (FLDs) programmers’ was designed and launched. The main objective of front line demonstration is to demonstrate newly released crop production and protection technologies and management practices at the farmers’ fields under different agro- climatic regions and farming situations. To find out the impact of KVK interventions especially Front Line Demonstration on the livelihood security of farmers in the Jammu & Kathua district (J&K) a study entitled “Impact of KVK FLDS on Socio-economic Status of Farmers in Jammu & Kathua Districts” was conducted during 2016-2017. Based on random sampling, the selected 160 respondents (80 beneficiaries and 80 non- beneficiaries) were interviewed using a structured interview schedule. The results showed that one third of the respondents (36.2%) were noticed to fall under age interval 36-50 years and the education qualification of most of the respondents was middle (33.1%). Majority of the respondents have marginal land holding (46.2%). The average area under Rice among beneficiaries was 1.18ha while in case of non-beneficiaries it was 0.97ha. Also the average area under wheat among beneficiaries was 1.49ha while in case of non-beneficiaries it was 1.03ha. The main source of irrigation was canal for about 70% of the respondents. Only 20% of the households were exclusively dependent on agriculture compared to other source of income. KVK act as the main source of information to the beneficiaries while non-beneficiaries were mainly dependent upon the input dealers for information. In rice majority (72.5%) of the respondents possessed high level of knowledge in case of beneficiaries while only 57.5% of respondents possessed high level knowledge in case of non-beneficiaries. In case of wheat 50% of beneficiaries possessed medium level of knowledge about various practices of wheat while 67.5% of non-beneficiaries possessed medium level of knowledge. Also, a significant difference was found between the knowledge of beneficiaries & non-beneficiaries about chemical fertilizer and plant protection measures, while in case of wheat, a significant difference was found among irrigation management, manures & fertilizers and plant protection measures. The adoption of technologies both in case of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries follow knowledge, though high percent of farmers were aware about different rice & wheat practices but the adoption was lower than the knowledge in both cases. A significant difference was found between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries related to the adoption of recommended seed rate, seed treatment, use of DAP in nursery, fertilizer usage in main field & diseases management of rice. Similarly, a significant difference was observed between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding adoption of recommended seed rate, seed treatment, fertilizer usage, insect-pest & diseases management in wheat. The results of linear regression showed that none of the selected variables had significant contribution with the adoption of various practices in paddy but in case of wheat only knowledge found to have significant effect on the adoption of practices. By calculating the benefit-cost ratio of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, it was found that the beneficiaries achieved more returns on their investments as compared to non-beneficiaries both in case of rice and wheat. There was a significant difference between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries perception towards the role of KVKs.
Description
Keywords
null
Citation
No. of references 132