an appraisal of extant public agricultural extension
TRANSCRIPT
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 1
An Appraisal of Extant Public Agricultural
Extension System in Tamil Nadu
A Study conducted for
State Land Use Board, State Planning Commission,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai
Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development Studies
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Coimbatore 641 003
2007
Draft Final report
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 2
An Appraisal of Extant Public Agricultural Extension System in Tamil Nadu
Project Team
N.Raveendaran
K.Mahendran
J.Venkita Prabhu
N.Ajjan
K.A.Ponnusamy
Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development Studies
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Coimbatore 641 003
2007
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Contents Page No.
IRRIGATED ENVIRONMENT
3.1. Age Group of the Sample Farmers 12
3.2. Family Size of the Sample Farmers 12
3.3 Educational Status of the Sample Farmers 12
3.4 Farm Size of the Respondents 13
3.5 Participation of the Sample Farmers in Panchayat Raj
Institutions 13
3.6 Agricultural related Institutional Participation 14
3.7 Exposure to Mass Media 14
3.8 Primary Reason for lower exposure to mass media 15
3.9 Impact of Relationship with Officials of Agriculture
Department 15
3.10 Participation of the Sample Farmers in the Mass Extension
Methods 16
3.11 Primary Reason for Non Participation in Arranged Extension
Activities 17
3.12 Levels of Satisfaction on Information provided 18
3.13 Communication Sources and Levels of Satisfaction 19
3.14 Reasons for Dissatisfaction on the Sources of Communication 20
3.15 Usefulness of the Extension Methods 22
3.16 Quality of inputs 23
3.17 Feed back 23
3.18 Monetary benefits 24
3.19 Social benefits 24
IRRIGATED DRY
3.20 Age Group of the Sample Farmers 25
3.21 Family Size of the Sample Farmers 26
3.22 Educational Status of the Sample Farmers 26
3.23 Farm Size of the Respondents 26
3.24 Participation of the Sample Farmers in Panchayat Raj 27
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 4
Institutions
3.25 Agricultural Related Institutional Participation 27
3.26 Exposure to Mass Media 28
3.27 Primary Reason for lower exposure to mass media 28
3.28 Participation of the sample farmers in the Mass Extension
Methods 29
3.29 Impact of Relationship with Officials of Agriculture
Department 29
3.30 Participation of the sample farmers in the Mass Extension
Methods 30
3.31 Primary Reason for Non Participation in Arranged Extension
Activities 31
3.32 Levels of Satisfaction on Information provided 33
3.33 Communication Sources and Levels of Satisfaction 34
3.34 Reasons for Dissatisfaction on Sources of Communication 34
3.35 Usefulness of the Extension Methods 37
3.36 Quality of inputs 37
3.37 Feed back 38
3.38 Monetary benefits 38
3.39 Social benefits 39
DRY ENVIRONMENT
3.40 Age Group of the Sample Farmers 39
3.41 Family Size of the Sample Farmers 40
3.42 Educational Status of the Sample Farmers 40
3.43 Farm Size of the Respondents 41
3.44 Participation of the Sample Farmers in Panchayat Raj
Institutions 41
3.45 Agricultural Related Institutional Participation 41
3.46 Exposure to Mass Media 42
3.47 Primary Reason for lower exposure to mass media 43
3.48 Participation level in the Mass Extension Methods 44
3.49 Impact of Relationship with Officials of Agriculture 44
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 5
Department
3.50 Primary Reason for Non Participation in Arranged Extension
Activities 45
3.51 Levels of Satisfaction on Information provided 46
3.52 Communication Sources and Levels of Satisfaction 47
3.53 Reasons for Non Satisfaction on Sources of Communication 47
3.54 Usefulness of the Extension Methods 49
3.55 Quality of inputs 50
3.56 Feed back 50
3.57 Monetary benefits 51
3.58 Social benefits 51
CONTENTS
Sl.No. Content Page No.
1. Introduction 1
2. Methodology 7
3. Results and Discussion 11
4. Suggestions and strategies 57
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 6
AN APPRAISAL OF EXTANT PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
SYSTEM IN TAMIL NADU
Concept
Agricultural extension is a function of providing need based knowledge and skills
to rural men, women and youth practicing agriculture in a non-formal, participatory
manner, with the objective of improving their quality of life. Extension is essentially
education, although it falls outside formal education systems, and as such, aims at
bringing about positive behavioral changes among those targeted. Agricultural extension,
being educational in nature, is understandably a slow process as it aims at changing
human behavior and generally does not show quick and tangible benefits. Public
agricultural extension is a system that is essentially supported and implemented by the
government extending the non-formal education process to the farmers for enhancing
their livelihood with inbuilt sustainability safeguards for use of the available natural
resources in a more judicious way mostly by the way of increasing productivity per unit
of land and water resources.
Context
In recent years, the public extension system has been increasingly criticized for
being not that efficient for all the investment that has gone into creating and sustaining
the organization and staff. They have been targeted for reforms. Certain extension
services have been said to be so large that they are unable to move efficiently because of
their own weight. The fact remains, however, that modernization and reforms are needed
in the existing extension system as a result of the many global forces that are changing
socio-economic and political conditions, creating new challenges and learning needs for
farmers.
Challenges Facing the Public Agricultural Extension System
Shrinking resource bases: The land and water resource base for an average farm holding
has declined considerably during the last five decades (Selvarajan, S and Joshi P.K
(2000)). The main reason for the increasing resource degradation is the inappropriate and
unscientific use of land and irrigation water. Degraded lands are either going out of
cultivation or are being used for growing low value crops. Most of the future agricultural
growth will have to come via yield enhancement, and from rainfed areas, wherein most of
the technologies are knowledge based and need community action.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 7
Changes in demand and consumption pattern: Per capita cereal consumption for food
declined somewhat over the past three decades, while the consumption of fruits,
vegetables, meat, fish, eggs and dairy products increased (Kumar, P. 1998). The demand
for livestock products has been increasing rapidly during the last two decades. Increasing
per capita income and changing lifestyles are expected to further increase the demand for
milk, fruits and vegetables. Rapid growth in livestock demand would push demand for
cereals for livestock feed. Assuming a modest growth in per capita income of two
percent, the total cereal demand in 2020 is projected at 257.3 million tons. For a country
of India's size and population, importing huge quantities of grains is not feasible. The
increased demand has to be primarily met through increase in productivity gained through
increased knowledge application by the farmers.
Changing farming systems: The area under food grains as percentage of Gross Cropped
Area has been declining in the nineties, whereas the percentage share of non-food grains
has been generally increasing during the same period. Area under horticultural crops
increased from 12.3 m.ha in 1991-92 to 15.0 m.ha in 1996-97. Farmers require a different
type of support (training, problem-solving consultancy, marketing advice etc) for growing
many of these crops, than simply information on technology, as was the case earlier.
Declining public investments in agriculture: Public investments in agriculture,
(investments in irrigation, rural roads, rural electrification, storage, marketing,
agricultural research and education, land development, co-operation etc) in real terms
since mid-seventies have been declining consistently in all the states (Ramesh Chand,
1999). Farmers have to join together to put pressure on governments to invest more and
have to pool together their resources to develop and maintain the necessary infrastructure.
Extension may have to support farmers in this endeavor. The increasing pressure on
research funds to find technological solutions to more diverse problems necessitates
serious efforts in research prioritization and targeted technology development. Extension
need to assist and direct researchers in problem focusing and evaluating technological
options.
Fiscal crisis: It is increasingly difficult to make adequate resources available for
agricultural extension. Financial pressures have in turn, led to the search for ways of
reducing public sector costs by privatizing parts of the extension service, having farmers
pay government for some services, and cost-sharing arrangements between government
and NGOs or farmers' organizations.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 8
Changing contexts and opportunities: Opportunities for small farmers to acquire
technical information from sources other than the public sector have expanded rapidly.
The change has been most rapid with telecommunications: radio and television now
widely available in rural areas. Higher literacy levels and improvements in printing
technology have expanded the opportunities for the spread of technical information
through printed materials. There is growing evidence, though much of it from small-scale
projects implemented by NGOs, that participatory approaches enhance project benefits
and, in some cases, stimulates wider empowerment of rural communities.
Pressures towards participation and good governance: The range of participatory
methods is increasing. However, the evidence remains unclear on whether the additional
benefits of participatory approaches are sufficient to outweigh the costs, over what time
scale they might do so.
International developments: Liberalization of agricultural trade, consequent to the
WTO agreements has resulted in new opportunities and threats to Indian agriculture.
India is likely to gain in some crops, but consistent efforts for improving quality (to meet
international standards) and increasing cost effectiveness in these crops/products are
essential to achieve these. Liberalization of agricultural imports, which would gain further
momentum in the months to come, would subject our producers to competition from
outside. There is an urgent need to increase the competitiveness of Indian agro-products
and the role of agricultural extension would be very important.
Appraisal of Public Agricultural Extension System
Public agricultural extension system is a knowledge intensive organization, which is
involved in the production and dissemination of knowledge. Therefore, the success of this
organisation depends to a large extent on “knowledge management” and the major role of
its managers is to ensure that
Successful agricultural extension agencies are learning organizations
It gets relevant knowledge where ever it is produced
Staff members use their creativity to acquire/develop new knowledge
Staff members have access to all knowledge which is available in the organization
Learning from experience on how to develop more effective extension methods
Understand the changes happening in all the facets of rural life and apply
themselves for effective knowledge transfer applications
Stakeholder orientation of all the activities for efficient delivery of technologies
and adoption practices
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 9
The most important challenge for the future extension managers would be the
Management of Knowledge. The success of a farmer in the years to come is going to be
primarily dependent upon his level of knowledge. The real prices of agricultural products
are falling, because knowledge makes it possible to produce products with less land,
labour and other resources.
The objective of appraisal is to understand the present public extension system for
converting it in to a knowledge intensive, demand-driven, participatory, bottom-up, and a
relatively lean organization, which could efficiently respond to farmers’ extension and
training needs emerging as a result of globalization, market liberalization,
decentralization, and democratization, making use of information technology tools as far
as possible.
The role of agricultural extension in the next decade should be quite different
from what it was 10 years ago or even now. Its role as a facilitator of agricultural
knowledge system would only increase, as more participants from private sector would
get involved in extension. The public sector extension would still continue to be the major
extension provider in most parts of the country as the private sector alone would not be
able to meet even partially the varied needs of farmers. The ability of the system to
perform these roles would entirely depend on the pace of internal reforms, the system
would undergo. Experience the world over is that it is easy to change farmers than to
change government agencies. Internal reforms are thus going to be the greatest challenge
for the extension systems.
Therefore regular appraisal of the objectives and performance of the public
agricultural extension system in terms of fulfilling the needs and expectations of all the
stakeholders involved in the dynamic process is contributory not only to the future
planning activities of the government but also a great learning process for the
organization itself.
Case of Tamil Nadu
For a period of three decades, since the inception of T and V system, the State
Department of Agriculture has been rendering yeomen service to the farming community
and to the specific target groups. The services include technology dissemination, creation
of awareness leading to adoption looking into all possibilities for continuance.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 10
Nevertheless, entangled with multifarious workload, and under the pressure of target-
oriented work, the system accomplishments have been to a significant level.
Despite, certain criticisms on their services, estimated to be dealing with only one
third of the farming community, the farmers have been reached with technologies
appropriate to the location, cultural, social and political milieu. One of the reasons for the
slow growth rate in agriculture is reported to be due to the non-reach of agricultural
extension field functionaries to the needy farmers in time and space. This is against the
fact that “Green Revolution” in Tamil Nadu was achieved through the efforts of research
agencies and the State Department of Agriculture. At the same time Tamil Nadu has to
achieve 4 per cent annual growth rate in agriculture and 8 per cent annual growth rate in
horticulture. To achieve this 4 per cent growth rate, besides the technology, functioning of
extension system is crucial. Hence it is essential to understand the functioning of State
Department of Agriculture in relation to its delivery, content, reach besides appraising the
problem encountered in functioning of the department, failing which any amount of
improvement in agricultural technology will not reach the needy farmers. Also it is to be
analyzed to what extent and how far their services have been recognized, the deficiency
felt by them, and any set backs to carry out their service effectively.
Keeping the above thinking in view, it is felt that the efficiency, effectiveness and
utility of the agricultural extension system are to be examined, apart from evaluating the
merits of the services in terms of content and delivery pertinent to the above parameters.
Hence the present study has been conceived with the following major objectives.
Objectives
i. to examine the efficiency, effectiveness and usefulness of the extension
services being rendered by the State Department of Agriculture;
ii. to assess the agricultural extension services in terms of content and delivery in
relevance to the different parameters; and
iii. to suggest suitable strategies to improve the functioning of Public Agricultural
Extension System in Tamil Nadu.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 11
Chapter II
METHODOLOGY
The modernization and reform of the agricultural extension system is a major
undertaking requiring careful analysis of the situation, comprehension of the existing
policy on agricultural extension and the vision of development for over the next 20 years
or so, and finally taking bold policy decisions, some of which may have external
implications, cost considerable amounts in terms of time, money and energy, and require
effective monitoring of progress. It is therefore of paramount importance that the policy-
makers first have a look at the existing agricultural extension system to determine
whether the system needs to be reformed or not.
In order to conduct the appraisal study, a research plan was carefully laid out
taking in to account the geographical spread of the state, nature of crops grown in
different areas, resource endowments especially on the availability of water which is a
prime factor and moving force for the success of agriculture and agricultural extension.
Sufficient care was taken to cover the complete scenario of agricultural extension through
proper sampling methods and to obtain relevant data for meeting the objective
requirements of the study. The procedures adopted for sampling and the methods and
tools used for the analysis of the collected information are presented in the following
sections.
Sampling of Farmers
Selection of Districts:
There are totally 29 districts in the state. The districts were classified into
irrigated, irrigated dry and rain fed districts based on source of irrigation, percent area
under irrigation, and gross irrigated area. Five districts were chosen randomly under each
scenario of irrigation to carry out the study. Thus, totally fifteen districts was chosen for
the study.
Selection of Blocks in the short listed districts:
From the selected fifteen districts, four blocks were selected randomly. Totally
sixty blocks was selected for the study. The list of the selected districts and blocks are
provided in Tables 2.1 to 2.3.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 12
Irrigated Scenario
Five districts namely, Thanjavur, Trichirapalli, Cuddalore, Thiruvarur and
Tirunelveli were selected for conduct of the study under irrigated scenario. The blocks
selected in each of these districts are presented in the table (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Districts and Blocks Selected under Irrigated Scenario
S.No Districts Blocks
1. Thanjavur Thiruvaiyaru, Ammapattai, Orathanadu,
Thirupananthal
2. Tiruchirapalli Musiri, Lalgudi, Andanallur,
Mannachanallur
3. Cuddalore Kattumannarkudi, Komarachi,
Vriddhachalam, Kammapuram
4. Thiruvarur Valangaiman, Mannarkudi, Thiruvaroor,
Kodavasal
5. Tirunelveli Kuruvikulam, Vasuthevanallur,
Sankarankoil, Melaneelethanallur
Irrigated Dry Scenario
Five districts namely, Erode, Salem, Coimbatore, Villupuram and Thiruvallur
were selected for conduct of the study under irrigated dry situation. The blocks selected in
each of these districts are presented in the Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Districts and Blocks Selected under Irrigated Dry Scenario
S.No Districts Blocks
1. Erode Bhavanisagar, Sathyamanagalam,
Perunthurai, Gobichettipalayam
2. Salem Veerapandi, Panamarathupatti,
Peddanaickenpalayam, Mecheri
3. Coimbatore
4. Villupuram Gingee, Vallam, Kolianur, Melmalaiyanur
5. Thiruvallur Thiruvallur , Thiruthani, Poonamalle,
Thiruvalaugadu
Dry Scenario
Five districts namely, Sivagangai,Perambalur, Dharmapuri, Thoothukudi and
Virudhunagar were selected for conduct of the study under dry situation. The blocks
selected in each of these districts are presented in the Table 2.3.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 13
Table 2.3 Districts and Blocks Selected under Irrigated Dry Scenario
S.No Districts Blocks
1. Sivagangai Tiruppathur, Kallal, Ilaiyankudi,
Kalayarkoil
2. Perambalur Ariyalur, Thirumanur, Sendurai,
Andimadam
3. Dharmapuri Pennagaram, Nallamballi, Palacode,
Morappur
4. Thoothukudi Kovilpatti, Puthur, Vilathikulam, Kayathar
5. Virudhunagar Sattur, Koviapatti, Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar
Selection of Villages and Farm Households
One village from each selected block was again selected randomly and fifteen
farmers were randomly selected and interviewed personally. Therefore totally nine
hundred farmers representing the three irrigation scenarios were contacted for the study.
Details regarding the cropping pattern, services received from various extension agencies,
content of the technologies provided, mode of delivery of the same, the satisfaction level
of the farmers with regard to the content and delivery of the technologies by the field
functionaries etc, were collected from the farmers through a pre-tested questionnaire.
Sampling of Officials
Information for evaluation was collected from all the categories of officials of the
Department of Agriculture through a structured questionnaire as follows.
120 Assistant Agricultural Officers (2 per selected block)
120 Agricultural Officers/Agricultural Development Officers (2 per selected
block)
30 Assistant Directors of Agriculture (2 per selected district)
15 Deputy Directors of Agriculture (1 per selected district)
15 Joint Directors of Agriculture (1 per selected district)
Collection of data
The data required for the present study was collected through structured interview
schedule. The interview schedule was prepared based on the objectives of the study. The
farmers and officials were contacted personally and the objectives of the study were
explained to them to get their cooperation.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 14
Statistical Tools used for analysis
The collected data was subjected to statistical analysis to estimate the required
parameters and to get the inference. The statistical analyses used were as follows.
Conventional analysis
Simple percentages and averages were worked out to study the characters like age
group of the sample farmers, family size of the sample farmers, educational status of the
sample farmers, farm size of the respondents, social participation of the sample farmers,
agricultural related institutional participation , exposure to mass media, reasons for lower
exposure, impact of relationship with officials of agriculture department officials,
participation level in the mass extension methods, reasons for non participation in
arranged extension activities, levels of satisfaction on information provided,
communication sources and levels of satisfaction, reasons for non satisfaction on sources
of communication, usefulness of the extension methods, quality of inputs, feed back,
monetary benefits and social benefits that reached them through the agricultural extension
system etc.
Multi dimensional scaling Technique
Summated scale was used to study the satisfaction level of the farmers with respect to
their relationship with officials, communication / information, effectiveness of the mode
of communication and also about the usefulness of the extension system.
A three-point scale (Highly satisfied, partially satisfied and not satisfied) was used. The
respondents were requested to indicate their satisfaction or non satisfaction about each
attribute by referring to a three point scale. From the scores obtained for each attribute,
the mean was calculated and interpreted to give the overall opinion of the sample
respondents about the attributes of the present public agricultural extension system.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 15
CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The first part of the chapter deals with the feed back analysis from the survey of
nine hundred farmers spread across fifteen districts as discussed earlier in the
methodology chapter meeting the requirements of the first objective of the study. The
second part of the results and discussion chapter presents the outcomes of the discussion
with the officials of the Department of Agriculture. The third part deals with the
guidelines and strategies that can be adopted for strengthening the present Agricultural
Extension system, taking in to account the field level constraints faced by the farmers and
the officials and the experience gained through the review of literature available in the
area of study.
The results of the study are presented and discussed under the following broad headings.
A. General characteristics, Exposure, Participation levels, Relationship with Officials
and levels of Satisfaction of the Farmers in the Irrigated environment
B. General characteristics, Exposure, Participation levels, Relationship with Officials and
Levels of Satisfaction of the Farmers in the Irrigated Dry Environment
C. General characteristics, Exposure, Participation levels, Relationship with Officials and
Levels of Satisfaction of the Farmers in the Dry Environment
D. Problems and constraints faced by the farmers in availing the Agricultural Extension
Services / Reasons for non Satisfaction of Farmers regarding Public Agricultural
Extension Services
E. Feed Back Analysis of the Officials of the Department of Agriculture
F. Guidelines and Strategies that can be adopted for Strengthening the Present
Agricultural Extension System in the State
A. General characteristics, Exposure, Participation levels, Relationship with
Officials and Levels of Satisfaction of the Farmers in the Irrigated
Environment
It is observed from Table 3.1 that nearly three fourth (65.0%) of the sample
farmers belonged to young to middle aged group, where as one third (35.0%) of them
were in the old aged group in the irrigated districts. It may be concluded that a
considerable proportion of the respondents were of effective and potential groups of
farmers who can adapt to the changes faster.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 16
Table 3.1 Age Group of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Age Group No. %
1 Young (20 - 30 Years) 100 33.33
2 Middle (30-50 Years) 95 31.67
3 Old (>50 Years) 105 35.00
Total 300 100.00
Table 3.2 Family Size of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Family Size No. %
1 Small (Less than 4 members) 250 83.33
2 Large (>4 members) 50 16.67
Total 300 100.00
A glance at the Table 3.2 shows clearly that majority (83.33%) of the farmer
respondents belonged to small families where as, only one fifth (16.67%) of them
belonged to large families. In general, it may be inferred that a significant proportion of
them were having smaller size family which may result in a lesser participative attitude.
Table 3.3 Educational Status of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Educational Status No. %
1 Illiterate 30 10.00
2 Primary school 15 5.00
3 Middle school 100 33.33
4 High school 100 33.33
5 Higher secondary school 25 8.33
6 Degree 30 10.00
Total 300 100.00
Perusal of the Table 3.3 indicates that the educational status of the farmers was
only up to school level and only a lesser number of them acquired degrees. One third
(33.33%) of them had middle to high school education, and a lesser proportion of them
were illiterates, and belonged to other categories like primary and higher secondary. This
has a bearing on the type of extension method that can be promoted for better levels of
understanding and adoption.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 17
Table 3.4 Farm Size of the Respondents
S.No. Farm Size No. %
1 Marginal (< 1ha) 155 51.67
2 Small (1-2Ha) 85 28.33
3 Medium (3-4Ha) 30 10.00
4 Large (>4Ha) 30 10.00
Total 300 100.00
From the table it is observed that majority of them were marginal and small
farmers (nearly 80%) and only one tenth of them came under medium to large. Therefore
suitable extension strategies are to be devised for targeting and meeting the needs of
numerous small and marginal farmers in the environment taking in to account their
financial position, cost of technology, labour requirement of the technology etc.
Table 3.5 Participation of the Sample Farmers in Panchayat Raj Institutions
S.No. Social Participation Level No. %
1 Low 224 74.67
2 Medium 48 16.00
3 High 28 9.33
Total 300 100
Socializing with people increases the exposure level and makes learning more
comprehensive. The levels of participation was arrived based on the participation of the
individual farmers in the various panchayat raj institutions and they were ranked low,
medium and high based on their active participation in these organizations and
associations. The study finds that three fourth of the sampled respondents extended low to
medium level of participation and only a meager proportion maintained and built in
higher level of participation.
It could be possibly so since they possessed small sized farms that too, with
copious water availability they would have been more involved with the farming
activities, restricting their active participation in societal gatherings. So it has to be
examined further whether such organizations/associations can be made a via media tool
for the application of extension tools.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 18
Table 3.6 Agricultural related Institutional Participation
S.No. Level of Participation No. %
1 Low 261 87.00
2 Medium 32 10.67
3 High 7 2.33
Total 300 100.00
Attuned to the institutions like Farmers Discussion Group, Self Help Group, Non
Governmental Organizations, etc, would furnish first hand information about the
technologies generated and also the judicial application of chemicals, fertilizers and
strengthening their knowledge for enhancing scientific agriculture. To get to know on
these aspects, a majority (87.0%) of them had low level of accessibility and acquaintance
and only one tenth (12.0%) have had medium to high level of participation in such
institutions.
In general, it may be inferred that as most of them owned small sized farms, the
urge to gather information and knowledge from the agri-based institutions would not have
been more, thus justifying the result. At the same time, it also reveals the attitude of the
farmersof irrigated regions which makes agricultural extension a hard task.
Table 3.7 Exposure to Mass Media
S.No. Mass Media Sources Regular Occasionally Never
No. % No. % No. %
1 Farm news in AIR 35 11.67 170 56.67 95 31.67
2 Vayalum vazhvum 20 6.67 160 53.33 120 40.00
3 Agricultural news in Dailies 40 13.33 130 43.33 130 43.33
4 Agricultural magazines 18 6.00 52 17.33 230 76.67
Mass media exposure is the major source of information, because of its lower
cost. Of these sources, radio being the cheapest, the sample respondents were habituated
to listen to this media. But for now, the TV has gained momentum in disseminating
technologies and the significant proportion of farmers occasionally watched vayalum
vazhvum telecasted through television.
A considerable proportion was occasional readers of agricultural news in dailies.
As regards to agricultural magazines, due to its subscription cost and being small holders,
only a negligible percentage were regular readers of agricultural magazines.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 19
Table 3.8 Primary Reason for lower exposure to mass media
S.No. Reasons
Farm news
in air
Vayalum
vazhvum
Agricultural
news
in dailies
Agricultural
magazines
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 Lack of time 18 18.95 47 39.17 49 37.69 74 32.17
2 Not interested 14 14.74 32 26.67 31 23.85 46 20.00
3 Non availability of the
material/service 40 42.11 15 12.50 50 38.46 15 6.52
4 Messages given are not
practical 23 24.21 0 0.00 0 0.00 45 19.57
5 Information provided is not
useful 0 0.00 26 21.67 0 0.00 20 8.70
6 Unaware about its
availability 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 30 13.04
Total 95 100 120 100 130 100 230 100
Table 3.8 indicates the reasons for poor exposure of different mass media among
the farmer respondents of the irrigated districts. Among the various media sources, Farm
news in the AIR was more listened and only 95 farmers pointed out they do not listen to
the news. The primary reason was non availability of the equipment followed by the
impracticality of the messages. In the case of Vayalum vazhvum programme, the farmers
did not watch it because of the reasons of lack of time and poor interest. They perceive
TV as a medium of entertainment than an educational tool. In the case of agriculture news
in dailies and magazines lack of time, poor levels of interest and impracticality of
suggestions resulted in less exposure to the printed media sources. There were few
farmers who were not even aware of the agricultural magazines.
Table 3.9 Impact of Relationship with Officials of Agriculture Department
S.No. Factors Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1 Able to Maintain cordial
relationship 65 21.67 55 18.33
2 Awareness level increased 65 21.67 55 18.33
3 Strengthened further contact
process 65 21.67 55 18.33
Table 3.9 indicates the impact of relationship with officials of Agriculture
department. Out of the three hundred farmers, 120 farmers have expressed their
satisfaction on the impact of their relationship with the officials of the department. They
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 20
were satisfied in terms of the cordiality, due to which their awareness improved
strengthening the further contact process. In total, about 40 percent of the farmers were
satisfied on this aspect.
Table 3.10 Participation of the Sample Farmers in the Mass Extension Methods
S.No. Methods Participation
No.
Non
Participation
No.
%
Participation
Non participation 155 51.67
Participation (in all) 145 48.33
1 Meetings 30 270 10.00
2 Seminars 0 300 0.00
3 Method demonstrations 55 245 18.33
4 Campaigns 15 285 5.00
5 Exhibitions 40 260 13.33
6 Tours/field visit 0 300 0.00
7 Trainings 5 295 1.67
8.
Participated in more than
one method 20
Participation in any extension method would help the farmers to gain first hand
field experience, clarity on the methods of doing an operation, exposure on advanced
scientific farming, and wide range of ideas, skill acquisition, gain in knowledge,
inclination to novel ideas and thread bare comprehensibility of innovations. The
participation was better in the method demonstrations, exhibitions and meetings in that
order. The reasons for non participation were enquired with the farmers and only the
prime reasons as pointed out by them were given the importance and analysed in the
following tables (Tables 3.11 and 3.12).
While extending a cursory view into these tables, it is quite palpable that the
reasons evinced for non-participation in meetings were due to lack of time, non-provision
of earlier information, low level of interest and the like.
Similarities in opinions were also given by those who did not show interest in
participation of extension activities arranged. Contrarily, those who have not attended the
method demonstration had stated that they were not scheduled properly and the conduct
of those demonstrations has been erratic too. Non- attendees of campaigns also were of
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 21
the similar opinion to the other methods like meetings, seminars and method
demonstrations.
Table 3.11 Primary Reason for Non Participation in Arranged Extension Activities
S.No.
Reasons Meetings Seminars
Method
demonstrat
ion
Campaigns
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1. No time 95 35.19 40 13.33 105 42.00 40 14.04
2. Information not provided
earlier 75 27.78 205 68.33 60 24.00 130 45.61
3. Low level of Interest 40 14.81 55 18.33 43 17.20 50 17.54
4. Not relevant 55 20.37 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
5. Venue, time not properly
given 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
6. Did not conduct as per
schedule 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 65 22.81
7. Conducted during peak
season period 0 0.00 0 0 17 6.80 0 0
8. Message given are
theoretical 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
9. Conducted only for old and
unrelated technologies 5 1.85 0 0 20 10.00 0 0
Total 270 100.00 300 100 245 100 285 100
Table 3.11 Continued…
S.No.
Reasons Exhibitions
Tours/field
visit Trainings
No. % No. % No. %
1. No time 40 17.24 95 31.67 135 45.76
2. Information not provided earlier 125 44.83 165 55 30 10.17
3. Low level of Interest 0 0.00 40 13.33 50 16.95
4. Not relevant 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0
5. Venue, time not properly given 0 0.00 0 0.00 80 27.12
6. Did not conduct as scheduled 55 22.41 0 0.00 0 0
7. Conducted during peak season
period 18 6.9 0 0.00 0 0
8. Message given are theoretical 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
9. Conducted only for old and
unrelated technologies 22 8.62 0 0.00 0 0
Total 260 100 300 100 295 100
A negligible proportion of farmers have felt that demonstrations were not
conducted in leisure time, but only in peak season. A minimum percentage also indicated
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 22
that most of the mass extension methods like meetings and method demonstration were
conducted only displaying old and unrelated technologies and that is a reason why they
have not participated, even though it is being conducted for the benefit of farmers. In
general, it may be concluded only the irrationality of conduct of extension methods lead
the people for non-participation.
From table 3.12 it is evident that the reasons for non-participation of arranged
extension activities were consolidated to declare the reluctance of participation in
exhibitions, tours and trainings. Lack of time, non-provision of earlier information, low
level of interest, untimely venue, improper schedule of time, conduct of trainings,
exhibitions at peak time, and conduct of only old and unrelated technologies were the
reasons specified in varied magnitudes. In general it may be inferred that lack of fitting
time and improper planning only made the farmers deterred to attend to main extension
methods.
Table 3.12 Levels of Satisfaction on Information provided
S.No. Attributes of Satisfaction
Fully
satisfied Satisfied
Not
Participated/
Not satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1
Motivation through face to face
contact 35 11.67 90 30 175 58.33
2
Orientation towards Information
sources 20 6.67 100 33.33 180 60.00
3 Method of communication 20 6.67 100 33.33 180 60.00
4 Knowledge gained out of meetings 0 0 30 10.00 270 90.00
5 Skills gained out of demonstrations 0 0 50 16.67 250 83.33
6
Messages relevant to season and
time 55 18.33 65 21.67 180 60.00
7 Any Information of new crops 60 20 60 20 180 60.00
8 Message given is compatible 40 13.33 80 26.67 180 60.00
9 Information on market 55 18.33 65 21.67 180 60.00
10 Information on credit facilities 50 16.67 70 23.33 180 60.00
11 Timeliness of Information provided 55 18.33 65 21.67 180 60.00
While assessing the sampled farmers on various factors of satisfaction, almost one
third of them were fully to moderately satisfied due to the face to face contact, orientation
towards sources, methods of communication and one fourth of them were satisfied with
the knowledge gained out of meetings, relevant messages for time and session,
compatible messages, information of new crops, marketing information, information on
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 23
credit facilities, timelines of information provided and skills gained out of
demonstrations. As majority have not participated, their dissatisfaction was also
significant. In general it may be concluded that levels of satisfaction was optimal on the
information provided in the extension activities.
Table 3.13 Communication Sources and Levels of Satisfaction
S.No. Sources Fully satisfied Satisfied
Not
Participated/Not
satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1 Oral communication 10 3.33 110 36.67 180 60
2 Demonstration 0 0 55 18.33 245 81.67
3 Leaflet 0 0 0 0 300 100
4 Pamphlet 0 0 0 0 300 100
5 Folders 0 0 0 0 300 100
6 Books 0 0 0 0 300 100
7 Radio 35 11.67 170 56.67 95 31.67
8 Television 20 6.67 120 40 160 53.33
9 Computer 0 0 0 0 300 100
10 Recent electronic tools 0 0 0 0 300 100
While observing the levels of satisfaction with regard to the sources of
communication, from the table 3.13, it is quite tangible that radio and television sources
of delivery of message had given the maximum satisfaction followed by oral
communication, which may be through personal contacts.
As most of the farmers have owned only small farms, their desire to obtain
information from the print media sources have been almost zero, where the literature
sources like leaflet, folders, books, pamphlet have not at all contributed for their
satisfaction. In general it may be inferred that only mass media sources have created more
gratification compared to print and ICT enabled tools like computer etc.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 24
Table 3.14 Reasons for Dissatisfaction on the Sources of Communication
3.14.1. Oral communication
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not Attended 180 60.00
2 Not provided for all crops 75 25.00
3 Not provided on time 45 15.00
Total 300 100.00
The results of the table 3.14.1, clearly brings in the dissatisfaction on the sources
of communication.
A majority (60.00%) of the respondents have not participated in the meetings,
when oral communication was the mode of information dissemination. Only one fourth
(25.0%) of them have had the complaint that they could not receive oral communication
for all the crops and that too they were not provided on time (15.00%).
In general, it may be implied that the over all utilization and satisfaction over the
oral communication efforts were bleak and untimely proclamation of oral ideas/messages
have not benefited such, as reported by the sampled respondents.
3.14.2. Demonstration
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not Attended 245 81.67
2 Not extended for all the crops 55 18.33
Total 300 100.00
With respect to demonstration, it is observed from the table 3.14.2 that a telling
majority (81.67%) of the respondents has not attended the demonstrations, specifically
conducted for them and nearly one fifth (18.33%) have reported that those demonstrations
did not cover the topics of all crops.
In general, it may be concluded that the lack of participation and inadequate
coverage of the extended crop technologies, have restrained the farmers to attend the
demonstrations and brought in much dissatisfaction.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 25
3.14.3. Leaflet
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not distributed 245 81.67
2 Not provided for all crops 50 16.67
3 Necessary information are not available 5 1.67
Total 60 100.00
Observing the table 3.14.3, it is obvious that the written publications like leaflet
have not been distributed (81.67%) and did not contain information for all the crops
(16.67%). It was also felt that necessary information were not available to the respondents
in the leaflets distributed.
3.14.4. Pamphlet
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not given 275 91.67
2 Not provided for all crops 15 5.00
3 Necessary information are not available 10 3.33
Total 300 100.00
An over-view on the table 3.14.4, states that a thumping majority (91.67%)
reported that the reasons for the dissatisfaction on the written sources like pamphlet, was
that they were not distributed to them. Only a negligible percentage (5.00%) of them said
that these pamphlets carrying information was not provided for all crops and that too
necessary information were lacking (3.33%). In general it may be inferred that the
pamphlet also did not reach the farmers as an extension tool. Similarly folders also did
not reach the needy farmers as indicated in Table 3.14.5
3.14.5. Folders
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not given 290 96.67
2 Not provided for all crops 10 3.33
Total 300 100.00
3.14.6. Radio
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not provided for all crops 60 63.16
2 Necessary information are not given 30 31.58
3 Its more theoretical 5 5.26
Total 95 100.00
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 26
The table 3.14.6 states that majority (63.16%) of the sampled respondents said
that radio information were not provided for all the crops and that too necessary
information was lacking. More so, the information supplied through radio medium,
lacked practicality.
3.14.7. Television
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not provided for all crops 94 58.75
2 Timing of programmes are not convenient 45 28.13
3 Its more theoretical 21 13.13
Total 160 100.00
While analyzing the reasons for dissatisfaction, majority (58.75%) of them stated
that the television has not provided information for all crops and the time of telecast was
very inconvenient for them, as observed from table 7. The information also lacked
practicality (13.13%) and these reasons made them dissatisfied.
3.14.8. Computer and Electronic Tools
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not available 300 100.00
Dissatisfaction on the ICT sources was due to their non availability in the village
(100%) as seen from the Table 3.14.8.
Table 3.15 Usefulness of the Extension Methods
n = 120
S.No. Usefulness Yes (No.)
1 Doubts or queries are fully clarified 120
2 Would you like to adopt the recommended technologies 105
3 The technologies are the latest 115
4 The technologies are need based 120
5 The technologies are cost effective 105
6 Clarity in the messages 120
7 The Information given are profit oriented 115
It is seen from the table 3.15 that out of the 145 farmers who attended the
meetings, seminars, demonstrations and the like, 105 to 120 farmers were satisfied with
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 27
its utility ie. the satisfied respondents in the participatory group were 90 per cent. Hence
problems lie not in the content and delivery of the information but with the non
participation of the farmers in such extension methods.
Table 3.16 Quality of inputs
S.No. Quality Aspects Yes No
No. % No. %
1 Quality of seed is good 135 45.00 165 55.00
2 Quality of fertilizers is good 70 23.33 230 76.67
3 Quality of plant protection chemicals is good 0 0.00 300 100.00
4 Quality of machinery is good 45 15.00 255 85.00
From the table 3.16, it is revea led that a less than half (45.00%) of them
replied that the quality of seeds was good and one fourth (23.33%) said that they could
get good quality fertilizers. None of them obtained good quality plant protection
chemicals and the quality of machinery was also not desirable. In general, it may be
implied that the quality of chemicals / fertilizers were not at all good as opined by a
majority and only seeds supplied were of good quality.
Table 3.17 Feed back
n = 120
S. No. Feed back attributes* Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1 The Extension Officials listen to your voice 0 0 25 8.33
2
Follow up of the recommendations for
sustenance 0 0 20 6.67
* There was zero level of satisfaction on the attributes like message is taken for further
research consultation, consultation for refinement of technology, participation in any
technology invention.
Feed back is to be effective to refine any technology for further research. To give
an effective feed back, the farmers’ problem and issues are to be adequately addressed
and brought back to research area for further modifications. It could be seen from the
table 3.17 that only a maximum of 9 per cent of the farmers out of the 120 farmers who
came in to contact with the officials felt that the feed back is accepted and further taken
up by the officials.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 28
In general, it may be inferred, much more endeavors are to be taken by extension
officials to carry the messages from the farmers to the scientists to make the technology
tailor made and reduce the gap, by providing information for further research, fine tuning
of existing ideas and also involving farmers for technology invention through active
involvement by rendering feed back, appropriately and precisely.
Table 3.18 Monetary benefits
n = 120
S.No. Benefits
Fully
satisfied Satisfied
Not
satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1
Yield improvement due to the
technology adopted 20 16.67 85 70.83 15 12.50
2 Cost effectiveness 15 12.50 85 70.83 20 16.67
3 Exposure to credit institutions 15 12.50 65 54.17 40 33.33
4 Received market information 20 16.67 75 62.50 25 20.83
5 Received Agri business information 20 16.67 45 37.50 55 45.83
6 Technologies introduced reduce labour 5 4.17 10 8.33 105 87.50
.
The table 3.18 obviously shows that out of the 120 farmers who actively
participated in the extension process, the range of non satisfaction was from 15 to 55 per
cent on the perceived benefits out of the extension system in the irrigated environment.
Over all, the satisfaction level was high on these aspects. The problem lies with the non
participating group of farmers who do not really perceive the positive benefits bestowed
by the system. Thus, it may be inferred that much more efforts are to be made to make the
services bring adequate accountability and render benefits to the farming community in a
more broader way.
Table 3.19 Social benefits
n = 120
S.No. Benefits
Fully
satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1 Exposure to government schemes 15 12.5 80 66.67 15 12.50
2 Awareness on crop insurance 0 0 75 25.00 20 16.67
3 Eco friendly technologies 0 0 50 16.67 120 100.00
4 Social recognition 0 0 0 0 120 100.00
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 29
It could be seen from the table 3.19 the perceived social benefits that reached the
farmers due to their exposure to the agricultural extension system. It could be seen from
the table that the eco-friendly technologies and the social recognition received was not
satisfying at all where as the sizeable number of farmers are exposed to the government
schemes and crop insurance. In general, it may be inferred that there was no social
recognition and the social benefits in general were also low, on account of the services
bestowed for them.
B. General characteristics, Exposure, Participation levels, Relationship with
Officials and Levels of Satisfaction of the Farmers in the Irrigated Dry
Environment
In an effort to understand the impact of agricultural extension system in the irrigated dry
environment of the state, five districts namely Erode, Coimbatore, Salem, Villupuram and
Thiruvallur districts were selected from where three hundred farmers were interviewed
and the collected information is analysed, presented and discussed in the following tables.
Table 3.20 Age Group of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Age Group No. %
1 Young (20 - 30 Years) 10 3.33
2 Middle (30-50 Years) 130 43.33
3 Old (>50 Years) 160 53.33
Total 300 100
The majority of sample respondents belong to the old and middle age group. It
could be seen that young farmers constituted only (3.33%) of the total sample respondents
indicating the lower preference of young generation in taking of farming activities in the
irrigated dry districts selected for the study. Therefore, the extension method and delivery
system have to the designed taking in to account the older farmers who have very specific
preferences.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 30
Table 3.21 Family Size of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Family Size No. %
1 Small (Less than 4 members) 265 88.33
2 Large (>4 members) 35 11.67
Total 300 100
It could be seen from the table that, 88 per cent of the farmers had smaller
families. The number of smaller families in the irrigated dry environment is higher than
the irrigated environment and vice versa in the case of larger families.
Table 3.22 Educational Status of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Educational Status No. %
1 Illiterate 50 10
2 Primary 80 5
3 Middle 50 33.33
4 High school 80 33.33
5 Higher secondary 5 8.33
6 Degree 35 10
Total 300 100
Most of the sample respondents had an educational level of middle to high school.
A meager percentage of farmers had higher secondary to degree level education. The
trend was similar to the irrigated environment and the extension methods should target
this level of education with suitable tools.
Table 3.23 Farm Size of the Respondents
S.No. Farm Size No. %
1 Marginal (< 1ha) 90 30
2 Small (1-2Ha) 120 40
3 Medium (3-4Ha) 55 18.33
4 Large (>4Ha) 35 11.67
Total 300 100
It could be seen from table 3.23, that a majority of sample respondents belonged
to small and marginal farmers’ category (70.00%). The rest 30 per cent were medium and
large farmers. The trend was similar to irrigated conditions but the proposition of medium
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 31
and large farmers was higher than the irrigated condition. Here the different extension
methods followed should have a more balanced approach.
Table 3.24 Participation of the Sample Farmers in Panchayat Raj Institutions
S.No. Social Participation No. %
1 Low 280 93.33
2 Medium 12 4.00
3 High 8 2.67
Total 300 100.00
Socializing with people increases the exposure level and makes learning more
comprehensive. The levels of participation in Panchayat Raj Institutions were arrived
based on the participation of the individual farmers and they were ranked low, medium
and high based on their participation. In all, only about seven per cent of the respondents
had some kind of participation. Social participation is an index of social behavior leading
to participation and consultations with the peers which will serve as an effective farmer to
farmer system of extension.
Table 3.25 Agricultural Related Institutional Participation
S.No. Level of Participation No. %
1 Low 290 96.67
2 Medium 6 2.00
3 High 4 1.33
Total 300 100
The institutional participation of sample farmers was found to be low. The
institutional participation could enhance the knowledge, skill and participatory behavior
of the farmers. The low level of participation indicated lesser interest on the part of
farmers to learn from such structured institutions.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 32
Table 3.26 Exposure to Mass Media
S.No. Mass Media Sources Regular Occasionally Never
No. % No. % No. %
1 Farm news in AIR 30 10 134 44.67 126 42
2 Vayalum vazhvum 20 6.67 142 47.33 138 46
3
Agricultural news in
Dailies 30 10 102 34 168 56
4 Agricultural magazines 30 10 125 41.67 145 48.33
The vayalum vazhvum programme telecasted found the highest viewer ship
among the mass media sources followed by farm news in AIR, agricultural magazines
and agricultural news in dailies. Most of the farmers (52.00%) never attempted to read the
agricultural news in dailies and the magazines. It was also seen from the table that major
percentage of the farmers were exposed to the mass media sources occasionally rather
than regularly and never. The trend was similar to that of the irrigated situation.
Table 3.27 Primary Reason for lower exposure to mass media
S.No. Reasons
Farm news
in air
Vayalum
vazhvum
Agricultural
news
in dailies
Agricultural
magazines
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 Lack of time 76 60.32 75 54.35 63 37.50 45 31.03
2 Not interested 25 19.84 23 16.67 45 26.79 20 13.79
3
Non availability of
the material/
service 15 11.90 18 13.04 36 21.43 14 9.66
4
Messages given are
not practical 10 7.94 0 0.00 24 14.29 42 28.97
5
Information
provided is not
useful 0 0.00 22 15.94 0 0.00 14 9.66
6
Unaware about its
availability 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 6.90
Total 126 100.00 138 100.00 168 100.00 145 100.00
Table 3.27 indicates the different reasons reported by farmers who were never
exposed to the mass media sources. It could be seen from the table that lack of time and
no interest were the major factors that resulted in lower exposure to farm news in AIR.
The same factors were found to be the major reasons in the case of other mass media
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 33
sources like vayalum vazhvum, news in dailies and magazines. The messages given are
not practical was one of the major reason for the low exposure to agricultural magazines.
A good proportion of the farmers (21.00%) pointed out the non availability of material /
service as another reason for the less exposure to the mass media.
Table 3.28 Participation of the sample farmers in the Mass Extension Methods
S.No.
Participation No. Non
Participation
% of
Participation
Non participation 105 35
Participation (in all) 195 (175+20) 65
1 Meetings 45 255 15.00
2 Seminars 20 285 6.67
3 Method demonstrations 40 260 13.33
4 Campaigns 5 295 1.67
5 Exhibitions 70 230 23.33
6 Tours/field visit 10 290 3.33
7 Trainings 5 295 1.67
8.
Attended more than one
method 20
It could be seen from table 3.28, that a majority of sample respondents have
participated in the mass extension methods prompted by the department. Among the
different methods, exhibition was found to be the most attractive method for the farmers.
Method demonstration and the meetings were attended by about 13 per cent and 15 per
cent of the sample respondents respectively. It could also be understood that the
participation level in the mass extension methods were higher compared to the irrigated
environment.
Table 3.29 Impact of Relationship with Officials of Agriculture Department
n = 175
S.No.
Factors
Fully satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1 Able to Maintain cordial
relationship 40 22.86 50 28.57 85 48.57
2 Awareness level increased 40 22.86 45 25.71 90 51.43
3 Strengthened further contact
process 30 17.14 45 25.71 100 57.14
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 34
It could be seen from the table 3.29 that only 50 per cent of the sample
respondents who were involved in some kind of extension process, were able to maintain
a cordial relationship with the department officials. The rest 50 per cent of sample
respondents were not satisfied with the kind of relationship they had with department
officials. It could be understood that the percentage of non satisfaction is higher than the
irrigated environment.
Table 3.30 Participation of the sample farmers in the Mass Extension Methods
S.No. Participation No. Non
Participation
% of
Participation
Non participation 105 35
Participation (in all) 195 (175+20) 65
1 Meetings 45 255 15.00
2 Seminars 20 285 6.67
3 Method demonstrations 40 260 13.33
4 Campaigns 5 295 1.67
5 Exhibitions 70 230 23.33
6 Tours/field visit 10 290 3.33
7 Trainings 5 295 1.67
8.
Attended more than one
method 20
It could be seen from table 3.30, that a majority of sample respondents have
participated in the mass extension methods prompted by the department. Among the
different methods, exhibition was found to be the most attractive method for the farmers.
Method demonstration and the meetings were attended by about 13 per cent and 15 per
cent of the sample respondents respectively. It could also be understood that the
participation level in the mass extension methods were higher compared to the irrigated
environment.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 35
Table 3.31 Primary Reason for Non Participation in Arranged Extension Activities
Reasons Meetings Seminars
Method
demonstration Campaigns
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 No time 65 30.23 64
13.3
3 75 28.85 65 22.03
2 Information not
provided earlier 45 20.93 119
68.3
3 45 17.31 98 33.22
3 Low level of Interest 40 18.60 35
18.3
3 69 26.54 69 23.39
4 Not relevant 25 11.63 18 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
5 Venue, time not
properly given 0 0.00 15 0 24 9.23 0.00
6 Did not conduct as
per schedule 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 63 21.36
7 Conducted during
peak season period 20 9.30 0 0 12 4.62 0 0.00
8 Message given are
theoretical 15 6.98 24 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
9
Conducted only for
old and unrelated
technologies 5 2.33 0 0 35 13.46 0 0.00
Total 215 100 275 100 260 100 295 100
The primary reason for non participation the arranged extension activities was
elicited from the sample respondents. In the case of meeting, non availability of time and
improper information resulted in non participation. Majority of non participants were not
informed about the conduct of the seminars in advance. In case of method demonstration,
lack of time, poor interest and improper information were found to be reason for non
participation. About 33 per cent of the non participations indicated the improper
information for not attending the campaigns followed by low level of interest and lack of
time.
In the case of exhibition, lack of time was found to be the major reasons for non
participation where as improper information and lack of time were found to be the major
reasons for non participation in tours/ field visits. In the case of trainings, lack of time and
poor level of interest were found to be the major reasons.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 36
Table 3.31 Continued…
S.No.
Reasons Exhibitions
Tours/field
visit Trainings
No. % No. % No. %
1 No time 120 52.17 97 33.45 85 28.81
2 Information not provided
earlier 20 8.70 110 37.93 42 14.24
3 Low level of Interest 23 10.00 45 15.52 78 26.44
4 Not relevant 0 0.00 0 0.00 28 9.49
5 Venue, time not properly
given 12 5.22 15 5.17 42 14.24
6 Did not conduct as
scheduled 15 6.52 0 0.00 20 6.78
7 Conducted during peak
season period 18 7.83 23 7.93 0 0.00
8 Message given are
theoretical 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
9
Conducted only for old
and unrelated
technologies 22 9.57 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 230 100.00 290 100.00 295 100.00
Among these reasons, improper information, conducting the events during peak season
period, conducting only for old and unrelated technologies are to be looked in detail by
the department officials for improving the rate of participation of the farmers in the
arranged extension activities.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 37
Table 3.32 Levels of Satisfaction on Information provided
S.No. Attributes of Satisfaction
Fully
satisfied Satisfied
Not
Participated/
Not satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1 Motivation through face to
face contact 35 20.00 45 25.71 95 54.29
2 Orientation towards
Information sources 35 20.00 45 25.71 95 54.29
3 Method of communication 35 20.00 45 25.71 95 54.29
4 Knowledge gained out of
meetings 30 17.14 30 17.14 115 65.71
5 Skills gained out of
demonstrations 15 8.57 35 20.00 125 71.43
6 Messages relevant to season
and time 15 8.57 50 28.57 110 62.86
7 Any Information of new crops 15 8.57 45 25.71 115 65.71
8 Message given is compatible 25 14.29 25 14.29 125 71.43
9 Information on market 5 2.86 25 14.29 145 82.86
10 Information on credit facilities 5 2.86 20 11.43 150 85.71
11 Timeliness of Information
provided 15 8.57 30 17.14 130 85.00
Table 3.32 indicates the levels of satisfaction regarding the information provided
by the department officials during the course of extension activities. The levels of
satisfaction was found to be better through face to face motivation and communication
methods, where as majority of the farmers were not satisfied with respect to the provision
of market information, credit sources and timeliness of other information pertaining to the
crop production. As majority have not participated, their dissatisfaction was also
significant.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 38
Table 3.33 Communication Sources and Levels of Satisfaction
S.No. Sources
Fully
satisfied Satisfied
Not
Participated/Not
satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1 Oral communication 25 14.29 40 22.86 110 62.86
2 Demonstration 10 5.71 20 11.43 145 82.86
3 Leaflet 5 2.86 10 5.71 160 91.43
4 Pamphlet 0 0.00 5 2.86 170 97.14
5 Folders 0 0.00 5 2.86 170 97.14
6 Books 0 0.00 5 2.86 170 97.14
7 Radio 30 17.14 40 22.86 105 60.00
8 Television 20 11.43 80 45.71 75 42.86
9 Computer 0 0.00 0 0.00 175 100.00
10 Recent electronic tools 0 0 0 0 300 100
About ten different sources of communication were identified in discussion with
the officials of the department of agriculture and the farmers (Table 3.33). Among all the
sources, television, oral communication, radio were found to be most influencing and
satisfying communication sources for sample respondents. It was pointed out by the
sample respondents that computer and other electronic tools were never used for
communication. The printed publication like leaflets, pamphlets, folders and books
reached a very meager number of the sample respondents.
Table 3.34 Reasons for Dissatisfaction on Sources of Communication
3.34.1. Oral communication
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not Attended 225 75
2 Not provided for all crops 60 20
3 Not provided in time 15 5
Total 300 100
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 39
3.34.2. Demonstration
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not Attended 210 70
2 Not extended for all the crops 90 30
Total 300 100
In the case of demonstration, 30 per cent of sample respondents felt that it was not
being extended for the all the crops and the rest 70% did not attend the demonstrations at
all.
3.34.3. Leaflet
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not distributed 210 70.00
2 Not provided for all crops 55 18.33
3 Necessary information are not available 35 11.67
Total 300 100.00
The major complaint of the farmers on the leaflets was that, it was not provided
for all the crops and most of the times all the necessary information are not available.
3.34.4. Pamphlet
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not given 210 70
2 Not provided for all crops 30 10
3 Necessary information are not available 60 20
Total 300 100
A majority (70.00%) of farmers are expressed that they were never given with the
pamphlets. The rest 30 per cent were critical on the non availability of necessary
information and coverage of crops.
3.34.5. Folders
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not given 210 70
2 Not provided for all crops 90 30
Total 300 100
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 40
In the case of folders, majority of the sample respondents (70 per cent) did not
receive any type of folders from the department whereas the rest 30% of the farmers
indicated that it was not being distributed for all the crops.
3.34.6. Radio
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not provided for all crops 200 74.07
2 Necessary information are not given 50 18.52
3 Its more theoretical 20 7.41
Total 270 100.00
In the case of radio, about 75 per cent of farmers complained that the coverage of
crops was inadequate and the rest 25 per cent of the sample respondents felt that
necessary information were not given and the given information was more theoretical.
3.34.7. Television
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not provided for all crops 205 73.21
2 Timing of programmes are not convenient 50 17.86
3 Its more theoretical 25 8.93
Total 280 100
In the case of television, majority of the farmers (73%) indicated inadequate crop
coverage as the major reason for non satisfaction followed by inconvenient timings and
theoretical orientation of the telecasted programmes.
The computer and other modern electronic tools were never used by the
department officials in disseminating the information. This was indicated by all the
sample respondents of the irrigated dry environment.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 41
Table 3.35 Usefulness of the Extension Methods
n = 175
S.No. Usefulness Yes
No. %
1 Doubts or queries are fully clarified 80 45.71
2
Would you like to adopt the
recommended technologies 80 45.71
3 The technologies are the latest 70 40.00
4 The technologies are need based 70 40.00
5 The technologies are cost effective 70 40.00
6 Clarity in the messages 70 40.00
7
The Information given are profit
oriented 70 40.00
It could be seen from the table 3.35, the ways through which the extension
methods adopted by the department are useful to the farmers. Seven different areas were
identified and the farmers were asked to express the usefulness about each area. About
forty five to forty per cent of the participating farmers have responded that the system is
useful in terms of clarifying the doubts, provision of latest need based, cost effective
technologies which are profit oriented. The messages delivered also lack clarity. Nearly
forty five per cent of farmer respondents had positive inclination to adopt the
recommended technologies.
Table 3.36 Quality of inputs
S.No.
Quality Aspects
Yes No
No. % No. %
1 Quality of seed is good 155 51.67 145 48.33
2 Quality of fertilizers is good 95 31.67 205 68.33
3
Quality of plant protection chemicals is
good 65 21.67 235 78.33
4 Quality of machinery is good 75 25.00 225 75.00
Different inputs are provided by the agricultural department through various
schemes to the farmers. The majority of the farmers respondents (52.00%) have felt the
quality of seed being distributed was good. However, about three fourths of the farmers
were critical of the quality of plant protection chemicals, fertilizer and other machineries
that are distributed through the department of agriculture.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 42
Table 3.37 Feed back
n = 175
S.No.
Feed back attributes
Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1
The Extension Officials listen to
your voice 25 14.29 30 17.14
2
Follow up of the recommendations
for sustenance 20 11.43 25 14.29
3
Message is taken for further
research consultation 10 5.71 10 5.71
4
Consultation for refinement of
technology 5 2.86 10 5.71
5
Have you participated in any
technology invention 5 2.86 10 5.71
Feed back was received from the sample respondents on their communication
with the extension officials. About thirty one per cent of respondents were satisfied with
the way the officials listened to their voice, where as only twenty five per cent were
satisfied with the follow up action of the officials. About eleven per cent of the
respondents were not convinced about the message being taken for further research to
refine the technology or for any kind of technology invention.
Table 3.38 Monetary benefits
n = 175
S.No. Benefits Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1
Yield improvement due to the
technology adopted 20 11.43 35 20.00
2 Cost effectiveness 20 11.43 35 20.00
3 Exposure to credit institutions 10 5.71 15 8.57
4 Received market information 10 5.71 10 5.71
5
Received Agri business
information 10 5.71 10 5.71
6
Technologies introduced reduce
labour 10 5.71 10 5.71
The farmer respondents were asked to identify the monetary benefits that could
accrue to them through the advice and adoption of recommendations of the officials of the
Department of agriculture. About thirty two per cent of the farmers respondents were
satisfied on the yield improvement due to the technology adopted and the cost
effectiveness of the technology. Majority of the sample respondents were of the view that
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 43
the extension system did not expose them properly to credit institutions, market
information and business information. They were also of the view the technologies
introduced did not reduce the labour requirements.
Table 3.39 Social benefits
S.No. Benefits Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1
Exposure to government
schemes 10 5.71 35 20.00
2
Awareness on crop
insurance 10 5.71 10 5.71
3 Eco friendly technologies 10 5.71 15 8.57
4 Social recognition 10 5.71 15 8.57
The farmers were asked to express the satisfaction on the social benefits that
accrued to them through intervention of Department of Agriculture. A majority of the
sample respondents have expressed that they are not being properly exposed to the
government schemes, crop insurance and eco friendly technologies. They were also not
satisfied with the social recognition that they get for being in touch with the Department
of Agriculture.
C. General characteristics, Exposure, Participation levels, Relationship with
Officials and Levels of Satisfaction of the Farmers in the Dry Environment
In an effort to understand the impact of agricultural extension system in the dry
environment of the state, five districts namely, Sivagangai, Perambalur, Dharmapuri,
Thoothukudi and Virudhunagar were selected from where three hundred farmers were
interviewed and the collected information is analysed, presented and discussed in the
following tables.
Table 3.40 Age Group of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Age Group No. %
1 Young (20 - 30 Years) 45 15.00
2 Middle (30-50 Years) 90 30.00
3 Old (>50 Years) 165 55.00
Total 300 100
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 44
It could be seen from the table 3.40, that 85 per cent of farmers belonged to the old and
middle aged group. The proportion of middle and old aged group farmers is lower than
the other two environments namely the irrigated and irrigated dry.
Table 3.41. Family Size of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Family Size No. %
1 Small (Less than 4 members) 245 81.67
2 Large (>4 members) 55 18.33
Total 300 100
It could be seen from the table 3.41 that about eighty per cent of the farmers had
smaller families and the rest twenty per cent of large families. The proportion of joint /
large families is higher in this environment compared to the other two environments.
Table 3.42 Educational Status of the Sample Farmers
S.No. Educational Status No. %
1 Illiterate 55 18.33
2 Primary 85 28.33
3 Middle 75 25.00
4 High school 60 20.00
5 Higher secondary 15 5.00
6 Degree 10 3.33
Total 300 100.00
It could be seen from the table 3.42 higher level of illiteracy is prevalent among
the sample respondents in this environment. Only a meager eight per cent of the
respondents had higher secondary and degree level education. This is in contrast to the
irrigated and irrigated dry environments where one could find better levels of education.
It is imperative to take into account this fact in devising and designing suitable extension
methods for dissemination of information.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 45
Table 3.43 Farm Size of the Respondents
S.No. Farm Size No. %
1 Marginal (< 1ha) 93 31.00
2 Small (1-2Ha) 97 32.33
3 Medium (3-4Ha) 82 27.33
4 Large (>4Ha) 28 9.33
Total 300 100.00
The above table indicates the farm size of the sample respondents. It could be seen
from the table that the proportion of small and marginal farmers (63.00%) was lesser
compared to the other two environments. The proportion of medium and larger farmers
were higher (37.00%) in this environment.
Table 3.44 Participation of the Sample Farmers in Panchayat Raj Institutions
S.No. Social Participation No. %
1 Low 295 98.33
2 Medium 5 1.67
3 High 0 0.00
Total 300 100.00
Socializing with people increases the exposure level and makes learning more
comprehensive. The levels of social participation was arrived based on the participation
of the individual farmers in the various panchayat raj institutions and they were ranked
low, medium and high based on their active participation. The table 3.44 indicates very
low levels of social participation among the sample respondents. This is against the fact
that the irrigated environment had the highest level of social participation followed by
better level of participation in the irrigated dry environment.
Table 3.45 Agricultural Related Institutional Participation
S.No. Level of Participation No. %
1 Low 296 98.67
2 Medium 4 1.33
3 High 0 0.00
Total 300 100
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 46
The table indicates the agricultural related institutional participation of sample
respondents. The institutional participation could enhance the knowledge, skill and
participatory behavior of the farmers. The participation was found to be very low
compared to the other two environments.
Table 3.46 Exposure to Mass Media
S.No. Mass Media Sources
Regular Occasionally Never
No. % No. % No. %
1 Farm news in AIR 10 3.33 85 28.33 205 68.33
2 Vayalum vazhvum 7 2.33 120 40.00 173 57.67
3 Agricultural news in Dailies 5 1.67 93 31.00 202 67.33
4 Agricultural magazines 3 1.00 10 3.33 287 95.67
The exposure to mass media was highest through the vayalum vazhvum
programme followed by the agricultural news in dailies and farm news in AIR. The
exposure was limited through the agricultural magazines. It could be understood the
proportion of no exposure to mass media was the highest in this environment compared to
the other two environments. About 58 – 96 per cent of respondents have never been
exposed to these four important mass media sources that exist for agriculture.
In a situation of very low participation in panchayat raj and other agri related institutions
and a very little exposure to mass media in relation to agriculture makes public extension
system very difficult to play its role.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 47
Table 3.47 Primary Reason for lower exposure to mass media
S.No.
Reasons
Farm news
in air
Vayalum
vazhvum
Agricultural
news
in dailies
Agricultural
magazines
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 Lack of time 55 26.83 58 33.53 40 19.80 76 26.48
2 Not interested 84 40.98 38 21.97 62 30.69 55 19.16
3
Non availability
of the material/
service 53 25.85 42 24.28 44 21.78 72 25.09
4
Messages given
are not practical 8 3.90 20 11.56 26 12.87 12 4.18
5
Information
provided is not
useful 0 0.00 15 8.67 20 9.90 14 4.88
6
Unaware about its
availability 5 2.44 0 0.00 10 4.95 58 20.21
Total 205 100.00 173 100.00 202 100.00 287 100.00
The study tried to identify the reasons for no exposure to the four important mass
media sources. In the case of farm news, most of the respondents were not interested, they
lacked time and lacked the availability of material / services. The percentage of
respondents who were not interested is alarmingly high in this environment compared to
the other two environments. In the case of vayalum vazhvum programme in television,
lack of time and required material/ service were found to be major reasons for poor
exposure. The proportion of non availability of material / service was highest among the
three environments. In the case of agricultural news in dailies, 31 per cent of the farmers
were not interested and about the twenty two per cent of the farmers were not able to get
the required material.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 48
Table 3.48 Participation level in the Mass Extension Methods
S.No. Participation No. Non
Participation %
Non participation 214 71.33
Participation (in all) 86(75+11) 28.67
1 Meetings 9 291 3.00
2 Seminars 9 291 3.00
3 Method demonstrations 23 277 7.67
4 Campaigns 3 297 1.00
5 Exhibitions 34 266 11.33
6 Tours/field visit 6 294 2.00
7 Trainings 2 298 0.67
It could be seen from the table 3.48 that only 29.00% sample respondents
participated in the mass extension methods of the department of agriculture. Among the
participants, exhibition was found to be the most preferred method followed by method
demonstration, meetings, seminars and field visits. The proportion of non participation
again is very high in comparison to the other two environments.
Table 3.49 Impact of Relationship with Officials of Agriculture Department
n = 75
S.No.
Factors
Fully
satisfied Satisfied
Not
satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1 Able to Maintain cordial
relationship 5 6.67 16 21.33 54 72.00
2 Awareness level increased 5 6.67 16 21.33 54 72.00
3 Strengthened further contact
process 5 6.67 16 21.33 54 72.00
The above table 3.49 indicates that only (27.00%) of the sample respondents
maintained a cordial relationship with the officials that resulted in better awareness and
strengthening of contact process. The rest (73.00 %) were not satisfied with kind of
relationship with the officials. It could be understood the proportion of unsatisfied
farmers was higher compared to the other two environments.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 49
Table 3.50 Primary Reason for Non Participation in Arranged Extension Activities
S.No.
Reasons Meetings Seminars
Method
demonstration Campaigns
No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 No time 21 7.22 14 13.33 23 8.30 29 9.76
2 Information not
provided earlier 6 2.06 48 68.33 52 18.77 18 6.06
3 Low level of
Interest 93 31.96 132 18.33 141 50.90 203 68.35
4 Not relevant 78 26.80 45 0 20 7.22 35 11.78
5 Venue, time not
properly given 0 0.00 5 0 14 5.05 0.00
6 Did not conduct as
per schedule 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 12 4.04
7 Conducted during
peak season period 20 6.87 0 0 12 4.33 0 0.00
8 Message given are
theoretical 61 20.96 47 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
9 Conducted only for
old and unrelated
technologies 12 4.12 0 0 15 5.42 0 0.00
Total 291 100 291 100 277 100.00 297 100.00
Table 3.50 Continued….
S.No
.
Reasons Exhibitions Tours/field visit Trainings
No. % No. % No. %
1 No time 48 18.05 97 33.45 18 6.04
2 Information not provided
earlier 68 25.56 110 37.93 42 14.09
3 Low level of Interest 122 45.86 45 15.52 144 48.32
4 Not relevant 18 6.77 0 0.00 34 11.41
5 Venue, time not properly
given 10 3.76 15 5.17 28 9.40
6 Did not conduct as scheduled 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
7 Conducted during peak
season period 0 0.00 23 7.93 0 0.00
8 Message given are theoretical 0 0.00 0 0.00 32 10.74
9 Conducted only for old and
unrelated technologies 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 266 100.00 290 100.00 298 100.00
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 50
The primary reason for non participation in the arranged extension activities were
elicited from the sample respondents. In the case of meeting, 32.00% of the farmers were
not interested and 27.00 per cent of the farmers’ opined meetings are not relevant and
theoretical. In case of seminars, 68.00 per cent of the respondents indicated that the
information was not provided. Method demonstration, campaign, trainings and
exhibition evoked very low level of interest among the farmers. The interest levels of the
farmer respondents in this environment were found to be poor and lacking compared to
the other two environments.
Table 3.51 Levels of Satisfaction on Information provided
n= 75
S.No. Attributes of Satisfaction Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1
Motivation through face to
face contact 14 18.67 35 46.67
2
Orientation towards
Information sources 8 10.67 18 24.00
3 Method of communication 6 8.00 16 21.33
4
Knowledge gained out of
meetings 5 6.67 4 5.33
5
Skills gained out of
demonstrations 16 21.33 7 9.33
6
Messages relevant to
season and time 5 6.67 18 24.00
7
Any Information of new
crops 2 2.67 3 4.00
8
Message given is
compatible 12 16.00 15 20.00
9 Information on market 0 0.00 5 6.67
10
Information on credit
facilities 0 0.00 9 12.00
11
Timeliness of Information
provided 12 16.00 2 2.67
Table 3.51 indicates the levels of satisfaction on the information provided by the
department of agriculture. It could be seen from the table that only 65.00% of the
participating farmers were satisfied through the face to face contact. Also 35 percent of
the farmers had the positive orientation to the information provided. Most of the other
factors of the satisfaction elicited a poor response from the sample farmers.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 51
Table 3.52 Communication Sources and Levels of Satisfaction
S.No. Sources
Fully
satisfied Satisfied
Not
Participated/Not
satisfied
No. % No. % No. %
1 Oral communication 12 4.00 18 6.00 270 90.00
2 Demonstration 6 2.00 17 5.67 277 92.33
3 Leaflet 0 0.00 10 3.33 290 96.67
4 Pamphlet 0 0.00 3 1.00 297 99.00
5 Folders 0 0.00 0 0.00 300 100.00
6 Books 0 0.00 0 0.00 300 100.00
7 Radio 16 5.33 24 8.00 260 86.67
8 Television 18 6.00 43 14.33 239 79.67
9 Computer 0 0.00 0 0.00 300 100.00
10 Recent electronic tools 0 0.00 0 0.00 300 100.00
The levels of satisfaction on the different communication sources were elicited
from the farmer respondents. Among the ten sources television, radio, oral
communication, demonstration were found to be most satisfying sources for the sample
respondents. In contrast to the other two environments, the level of satisfaction was found
to be very low in this environment.
Table 3.53 Reasons for Non Satisfaction on Sources of Communication
3.53.1. Oral communication
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not Attended 270 90.00
2 Not provided for all crops 25 8.33
3 Not provided in time 5 1.67
Total 300 100.00
Only ten per cent of the farmers were exposed to the oral communication. Most of
the exposed farmers opined that the communication does not cover all the crops.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 52
3.53.2. Demonstration
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not Attended 277 92.33
2 Not extended for all the crops 23 7.67
Total 300 100
Only eight per cent of the farmers attended the demonstration and they opined it
could be extended for all the major crops.
3.53.3. Leaflet
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not distributed 290 96.67
2 Not provided for all crops 10 3.33
3 Necessary information are not available 0 0.00
Total 300 100.00
Only ten farmers out of the total sample of three hundred received leaflets and
they opined that it is not provided for all the crops.
3.53.4. Pamphlet
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not given 297 99.00
2 Not provided for all crops 3 1.00
3 Necessary information are not available 0 0.00
Total 300 100
Only one per cent of sample respondents received the pamphlets and they were
not satisfied on the crop coverage.
3.53.5. Folders
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not given 300 100.00
2 Not provided for all crops 0 0.00
Total 300 100.00
None of the sample respondents received any folders.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 53
3.53.6. Radio
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not provided for all crops 215 82.69
2 Necessary information are not given 35 13.46
3 Its more theoretical 10 3.85
Total 260 100.00
About 17.00 per cent of the farmers listened to the radio. Most of them pointed
out that the necessary information is not given and the rest felt that information was more
theoretical.
3.53.7. Television
S.No. Reasons No. %
1 Not provided for all crops 199 83.26
2 Timing of programmes are not convenient 28 11.72
3 Its more theoretical 12 5.02
Total 239 100
Seventeen per cent of the farmer respondents watched television programmes
related to agriculture. A majority of them felt that the timing of the programme is not
convenient and the programmes are theoretical.
The computer and other modern electronic tools were never used by the
department officials in disseminating the information. This was indicated by all the
sample respondents of the dry environment.
Table 3.54 Usefulness of the Extension Methods
n = 75
S.No. Usefullness Yes
No. %
1 Doubts or queries are fully clarified 45 60.00
2
Would you like to adopt the recommended
technologies 25 33.33
3 The technologies are the latest 28 37.33
4 The technologies are need based 24 32.00
5 The technologies are cost effective 20 26.67
6 Clarity in the messages 18 24.00
7 The Information given are profit oriented 15 20.00
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 54
Table 3.54 indicates the usefulness of different extension methods in
disseminating the required information to the farmers. Only 60.00 per cent of
participating respondents have indicated that their doubts are fully clarified, 37 per cent
on the technology is latest and about 33 per cent who would adopt the recommended
technologies. Over all, only twenty to thirty three per cent of respondents were satisfied
on the cost effectiveness, profit orientation on the technologies that were recommended.
Table 3.55 Quality of inputs
S.No.
Quality Aspects
Yes No
No. % No. %
1 Quality of seed is good 55 18.33 245 81.67
2 Quality of fertilizers is good 73 24.33 227 75.67
3
Quality of plant protection chemicals is
good 65 21.67 235 78.33
4 Quality of machinery is good 26 8.67 274 91.33
Above 25.00 per cent of farmer respondents opined that the quality of fertilizers
was good. Majority of the respondents felt that quality of machinery, seed and plant
protection chemicals were not good.
Table 3.56 Feed back
n = 75
S.No.
Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1
The Extension Officials listen to
your voice 12 16.00 20 26.67
2
Follow up of the
recommendations for sustenance 5 6.67 14 18.67
3
Message is taken for further
research consultation 3 4.00 3 4.00
4
Consultation for refinement of
technology 2 2.67 1 1.33
5
Have you participated in any
technology invention 4 5.33 6 8.00
Feed back was received from the sample respondents on their communication
with the extension officials. Table 3.56 indicates the feed back on communication with
the extension officials. Majority of the farmers were of the opinion that the extension
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 55
officials listen to the voice or take up any follow up action. They were not satisfied with
their message taken for further research and refinement of technology.
Table 3.57 Monetary benefits
n = 75
S.No. Benefits Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1
Yield improvement due to the
technology adopted 10 13.33 16 21.33
2 Cost effectiveness 8 10.67 12 16.00
3 Exposure to credit institutions 4 5.33 7 9.33
4 Received market information 0 0.00 4 5.33
5
Received Agri business
information 0 0.00 0 0.00
6
Technologies introduced reduce
labour 10 13.33 8 10.67
Table 3.57 indicates the monetary benefits that could accrue to the farmer
respondents on adoption of the recommended technology. About thirty five per cent of
the participating farmers were satisfied with the yield improvement. And twenty six per
cent of the farmers were satisfied with the cost effectiveness. The benefits like exposure
to credit institutions, market information, and business information did not find any kind
of satisfaction among the respondents farmers.
Table 3.58 Social benefits
n = 75
S.No. Benefits Fully satisfied Satisfied
No. % No. %
1
Exposure to government
schemes 8 10.67 21 28.00
2 Awareness on crop insurance 8 10.67 16 21.33
3 Eco friendly technologies 8 10.67 18 24.00
4 Social recognition 8 10.67 15 20.00
About one third of farmers have been exposed to the government schemes, crop
insurance scheme and eco friendly technologies. They were also satisfied with the social
recognition that they get for being in touch with the department of agriculture.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 56
A. Problems and constraints faced by the farmers in availing the Agricultural
Extension Services / Reasons for non Satisfaction of Farmers regarding
Public Agricultural Extension Services
Availing agricultural extension service is with the intention to up keep and update newer
and frontier technologies to cope up with the demand of technology driven society. In that
way, public extension plays a crucial and critical role to provide information and
knowledge to the farming community. Perhaps, they are the closest to the farmers to
facilitate accessibility of information. The cumbersome task to encompass the recent
technological development had hampered their progress due to multifarious workloads,
along with the official tasks. On the flipside, there are certain problems and constraints
faced by the farmers and certain amount of dissatisfaction that exists.
Recommendations are not given based on the need assessment of the farmers, was
another constraint faced by the farmers leading to incongruence in messages. Lopsided
tendency of the officials of the department was also said as a constraint, because they
attune to the queries of big and progressive farmers and are uncared about the small
farmers. Subsidy related information was not properly given to the farmers and untimely
supply of seeds and fertilizers was also specified as a constraint by the farmers.
Lacunae Agricultural Extension Service as reported by sample farmers
1. Irregular visits of Assistant Agricultural Officers to farmers’ field
2. Lack of updating of knowledge on agricultural technologies
3. Immediate clarifications to the farmers are not done
4. Inadequacy of information on newer crops
5. Non-provision of market related information.
6. No information on credit sources and other details.
7. Failure to provide information on the various Government schemes and subsidies
8. Insufficient information on the conduct of meetings, seminars etc.
9. Conduct of only few demonstrations, campaigns on new technologies.
10. Low benefit cost ratio due to the adoption of recommended technologies.
11. No need based consultation with farmers by officials
12. Concentration of officials on larger farmers and ignoring small farmers.
13. Untimely supply of inputs like seeds, fertilizers.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 57
Few suggestions were offered by the farmers to regenerate the existing system of the
public extension service, which would not only improve, but also earn credibility and
trust worthiness from the farmers point of view.
Suggestions of the Farmers for refinement the present agricultural extension system
1. Individual contact must be insisted to bring AAOs and farmers together for group
meetings and seminars so that farmers would be able to get the need based
information.
2. Regular meetings and seminars are to be conducted to provide the knowledge
about latest agricultural technologies, newer crops and market information.
3. The information related to marketing, credit institutions and government schemes
must be given to the farmers based on the need on periodical interval.
4. Timely supply of good quality inputs.
5. Modern communication methods should be used for communicating the latest
technologies.
6. Eco friendly technologies should be provided to farmers
In general, it may be concluded that the farmers by and large needed financial
support, bolstered with governmental schemes, good marketing, latest technologies for
their enlistment and empowerment.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 58
B. Feed Back Analysis of the Officials of the Department of Agriculture –
Constraints faced by the Officials of the Department of Agriculture in
Discharging their Duties
Joint Director of Agriculture
1. Uniform season for crops is followed throughout fee state irrespective of varying
cropping pattern existing in the different locations of the state. Due to this, the
seeds and other inputs are dispatched uniformly to all the districts. As the seasons
are different in different districts, such uniformity results in untimely distribution
of inputs to the farmers in most of the districts.
2. Attending to more meetings resulting in table work, affecting the time to be spent
on the extension services. Meeting work consumes more time comparing technical
supervision and attending to farmers.
3. Delay in annual fund allotment affects the further distribution of finance to the
taluks and blocks.
4. Mobility restriction due to non-availability of good vehicles and less allocation of
fuel limits technical and financial monitoring and guidance.
5. A few of the varieties distributed are not competitive compared to the private
company varieties.
6. Capacity building of the extension functionaries is inadequate.
7. Lot of vacancies at different levels affects the target achievement.
8. Insufficient communication facilities.
9. Insufficient funds for publicity and propaganda of different government schemes
10. Participatory approach and bottom up planning which are necessary conditions for
successful governance are missing.
Thus, the aforesaid whole lot of constraints, served as the hindrances for effective
functioning of the JDAs of the district.
Deputy Director of Agriculture
1. The target fixing is not based on real field situation. (eg.) SRI technology is a
labour intensive technology. The technology is recommended to be adopted in a
labour scarce area, it becomes a failure and farmers are not willing to adopt it.
2. They are burdened with more office work, affecting the fieldwork.
3. A single D.D is in charge for many posts.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 59
Assistant Director of Agriculture
1. Many of the ADA posts are vacant and are under in charge of the Junior Officers
resulting in additional responsibilities.
2. Non-fulfillment of vacancies at the levels of AOS and AAOs has resulted in less
field staff strength affecting the achievement of given target.
3. They lack time to conduct training / meeting to farmers due to more office work.
4. Release of fund at the final days of financial year (every time) affects the quality
of the work and has an impact throughout the year leading to inefficiency and
malpractices.
Agriculture Development Officer (ADO)
1. Due to revised job responsibilities, they have to conduct all the extension methods
leading to over loaded work.
2. Late receipt of finance affected the conduct of extension activities and
implementation of schemes.
3. Poor Infrastructure facility leads to inefficiency.
4. Untimely availability of inputs led to untimely distribution.
5. Sustaining vacancy positions have led to overload and inefficient discharge of
duties.
Agricultural Officer
1. Late communication of targets.
2. Belated finalization of tenders for the inputs needed for scheme
3. Belated release of funds
4. Inputs for trials are not received in time
5. The purpose of trial and how it would be carried out is not properly informed in
advance
6. Additional charge for vacant positions have led to inefficiency.
7. Vacancies at lower levels have created malpractices.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 60
AO (PP)
1. For AO (PP) they have to inspect farmers’ seed farm for pest surveillance and
inspection which demands lot of time. This affects his / her technical work. This
lead to over load of work.
2. Inspecting to assess the pest surveillance demands lot of time and affects the
technical work of the agricultural officers, leading to heavy work load.
Assistant Agricultural Officer
1. Distribution of inputs through various schemes affects their work.
2. Inputs are not given on time and they are forced to distribute inputs to the farmers
during non seasons.
3. Due to less field staff strength, they have to physically cover more area. This also
leads to less per farmer coverage.
4. They are not exposed to latest technologies. Due to this, farmers’ preference for
their services is less.
5. Attending more number of meetings in a month affects their field work.
It is to be taken into account that public Agricultural Extension System has to deliver
goods to the farming community with the following specific characteristic features.
i. A majority of the farmers are middle aged and old and the participation of
younger generation in farming is less and coming down.
ii. A major section of the farmers do not attend meetings / seminars / campaigns /
demonstrations and the like in the pretext of lack of time, not interested etc.
iii. Their participation in SHGs / FDGs is very low which reveals the mind set of a
larger section of the farming community.
iv. Their exposure to mass media and willingness to use media for agricultural
technology information is poor
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 61
SUGGESTIONS AND STRATEGIES
From the analysis of the data for the three environments of the state and the review of the
literature on the evaluation of agricultural extension system, following are some of the
guidelines and strategies that can be adopted for strengthening the present agricultural
extension system.
1. Developing original, location-specific, participatory and inexpensive extension
methodologies and materials instead of applying those methodologies, which are
promoted as universally suitable
To make efforts for universal application of any single extension methodology is
neither logical nor technically sound. One fact, established through field observations and
experience over so many years in many countries, is that no single extension
methodology, no matter how successful it proved to be in certain situation, could be
suitable for all situations. The situation comprises people, and their characteristics,
farming patterns, geographical terrain, climate, population density, type and diversity of
extension service providers, political environment, institutions, infrastructure, local
customs, and possibly some other factors, which must be taken into consideration while
developing an appropriate extension methodology.
The Training and Visit (T & V) system of extension, which was introduced by the
World Bank in 1970s and dominated extension work for over two decades, was also a
top-down extension model, which later came under criticism on several grounds. Another
major, popular methodology has been the Farmer Field School (FFS), which became best
practice for this purpose. The FFS was favored over the T & V system due to its emphasis
on learners’ participation. Basically, both of these extension methodologies were not
really developed locally.
Presently, T & V system is out of favour and governments have either dropped it
altogether or have modified it to the extent that only some resemblance has been left to
the original model. The FFS method is still expanding although it has been subject of
criticism on various grounds. It is feared that although the FFS is a good methodology for
educating farmers in IPM like technical subjects, the forceful push for its universal
application as an extension methodology for all technical subjects and geographical
regions, just as was done in case of the T & V system, may eventually end up with the
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 62
same fate as the T & V model. There is indeed a strong case for developing location-
specific extension methodologies.
Formation of a small team of field-level experienced extension staff for
developing original, situation-specific extension methodologies.
Through active consultations with the local farmers, identification of various
traditional and contemporary low-cost non-formal educational methods.
Keeping in view the situational factors of each location (people and their
characteristics, farming patterns, geographical terrain, climate, population density,
type and diversity of extension service providers, political environment,
institutions, infrastructure, local culture and customs) bottom-up programme
planning could be developed.
Preparation of relevant audio-visual materials, which could enhance learning
Field-testing of each extension methodology and relevant training audio-visual
materials, involving farmers of various agricultural interest categories at different
locations Determination of simple, culture-based patterns for organizing various
categories of farmers into groups at different specific locations for learning
purposes through application of most applicable location-specific extension
methodologies
Preparation of a manual on various original location-specific extension
methodologies, including the audio-visual materials, for various categories of
farmers, for use by the extension workers in different locations
Preparation of a training plan and implementation schedule for the training of
extension workers in using extension methodologies in real-life situations and
adapting the methodologies to the specific prevailing situation
2. Encouraging bottom-up, grassroots extension programme planning by farmers and
extension workers at revenue village / block level in order to make extension demand-
driven.
Farmers need to be encouraged to form groups and prepare demand based
extension services plans with the assistance of concerned extension workers. These
services may be provided in their entirety by public extension services, or by a mixture of
public and private institutions.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 63
Training of extension workers for playing the role of facilitator in helping
farmers’ groups in preparing extension programme plans, with the support on
complex technical issues drawn from subject-matter specialists
Training of rural community leaders in bottom-up grassroots planning
Merger of several groups’ demand-for-service plans into village plans, and merger
of several villages’ plans into cluster demand
Integration of clusters in to block and district plans.
Delivery of the services by government line departments based on the demand for
services plans
Monitoring of the timeliness and quality of the delivery of services, and impact
assessment jointly by farmers’ groups and extension workers with the assistance
of subject-matter specialists
Guidelines for modernizing national extension systems
3. Follow appropriate strategies for getting maximum output from the limited staff
strength
The structural adjustment programmes have caused severe downsizing of the
human resources in the public extension department. It is not possible to have just one
single formula for calculating an ideal number of extension staff as it will differ from
place to place depending on many other factors. The old concept of covering a certain
number of farm families by each extension agent should now be changed a taking into
account the information technology revolution for contacting farmers and other
institutions.
Each of the following approaches or a combination of them will help in
overcoming the staff shortage in delivering extension services.
1. Filling up vacancies at all levels in the Agriculture Department especially at the
levels of Assistant Agricultural Officer and Agricultural Officers with qualified
candidates prescribed for the positions.
2. Making use of information technology tools and media with adequate human
backstopping
3. Identifying progressive farmers and those who could work as facilitators in
extension activities along with extension staff.
4. Following group extension approach to eliminate individual farmer contact as far
as possible.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 64
MODERNIZING NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEMS
4. Ensure effective operational linkages between extension and research and other key
relevant institutions
Extension is a service devised for the benefit of farmers, with a traditional mandate of
transfer of improved agricultural technology. The most important operational linkage that
has been emphasized for extension since its formal introduction is with research. This
linkage is indeed important in view of the fact that agricultural research institutes are the
main source of technology for extension organizations.
The Training and Visit model of extension, was the pattern of compulsory
meetings between researchers and extension workers that took place just before the start
of main cropping seasons. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the expected field
problems, identification of key messages to be passed on to “contact farmers” by the field
extension agents, and other issues related to the approaching cropping season. This
modality was found to be useful, providing a productive platform for the specialists from
research and extension to discuss farmers’ concerns and problems. However, like the
Training and Visit model, these meetings, although useful, also did not prove to be
sustainable and died down with the end of particular projects.
Efforts to bring research and extension closer have started taking advantage of advances
in information and communication technology and virtual linkages are being established
between relevant institutions.
Initiating a process at field level for drawing research agenda through consultation
among researchers, extension workers and farmers with the objective of making
the agenda field oriented.
Making use of modern information and communication technology, establish
virtual interactive linkages among research and extension institutes.
5. Encouraging the extension services to empower farmers through organizing them
into legal associations to constitute a strong lobby for themselves and for extension
activities
The trend to transform farming into agri-business or a commercial enterprise is
visible throughout the world. The continuation of subsistence farming is being questioned
on economic grounds. In many developing countries, farming has been left to old people
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 65
because the new generation does not see much future in this profession. Other global
developments, such as mentioned earlier in this paper, are also hinting that the farmers
cannot depend just on farm income but must diversify their income-generation habits.
There is no doubt that the farmers, if operating individually rather than collectively, will
never be able to run their small farms as agri-business or commercial enterprise nor will
they be able to create a strong lobby for themselves for safeguarding their interests. They
must organize themselves initially in small, informal groups then gradually in special
interest groups and then into larger groups, which should be registered with the
government as legal entities.
A strong lobby of farmers will not only work for farmers’ rights but also for demanding
effective agricultural extension services from the government, thus ascertaining more
budget and staff needs for the extension services. Farmers’ grouping will also facilitate
the application of participatory extension approaches.
Providing refresher-training courses to extension workers in organizing special-
interest groups of men and women farmers.
Directing extension services to organize farmers in groups and associations and
have them registered with the government.
Provide training to farmers’ associations so that they could possess necessary
knowledge and skills for exercising their influence in requesting specific services
(such as extension advice from public and private institutions and assessing their
quality when delivered, credit, farm inputs, marketing matters, etc.) as well as for
converting their farms into agri-business and commercial enterprise.
Farmers’ Groups / Associations as done in Tamil Nadu Precision Farming Project
may be followed.
Guidelines for modernizing national extension systems
6. Promote participation in extension by involving public, private and other institutions
In early days when agricultural extension was introduced, there was hardly any
private company or meaningful non-public institution that was keen to engage in
delivering extension services. The situation has changed now, and one finds several
public and non-public actors, which are actively engaged in extension or extension-like
activities. These actors are eager to join any formal mechanism or project through which
they can make development contributions, sometimes on voluntary basis and sometimes
at a fee. Today, this is not only the government agricultural extension field worker who
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 66
meets farmers to give advice, but salesmen from various commercial companies dealing
in farm inputs who not only sell their products but also give advice on their use. Then,
there could be several field workers belonging to NGOs, who are involved in extension
type activities in rural areas. Some researchers who conduct research outreach activities,
such as on-farm trials, also engage farmers in conversations during which quite a bit of
extension advice is delivered. The same is true for university faculty and students, who
come in contact with farmers for data collection purposes. Thus many countries are
enjoying a pluralistic pattern of extension, but in a sporadic manner. Most of the time,
there is no well-organized system that makes possible the active collaboration of
stakeholders in both planning and implementation of extension programmes.
A well-structured, pluralistic mechanism of extension planning and delivery will
alleviate much of the personnel and financial pressure on the government. In addition, the
farmers could benefit from a variety of human information sources, that is, in addition to
the media. However, a clearly defined role of government is needed, which could
comprise policy guidance, coordination, quality control, technical support to weak private
organizations and NGOs, and settlement of disputes, in order to safeguard the interests of
farmers.
Preparation of a list of the public and non-public institutions and organizations
(other than government agricultural extension department) such as private
companies, NGOs, farmers’ associations, rural organizations, agricultural
institutions, agricultural research institutes and stations, etc., in every district,
which are delivering or are interested in delivering agricultural extension advice to
farmers.
Assessment of extension and training needs of farmers in various districts and
decision whether the existing government agricultural extension service is able to
meet those needs. If not, the option of “outsourcing” be considered under which
funding of extension and delivery of extension are considered as separate
functions, and as such contracts for delivering specific extension services are
given by the government to the relevant public and non-public institutions, other
than the government extension department.
Preparation of documents for outsourcing and public-private partnership, and
training of the district extension staff in outsourcing the extension work to other
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 67
institutions, forging public-private partnerships, and in monitoring the quality of
the work done
Periodic review and updating of the list of public and private providers of
extension services
Arrangements by the government to play its role effectively in in order to
safeguard the interests of farmers, including responsibilities such as provision of
policy guidance, ensuring coordination and quality control, provision of technical
support to weak private organizations and NGOs, and settlement of disputes.
7. Broaden the technical mandate of extension
Extension is basically non-formal education that targets rural adults outside the
formal school system with the aim of helping them improve the quality of their lives by
gaining useful knowledge and skills. Agricultural extension focuses on the non-formal
education of rural adults, in particular farmers, in improved agricultural know-how and
skills for increasing farm production.
At present public agricultural extension system deals with transfer of technology
only where as market information, information on credit etc are to be given to farmers
through the extension workers.
Preparation of the existing extension staff for non-formal education of farmers in
marketing extension and credit related information.
Short-term training of extension staff on the above lines is essential.
8. Develop and apply information technology tools to facilitate the work of extension
workers
As organizations benefit from the development of various kinds of technologies,
extension organization could also benefit from the information technology advances. The
extension offices could use Internet, e-mail and various advanced audio-visual equipment
in their daily work. In the field, however, the benefit will be limited. The information and
communication technology should be used for developing necessary tools that could be
used by extension workers.
It is difficult to prescribe any specific application of information because
conditions differ from place to place. However, the following could be suggested
in a generic way, which may be adapted to particular situations.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 68
As a rule of thumb, the efforts to apply information technology should be started
at locations, which have necessary infrastructure and pre-requisites.
A study to be conducted by a team comprising two specialists, one in electronic
communication technology and the other in extension and training, in order to
identify specific activities in extension work where modern information and
communication technology may be realistically applied and to identify the
extension work related locations which have necessary infrastructure for
installation and use of electronic technology tools.
Interactive electronic linkages may be established between extension and relevant
institutions. ODERNIZING NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYS
Extension data bases may be created, containing information on last few years’
prices of various commodities and projections for the near future, records of
climate for the last few years and any expected unusual weather conditions in the
near future, proven useful agricultural technologies, contact mailing and e-mail
addresses and telephone numbers of subject-matter specialists and agricultural
produce buyers, demand for grains and vegetables, etc. The extension workers in
their work may use this database.
A variety of attractive extension and training materials may be prepared with the
help of computer, using creative techniques.
9. Following a proper and motivational human resource management policy in the
Agricultural Department is a pre requisite for agricultural development in the state.
This policy should ensure the following.
Proper and timely promotion of staff right from the level of Agricultural Officers.
Specification of work load norms properly for different positions in different
regions of the state.
Doing away with the culture of additional charge / in charge for different
positions.
Training the staff on not satisfying the superior only but on satisfying the mandate
and needs of the farming community.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 69
10. Ensuring release of funds and opening purchase tenders in proper seasons / time
The coverage of targets could be done in the correct season in the real sense
avoiding malpractices.
Extension worker could avoid searching farmers to distribute different inputs at
the end of the season / non season.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 70
References
1. Jessica Dart, R John Petheram, Warren Straw. (2006). Review of Evaluation in
Agricultural Extension, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Human Capital, Communications & Information Systems, Research and
Development, Institute of Land and Food Resources, Australia.
2. Kalim Qamar, M (2005). Modernizing National Agricultural Extension systems:
A Practical Guide for Policy- Makers of Developing countries, Sustainable
Development Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of The United
Nations, Rome
3. Kumar, P(1998) Food Demand and Supply Projections for India, Agricultural
Economics, Policy Paper 98-01, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi
4. Larry s. Daley (1999) A preliminary evaluation of the needs for agricultural
extension in a free Cuba, Cuba in Transition · ASCE
5. Madhur Gautam, (2000), Agricultural Extension - The Kenya Experience: An
Impact Evaluation, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
6. Ramesh Chand,(1999) Emerging trends and Regional Variations in Agricultural
Investments and their implc0ations for Growth and Equity. Draft Project Report,
NCAP. New Delhi.
7. Rasheed Sulaiman V, Van den Ban, A.W. (2000). Agricultural Extension In India
- The Next Step, Policy Brief No.9, National Centre for Agricultural Economics
and Policy Research, New Delhi
8. Samanta, R.K.and S.K.Arora(eds) Management of Agricultural Extension in
Global Perspective, BRPC, India Ltd, Delhi ).
9. Selvarajan S and Joshi P.K (2000) Socio-economic Policies in Natural Resource
Management, Souvenir, International Conference on Managing Natural Resource
for Sustainable Agricultural Production in the 21st Century, New Delhi.)
10. Agricultural Extension - The Kenya Experience (1999), Precis - World Bank
Operations Evaluation Report, No.198.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 71
ANNEXURE I
List of Blocks and Villages Selected for Data Collection
I. Irrigated Environment
Thanjavur
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Thiruvaiyaru Vellamparampur
2. Ammapattai Poodi
3. Orathanadu Kannathaalkudi
4. Thirupananthal Chindamparandhapuram
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Pulses, Green gram, Black gram, Gingelly, Sugarcane,
Maize, Groundnut, Suyabean, Red Gram, Cotton, Banana
Trichy
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Musiri Maruthur
2. Lalgudi Thalakudi
3. Andanallur Vyalur
4. Mannachanallur Korathakudi
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Millets, Pulses, Sugarcane, Ground nut, Gingelly, Sunflower
and Castor.
Cuddalore district
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Kattumannarkudi Keelkadambur
2. Komarachi Thirunaraiyur
3. Vriddhachalam Puthikaraipettai
4. Kammapuram Kammapuram
Crops mainly grown: Rice, Millets and other cereals, pulses, sugarcane, gingelly,
groundnut, cotton BL, Tapioca, Pulses others cashew, jack, coconut.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 72
Thiruvarur
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Valangaiman ` Thozhuvur
2. Mannarkudi Vadapathy
3. Thiruvaroor Naranamangalam
4. Kodavasal Agaraogai
Crops mainly grown: Rice, Pulses, Sugarcane, Groundnut, Gingelly, Cotton.
Tirunelveli
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Kuruvikulam Kuruvikulam
2. Vasuthevanallur Puliangudi
3. Sankarankoil Perumathur
4. Melaneelethanallur Vanniaconethal
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, cholam, cumbu, ragi, maize, mother millet, black gram,
green gram, cow pea, groundnut, sunflower, gingelly, coconut, fibre cotton, sugarcane,
chillies.
II. Irrigated Dry Environment
Coimbatore
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Annur Pogalur
2. S S Kulam Athipalayam
3. Pongalur Vellanatham
4. Thondamuthur Pooluvampatti
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Jowar, Sugarcane, Cotton, Groundnut, Maize, Turmeric,
Onion, Chillies, Vegetables, Banana, Coconut, Arecanut.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 73
Villupuram district
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Gingee Uranithangal
2. Vallam Vadavanur
3. Kolianur Ramayampalayam
4. Melmalaiyanur Melacherry
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Cholam, Ragi, Cumbu, Redgram, Black gram, Horsegram,
Varagu, Sugarcane, Groundnut, Cotton, Casuarvia, Coconut
Erode
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Bhavanisagar P.Puliyampatti
2. Sathyamanagalam Kenchanur
3. Perunthurai Thudupathi
4. Gobichettipalayam Siruvallur
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Jowar, Pulses, Turmeric, Chillies, Groundnut, Cotton,
Sugarcane, Tobacco.
Salem
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Veerapandi Marulayampalayam
2. Panamarathupatti Mallur
3. Peddanaickenpalayam Puthirakoundanpalayam
4. Mecheri Panapuram
Crops mainly grown: Cumbu, Ragi, Paddy, Cholam, Redgram, Blackgram, Greengram,
Horsegrm, Turmeric, Sugarcane, Banana, Gingelly,Tapioca, Cotton, Castor.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 74
Thiruvallur
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Thiruvallur Ekkadu
2. Poonamalle Nemam
3. Thiruthani T.Pudur
4. Thiruvalaugadu Panapakkam
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, sugarcane, groundnut, cumbu
III. Dry Environment
Sivagangai
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Tiruppathur Kandavaranpatti
2. Kallal Kumachipatti
3. Ilaiyankudi Kandamangalam
4. Kalayarkoil Paganeri
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Gingelly, Sugarcane, Groundnut, Ragi.
Perambalur
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Ariyalur Vilangudi
2. Thirumanur Varanarasi
3. Sendurai Nakkampadi
4. Andimadam Elaiyur
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Groundnut, Gingelly, Cotton, Cashew, Sugarcane, Pulses.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 75
Dharmapuri
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Pennagaram Papparapatti
2. Nallamballi Manithahalli
3. Palacode Karagathahalli
4. Morappur Gopinathampatti
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Millets (Ragi), other minor millets, Pulses, Sugarcane,
Mango, Tamarind, Coconut
Tuticorin district
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Kovilpatti Kumaragiri
2. Puthur Sankaralingapuram
3. Vilathikulam Pillayarnatham
4. Kayathar Kalugumalai
Crops mainly grown: Paddy, Cholam, Cumbu, Kudivaivalli, Cotton, Groundnut, Banana,
Vegetables, Palm.
Viruthunagar district
S.No. Name of the blocks Villages
1. Sattur Mettamalai
2. Koviapatti Aariyur
3. Aruppukottai Kanchanayakaapatti
4. Virudhunagar Chenalgudi
Crops mainly grown: Cotton, Pulses, Oil Seeds, Millets, Paddy, Sugarcane, Lab Lab,
Cholam, Cumbu, Ragi, Chilli, Sunflower.
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 76
ANNEXURE II
Over all Rating of the Farmers on the Functioning of the Agricultural Extension
System
Relationship with officials
Relationship Aspect Scale
Maintaining cordial relationship 1.67
Awareness level increased 1.47
Strengthened contact 1.60
Communication/Information
Communication Aspects Scale
Motivation through face to face contact 1.63
Orientation towards Information sources 1.60
Method of communication 1.53
Knowledge gained out of meetings 1.40
Skills gained out of demonstrations 1.33
Messages relevant to season and time 1.20
Any Information of new crops 1.27
Message given is compatible 1.20
Information on market 1.00
Information on credit facilities 1.20
Timeliness of Information provided 1.13
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 77
Efficiency – Participation Level
Participation Level of Participation
Meetings attended 8.25%
Method Demonstrations Attended 10.55%
Campaigns Attended 6.53%
Exhibitions Attended 15.00%
Tours/Field Visits Attended 4.25%
Trainings Attended 3.00%
Effectiveness- Mode of communication
Mode of Communication Scale
Oral communication 2.15
Demonstration 1.67
Leaflet 1.07
Pamphlet 1.07
Folders 1.00
Radio 1.67
Television 1.07
Computer 1.00
Recent electronic tools 1.00
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 78
Effectiveness – Result Perception
Perception factors Score
Doubts or queries are fully clarified 1.53
Likeliness to adopt the recommended practices 1.40
The technologies are the latest 1.47
The technologies are need based 1.40
The technologies are cost effective 1.33
Clarity in the messages 1.33
The Information given are profit oriented 1.33
Usefulness of the Extension System
Usefulness Score
Have the yield improved out of the technology adopted 1.53
Cost effective 1.40
Have you been exposed to credit institutions 1.20
Market information provided 1.00
Agri business promotion 1.00
Reduces use of labour 1.40
Appraisal of Agricultural Extension System 79
Usefulness of the Extension System
Usefulness Score
Were you exposed to government schemes 1.53
Have you been made aware of crop insurance 1.13
Eco friendly technologies 1.27
Social recognition 1.53