CHAPTER – V

219

DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the contents of previous chapter were used as a raw

material. The findings were looked at and interpreted in relation to the

relevant findings of other researcher investigations and discussed so as to

throw light on possible causes for the results obtained and presented

under the following heads.

5.1. To study the profile characteristics of practicing IPM and non-IPM

farmers.

5.2. To identify relationship between adoption and profile of the

respondents.

5.3. To know the extent of adoption of IPM practices by farmers.

5.4. To measure pod borer incidence and economics of IPM and non-

IPM fields.

5.5. To find the constraints faced by farmers in both IPM and non- IPM

villages

5.6. To elicit the suggestions to overcome the constraints.

220

5.1 Profile characteristics of practicing IPM and non-IPM farmers.

5.1.1 Education

There was significant difference between IPM villages and Non- IPM

villages according to Education at 1% Level of significance (Table 2 and

figure 7). Though there was significant difference, majority of the

respondents of IPM and non-IPM villages were illiterates and had primary

school education and majority could not go for high school and college

education due to non-availability of educational facilities in the village. It is

therefore, necessary to establish education centers in villages to improve

their literacy level. When compared to non-IPM villages, literacy level in

IPM villages was better. This result might be due to fact that unawareness

of respondents in non-IPM villages about importance of education. This

was in line with the findings of Shinde et al ((1998), Swaroopa Rani(2000),

Nirmala and Hiremath (2005), Gangaiah et al., (2006), Santha Govind

(2006), Venkata Shiva Reddy (2006) and not with Manoz et al (2009).

5.1.2 Farm Size

A close examination of the Table 3 and Fig.8 revealed that there was no

significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages

regarding farm size at 0.05 level of probability. This trend might be due to

the fact that majority of the respondents of IPM and non-IPM villages

were small farmers had medium land holdings and they would have been

221

deriving their sustenance from these lands and agricultural labour. This

trend was also witnessed by Reddy (1998), Raja Ratnam (2000),

Ravishankar (2000),Prasanth Kumar (2007), Sarada et al.,(2007), Manoz

et al (2009).

5.1.3 Social Participation

A perusal of the data from Table 4 and Fig.9 inferred that there was a

significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages

regarding social participation at 0.01 level of probability. This indicates that

the farmers of IPM villages had participated socially higher than the

farmers of non-IPM villages because in IPM villages farmers were being

invited to the training programmes conducted by K.V.K, Darsi, like off-

campus and on-campus, this involvement lead them to participate in other

social organizations like primary agricultural co-operative societies,

panchayats, youth clubs and milk co-operative societies for getting some

social status. Low social participation of farmers of non-IPM villages was

because of their hand to mouth situation would have a little time to

participate in social activities of the village, even if they were interested in

them. This could be the reason for the significant difference between the

farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding social particiation. This

result was in line with the results of Azazulislam and Quali (1999), Maha

222

Lakshmi (2003), Manoz et al (2009). and not with Manjunatha (2002),

Gaikwad & Gunjal (2000), Swaroopa Rani (2000), Islam et al., (2001).

5.1.4. Mass Media Exposure

A cursory look from the Table 5 and Fig.10 vividly presented that there

was a significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages

regarding mass media exposure at 0.01 level of probability. It was clear

from these results that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of

exposure to mass media than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This was

due to fact that majority of the respondents of IPM villages possessed own

radio, television and subscription of agricultural magazine viz., Annadata,

Padipantalu, Rythu Nestham and books like vyavasaya panchangam for

more update information with their high social participation and scientific

orientation might help them to be aware of new ideas and practices.This

type of favourable conditions would have made them to be able to expose

more towards mass media.

The farmers of non-IPM villages because of their scarce financial

sources were not in a position to get information from mass media. They

had limited time to expose to mass media. Sometimes if they had time,

they could not give preference to hear and see the mass media to get new

agricultural information. This might be the reason for the significant

difference between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding

223

mass media exposure. This finding was in conformity with the findings of

Tharajabin and Manoharan (2001), Mahalakshmi (2003), Ramya (2005),

Manoz et al (2009) and not with Pandey and Mehta (2002).

5.1.5 Extension Contact

Findings incorporated in Table 6 and Fig.11 revealed that there was a

significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages

regarding extension contact at 0.01 level of probability. From these results,

it is inferred that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of extension

contact than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This would have been due to

fact that the immediate and long term needs of farmers would force them

to have more contacts quantitatively and qualitatively with scientists of

KVK, ARS and extension workers. Whereas the farmers of non-IPM

villages were being isolated may not have an opportunity to meet

extension agents and the scientists in the villages or at office except at the

time of distributing the subsidies, because they depend on personal

localize source of information. This could be the reason for the significant

difference between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding

extension contact. Similar findings were in tune with the results of Ramya

(2005), Prasanthakumar (2007), Manoz et al (2009). These findings were

not coinsided with the findings of Manjunatha (2002), Maraty and Srinivas

(2003).

224

5.1.6 Risk Orientation

A bird’s eye view at Table 7 and Fig.12 of results brings to notice that

there was a significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM

villages regarding extension contact at 0.01 level of probability. This result

indicates that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of risk

orientation than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This might be due to the

fact that the large sized land holding, coupled with financial resources to

absorb any possible loss in future may be the reason for more risk making

ability of farmers of IPM villages. Whereas the farmers of non-IPM villages

with their insufficient land holdings and unavailable financial resources

may not venture to try something new as new agricultural technology

involves some risk. This would have made farmers to become less risk

taking ability. This might be the reason for the significant difference

between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding risk

orientation. This result was in confirmity with the results of Subramanyam

(2002), Sridevi(20030, Sajit Kumar(2004), Prasanth Kumar (2007), Manoz

et al. (2009).But Manjunatha (2002) reported contrast results.

5.1.7 Scientific Orientation

A glance at Table 8 and Fig.13 inferred that there was a significant

difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding

scientific orientation at 0.01 level of probability. From these results, it was

225

concluded that the majority of the farmers of IPM villages had higher level

of scientific orientation than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This might be

due to their application of new ideas in a systematic manner with high risk

orientation too would help them to analyze the ideas before putting them

into practice. This was the possible reason for the farmers in IPM villages

to develop with high scientific orientation. Whereas the farmers of non-IPM

villages on the other hand get information about new ideas in agriculture at

a later time and may not find time to systematically analyze the ideas and

put the ideas in haphazardly. More over low risk orientation among them

would have been a limiting factor to develop scientific attitude towards

agriculture, which might be leading to low scientific orientation. This is the

reason for the significant difference between the farmers of IPM and non-

IPM villages regarding scientific orientation. This similar finding was

reported by Bhosle et al.,(2000), Mahalakshmi (2003), Ramya(2005),

Chaudari (2006), Manoz et al. (2009).

5.1.8 Economic Orientation

An analytical look at Table 9 and Fig.14 of results inferred that there

was a significant difference between farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages

regarding economic orientation at 0.01 level of probability. This result

indicates that the farmers of IPM villages had higher level of economic

orientation than the farmers of non-IPM villages. This might be due to their

226

desire to stabilize and improve economically with clear cut understanding

of the innovations in farming. This would have caused high economic

orientation on the part of the farmers of IPM villages than the farmers of

non-IPM villages. This was the reason for the significant difference

between the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding economic

orientation. These findings were on par with the results of Mahalakshmi

(2003), Mahalakshmi (2007), Manoz et al. (2009). Contrast findings were

reported by Ramya (2005), where maximum number of farmer had high

level of economic orientation.

5.1.9 Achievement Motivation

It was evident that there was no significant difference between

farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding achievement motivation at

0.05 level of probability (table 10 and figure 15). In both the IPM and non

IPM villages majority of the respondents had medium level of achievement

motivation. This result was in agreement with the results of Sreedevi

(1996), Ravishankar (1998), Ravichandra prasad (2002), Subramanyam

(2002), Prasanthkumar (2007) and not with Manoz et al (2009). This might

be due to the continuous guidance from the KVK scientists, ARS

scientists, Agricultural officers, Agricultural Extension officers to farmers

keen to get the goal seeking behaviour and their high scientific orientation

was also given additional support to acquire knowledge towards

227

achievement motivation. Mass media especially Television also played a

greater role in obtaining achievement motivation in both the groups. This

was due to the reason for not having the significant difference between the

farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages regarding achievement motivation.

5.1.10. Innovativeness

A glance at Table 11 and Fig.16 of results made it clear that

innovativeness is the another character where farmers of IPM and non-

IPM villages not differ significantly. It was observed that majority of the

farmers of IPM villages and non-IPM villages had medium level of

innovativeness. Similar results were reported by Chowdary (1997),

Reddy(1998), Mahith Kiran (2000),Ravichandra Prasad(2002),

Subramanyam (2002 and Prasanthakumar (2007). Contrast to this

possessment of high level of innovativeness was reported by Karpagan

(2005), Parthasaradhi (1997) and Manoz et al. (2009). This was due to

the continuous guidance from the KVK scientists, Agricultural officers,

Agricultural Extension officers to farmers keen to get the goal seeking

behaviour and their high scientific orientation was also given additional

support to acquire knowledge towards innovativeness. .Mass media

especially Telivision also played a greater role in obtaining innovativeness

in both the groups. Apart from all these, personal interest and adventurous

mentality to adopt new things also played a vital role. This could be the

228

reason for not having the significant difference between the farmers of IPM

and non-IPM villages regarding achievement motivation.

5.2 Relationship between adoption and profile of the respondents

5.2.1 Relationship between selected independent variables of

farmers of IPM villages and their adoption

That the correlation-coefficient (‘r’ values)of education, farm size,

extension contact, risk orientation, scientific orientation, economic

orientation, achievement motivation and innovativeness of farmers of IPM

villages with their adoption were positively significant at 0.01 per cent level

of probability except social participation, mass media exposure, which

were non-significant with adoption. Extension contact and risk orientation

were positively significant at 0.05 per cent level of probability (Table 12).

From this study it could be concluded that higher the education, numerous

extension contact, high risk taking ability, higher the economic orientation,

superior the scientific orientation, greater the achievement motivation and

higher the innovativeness, the higher would be the adoption.

5.2.1.1 Education versus Adoption.

It was evident from table 12 that there was a positive and significant

relationship (0.05 per cent) between education and adoption of farmers of

IPM villages. Education not only improves the adoption, but also widens

229

horizons of the individual .Higher the education wider will be the

interaction of the individuals with different sources and increase the ability

to grasp facts, analyse and interpret them in proper way. Hence the above

trend was noticed. This result was in agreement with the result of Raji et

al., (1996), Vijaya Lakshmi (1998), Roja Rani (2000), Saxena and Singh

(2000), Sujatha and Annamali(1998) and Ramesh Babu (2002), Raja

(2004), Sivanarayana et al. (2008) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.1.2 Farm size versus Adoption

A perusal of table 12 revealed that there was significant relationship

(0.01 per cent) between farm size and adoption of farmers of IPM villages.

It implied that there were direct changes with the increase or decrease of

land holding. There was a greater difference in the yields of IPM and non-

IPM fields. The farmers of adopted village in the study area were high in

media exposure which effected the adoption to get more profits due to

increase in land holding. . Similar results were reported by Borkar et

al.(2000), Manjunadha (2002), Ramesh Babu (2002) and non related with

results of Tasneem (2001) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.1.3 Social Participation versus Adoption

A bird’s eye view at Table 12 of results brings to notice that there

was no relationship between social participation and adoption of farmers.

It is a common feature that respondents who actively participated in social

230

activities through social organizations come across different types of

people, exchange views and experiences to get reliable solutions for their

troubles and problems. These farmers also participated the pre-seasonal

training, off and on- campus training programmes and exposure visits

conducted by Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Darsi, Prakasam district to gain

more knowledge about improved farm technology. Though the farmers

undergo more social participation, it will not influence the adoption

because their will also play a key role. Hence the above trend was

observed. This results was in conformity with the results of Shinde et al.,

2000) and not with Raji et al.(1996) and Swaroopa Rani (2000),

Sivanarayana et al. (2008) and not with Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.1.4 Mass Media Exposure versus Adoption

It was noticed from the Table 12 that there was no relationship

between mass media exposure and adoption of farmers. The results

support that the general view that high mass media consumption

enhances the farmer’s adoption of several practices of IPM technology.

Now a day’s newspapers, farm publications, television, radio and other

mass media are considered to be the acceleratory for diffusion of

agricultural innovations. Farmers who keep in touch with mass media are

likely to have better knowledge and adoption on the current advances in

agriculture. But this was also influenced by personal interest and will. This

231

finding was not in tune with the results of More et al.(2000) and Raja

(2004) and Manoz et al.(2009).

5.2.1.4 Extension contact versus Adoption

A close observation of the Table 12 denoted that there was a

positive and significant (0.05%) relationship between extension contact

and adoption of farmers. The reason could be that, the farmers meet the

extension agents and KVK scientists at the time of demonstrations,

training programmes, rythu sadassu, study tours and exhibitions for

reliable information regarding the improved technologies. Extension

personnel are the best and reliable source of information for the

respondents. Hence those who got more extension contacts will have

more changes about agricultural practices of different crops recommended

to their area. So they adopt new technology or practice very easily. This

might be the reason for above trend. The result was in agreement with the

results of Raja Ratnam (2000) & Manjunadha (2002), Sivanarayana et al.

(2008) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.1.6 Risk Orientation versus Adoption

Table 12 enlightened that the correlation between risk taking ability

and adoption of farmers was positive and significant (0.05%). It could be

stated from the findings that the higher the risk taking ability of individual,

the higher would be the adoption occurred. This might be due to the fact

232

that the farmers who take greater risk, more the adoption would occur. As

a result of use of new ideas, the improvement in crop production and

revenue could be expected. That is why such type of relation existed in the

study. This result was in conformity with the results of Sujatha and

Annamali(1998) and Jondhale et al.(2000), Manjunadha (2002) and

Ramesh Babu (2002) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.1.7 Scientific Orientation versus Adoption

There was a positive and significant (0.01%) relationship between

scientific orientation and adoption of farmers (Table 12). It could be

inferred from the findings that higher the scientific orientation on the part of

farmers, the more would be adoption occurred. This trend might be due to

fact that farmers with progressive ideas are more receptive towards new

scientific innovations. Therefore, they show keen interest in trying to know

about the latest farm technology towards higher yields. In this process

they might have acquired more adoption towards scientific innovations.

Hence the findings support that the scientifically oriented people will cause

rapid changes in their adoption. This result was in conformity with the

results of Raji et al.(1996), Vennila et al.(2000), Ramesh Babu (2002),

Raja (2004) and Manoz et al. (2009).

233

5.2.1.8 Economic Orientation versus Adoption

It was seen from the Table 12 that there was a positive significant

(0.01%) relationship between economic orientation and adoption. The

reason could be that, the farmers with more economic orientation would

be oriented towards more mass media exposure and extension contacts,

which helped them to get more information about cultivation. This result

was in agreement with the results of Raji et al.(1996), Chatterjee (2000)

and Jondhale et al.(2000), Manjunadha (2002) and Manoz et al.(2009)

and non agreement with Raja(2004).

5.2.1.9 Achievement Motivation versus Adoption

It could be inferred from the Table 12 that there was a positive and

significant (0.01%) relationship between achievement motivation and

adoption. This indicates greater the achievement motivation, the changes

like knowledge and adoption, yield and income would also increases. This

would be due to the fact that high achievers like to take somewhat difficult

goals which are attainable and take calculated risk and aim for specific

standard of excellence. This would have been pre-disposing them to get

useful and additional information than the low achievers in improving their

knowledge over others. This result was in agreement with the results of

Reddy (1995), Raja (2004), Adiseshaiah (1995) and Manoz et al. (2009)

and not in confirmation with the Sivanarayana and Jaya rami Reddy

(1994).

234

5. 2.1.10 Innovativeness versus Adoption

A perusal of Table 12 inferred that there was a positive and

significant relationship (0.01%) between innovativeness and adoption.

That means more the innovativeness on the part of farmer, higher would

be their perception towards direct changes. It might be due to fact that

farmers who are relatively earlier in adopting new agricultural innovations

would oriented towards more risk taking, more educated, maintain higher

social status, and consequently use the new ideas before most of the

farmers of the system adopt it. Their response to invention would have

resulted in many direct changes in adoption. This result was in conformity

with the results of Vijayalakshmi (1998), Manjunadha (2002), Damodaran

(2007) and Ramesh Babu (2002), Manoz et al. (2009) and not with Roja

Rani (2000).

5.2.3 Relationship between selected independent variables of non-

IPM villages farmers and their adoption

Table 13 indicated that the correlation –coefficients of education,

social participation, extension contact, achievement motivation and

innovativeness of farmers of non-IPM villages with their adoption were not

significant except mass media exposure and economic orientation. The

farm size and risk orientation were negatively correlated. Mass media

exposure and economic orientation showed positive significant values at

235

0.01 and 0.05 levels of probability respectively. From this study it could be

concluded that higher the education, higher the social participation, high

exposure to mass media, more extension contacts, higher the economic

orientation, superior the scientific orientation, greater the achievement

motivation and higher the innovativeness, the higher would be the

adoption.

5.2.3.1 Education versus Adoption.

It was evident from table 13 that there was positive relationship

between education and adoption of farmers of non-IPM villages. Education

is a requirement for better perception and comprehension. Their education

might be helping them to understand and decide correctly when they listen

to radio or watch television programme on agriculture. Hence the above

trend was noticed. This result was in agreement with the results of Raji et

al., (1996), Saxena and Singh (2000) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.3.2 Farm size versus Adoption

A cursory examination from the table 13 indicated that there was

negative relationship between farm size and adoption of farmers of non-

IPM villages. It indicates that there was no increase or decrease of

changes pertaining to adoption with the increase or decrease of land

holding. This would have been the reason for farmers with less land

holdings resulted not to adopt more number of recommended practices to

236

get more yields. This finding was in line with the finding of Shinde et

al.(2000), Tasneem (2001).

5.2.3.3 Social Participation versus Adoption

A bird’s eye view at Table 13 of results brings to notice that there

was a positive relationship between social participation and adoption of

farmers. It might be due to the fact that the farmers who experienced more

adoption through their participation in cooperatives and welfare

associations as a member are likely to have more information gathered

regarding farm activities than the farmers with less social participation. It

would have been the reason for such a relationship existed between social

participation and adoption. This results was in conformity with the results

of of Sujatha and Annamali (1998), Sivanarayana et al. (2008) and Manoz

et al. (2009).

5.2.3.4 Mass Media Exposure versus Adoption

It was noticed from the Table 13 that there was positive and

significant relationship between mass media exposure and adoption of

farmers (0.01% level). It might be due to the fact that increased mass

media exposure enhanced the ability of farmers to get more information,

which might have helped them to set benefits of new technology and it

leads to widen the mental horizon of the farmers to accept and adopt the

practices. Mass media provide reinforcement as experiences of successful

237

farmers are also narrated on radio and news papers. These findings were

in tune with the results of Borkar et al.(2000) and Ravichandraprasad

(2002) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.3.5 Extension contact versus Adoption

A close observation of the Table 13 denoted that there was a

positive and non significant relationship between extension contact and

adoption of farmers. This there by shared that greater extension contact,

greater would be the adoption. This might be the reason due to fact that

farmers approach to change agents like Horticulture Officer, Agriculture

officer, Agriculture Extension Officer etc., when they need solution of

problems in farming to get better yields. This extension contact had

caused more variation in their adoption, presenting this type of relations.

This result was in agreement with the results of Raja Ratnam (2000),

Sivanarayana et al .(2008) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.3.6 Risk Orientation versus Adoption

Table 13 enlightened that the correlation between risk taking ability

and adoption of farmers was negative. Farmers who are willing to take risk

and able to face uncertainties in adoption of innovations keen to get more

changes in adoption in terms of higher yields and income compared to

others who are less willing to take risk, farmers have not taken greater

risks in the adoption of improved practices. Hence, the findings support

238

that the less risk oriented people will not take risk associated with adoption

of IPM practices in their farms. This result was in line with the findings of

Pallavi (2006) and not in line with the result of Ramesh Babu, (2002) and

Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.3.7 Scientific Orientation versus Adoption

An over view of the Table 13 reported that there was a positive and

non significant relationship between scientific orientation and adoption of

farmers. The possible reason for this might be due to that farmers with

high level of scientific orientation might have evaluated the applicability

and feasibility of recommended cultivation practices more objectively by

following scientific crieteria. Thus the above relationship was noticed. This

result was in conformity with the results of Raji et al.(1996), Ramesh Babu

(2002) and Manoz et al.(2009).

5.2.3.8 Economic Orientation versus Adoption

It was seen from the Table 13 that there was a positive and

significant (0.05% level) relationship between economic orientation and

adoption. The farmers with more economic orientation might be trying to

fulfill with goals namely children’s education, welfare and better standard

of living, which require many and and one of the means to increase yields

and income. The less economic oriented farmers on the other hand might

be maintaining similar attitude to the past resulting in low yield and income

239

compared to high economic oriented farmers. This could be one of the

reasons for such type of relationship existed between social participation

and adoption of farmers. Similar result was reported by Manjunatha (2002)

and Manoz et al.(2009).

5.2.3.9 Achievement Motivation versus Adoption

It was clear from the Table 13 that there was a positive and non

significant relationship between achievement motivation and adoption. It

could be inferred that higher the achievement motivation on the part of

farmers, the more would be the changes in adoption occurred might be

due to their enthusiasm and zeal to become economically sound. It is

assumed that achievement motivation makes the individual to get changes

in terms of increasing yield, income, adoption and knowledge towards

reaching the goals which one has set for oneself. This could be one of the

reasons for such type of relationship existed between achievement

motivation and adoption of farmers. This result was in agreement with the

results of Adiseshaiah (1995) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.2.3.10 Innovativeness versus Adoption

A perusal of Table 13 inferred that there was a positive and non

significant relationship between innovativeness and adoption. That means

more the innovativeness on the part of farmer, higher would be their

perception towards positive changes with regard to adoption have

240

occurred. It might be due to fact that farmers who have higher education

and high exposure towards mass media lead to get high scientific

orientation towards adoption of new methods and techniques before most

of the farmers of the system adopt it. Their response to invention would

have resulted in many direct changes in the way of increasing yields and

income. This could be one of the reasons for such type of relationship

existed between innovativeness and adoption of farmers. Hence, the

findings support that the people who have high innovativeness will cause

rapid positive changes in their farms. This result was in conformity with the

results of Vijayalakshmi (1998) and Manoz et al. (2009).

5.3. To know the extent of adoption of IPM practices by farmers.

From the table 14, it is striking to notice that in the IPM villages

equal numbers of the farmers have adopted IPM techniques like

Application of FYM/ Neem cake at pre-sowing, using bird perches. These

are followed by other techniques like growing of trap crop, summer deep

ploughing, using pheromone traps, growing of guard crops , timely sowing

. Application of organic manures, using 5% neem seed kernel extract,

using light traps, seed treatment, foliar sprays, crop rotation, wider spacing

occupied the next positions. Next comes using tri chogramma card as well

as collection and destruction of grown up larvae at equal proportion.

241

Shaking of plants, using NPV solution, poison baiting, inter cropping

occupied next places, in descending order.

From the table 15, on Extent of Adoption of Recommended IPM

practices on red gram in IPM villages, it is apparent to see that in the non

IPM villages majority of the farmers have adopted IPM techniques like

application of FYM/neem cake at pre sowing. Next comes the timely

sowing followed by application of oragic manures, poison baiting ,

collection and destruction of grown up larvae, seed treatment, Wider

spacing, installation of bird perches. Next occupied techniques were

summer deep ploughing, inter cropping and crop rotation. Growing of trap

crops and growing of guard crops. Other techniques were followed at very

minimal proportions like – using 5% neem seed kernel extract, using

pheromone traps, using light traps, shaking of plants, using NPV solution,

Foliar sprays, using trichogramma cards.

The observations in the present study denote that adoption of

various IPM practices were more in IPM villages. This is because of

favourable factors responsible to achieve this like acivities of KVK in IPM

villages, higher educational level, numerous extension contacts, high risk

taking ability, higher economic orientation, superior scientific orientation,

greater achievement motivation and higher innovativeness of IPM farmer.

The effect of all these might have led to adopt more number of practices.

242

These results were coincided with Rajagopalan, 1983; Ajaykumar, 1989;

Jagadal, 1989; Patil,1990; Hanchinal et al., 1991; Juliana et al., 1991;

Koppad, 1991; Kulakarniet al., 1994; Dolli and Swamy, 1997; Patel and

Patel 1997; Balikai.et al.,1997; Vijayalakshmi, 1998; Veluswamy and

Manoharan, 1998; Patil, 1998; Gadageri, 1998; Rajinder Peshin et al.,

1998; Sriram and Paliniswamy, 1999; Amtul Waris et al., 1999; Sudha

Rani,1999; Rajendra, 2000; Saxena and Singh,2000; Sumati and

Alagsan, 2000; Nuzaman et al.,2000; Raja Ratnam,2000; Jondhale et al.,

2000; Bhople et al., 2001; Ranganatha, 2001; Jin et al., 2001; Sudhakar

and Kanagasabhapathy, 2002; Kale et al.,2003; Chauhan et al., 2003;

Vazquez and Moreno, 2003; Brodt et al., 2004; Bhosle et al., 2004; Darling

and Vasanth Kumar, 2004; Hegde et al., 2004; Mahmoud and Shively,

2004; Gundannavar et al., 2004; Blanco and Metzler,2004; Christian et al.,

2005; Chauhan et al., 2005; Rao et al., 2005; Gajanana et al., 2006;

Venkata Shiva Reddy, 2006; Opolot et al., 2006; Maraddi et al., 2007;

Venkatesh et al., 2007; Prasanth Kumar, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2007;

Santosh, 2008; Stoddard et al., 2010; Paudel and Khadka, 2010 and

Walter and Andrea, 2011.

From table 16, it is obvious that there was a significant difference

between the farmers of IPM and non IPM villages with number of IPM

practices adopted. High adoption was noticed in IPM villages. Out of 20

practices more than 60 farmers had adopted 65% of practices. Medium

243

adoption 25% was farmers by the number of 31 to 60 whereas low

adoption was taken by below 30 farmers. There are differences in the non

IPM villages. Only 10% of the practices were adopted by more than 60

farmers. 15% of the practices were under medium adoption where as 75%

of the practices were under low adoption. This difference might be due to

trainings, on farm demonstrations, frontline demonstrationsn and method

demonstrations organized by KVK in IPM villages

5.4. To measure pod borer incidence and economics of IPM and non-

IPM fields.

From the table 17, Pod borer incidence and economics of IPM and

non-IPM fields, it is clear that, the average number of good pods per plant

in IPM villages were more. Whereas, in non-IPM villages these were

reduced. The average number of damaged pods was more in non IPM

villages compared to IPM villages. Total cost of cultivation including cost of

Agronomic practices, cost of Plant protection is also more in non- IPM

villages comparatively with IPM. It is also perceived from the table 20 that,

average seed yield in quintols per hectare was more in IPM villages

.Whereas, in non-IPM villages the yields were less. Net profit in IPM

villages over non IPM villages was also more. This is because of adoption

of more number of IPM techniques in IPM villages.This higher adoption

was resulted due to activities of KVK and ARS, Darsi, Prakasm District.

244

Owing to adoption of IPM technologies pod borer incidence was

reduced and there was a great impact over yields. Good yields were

recored. Same reslts were reported by Hiremath et al., 1984; Dolliand

Swamy, 1997; Balappashivaraya et al., 1998; Khan et al., 1998; Nagrare

and More, 1998; Balappashivaraya et al., 1998; Rajinder Peshin et al.,

1998; Sudha Rani, 1999; Roja Rani, 2000; Rao et al., 2002; Gowda et

al., 2002; Patel et al., 2002; Ramesh Babu, 2002; Sandeep, 2002;

Ramanjaneyulu et al., 2003; Agarwal et al., 2003; Agarwal and Prasad,

2003; Singh et al., 2003; Deshmukh et al., 2003; Nagaraj et al., 2004;

Benagi et al., 2004; Siddhhabhatti et al., 2004; Benagi et al., 2004;

Gundannavar et al., 2004; Bhushan and Nath, 2005; Chauhan et al.,

2005; Nirmala and Hiremath, 2005; Sehgal, 2005; Raghavendra et al.,

2006; Francesca Mancini et al., 2007; Santosh et al., 2007; Biradar, 2007;

Biradar, 2007; Pavankumar et al., 2008 and Chanderkanth Patil, 2008.

5.5 CONSTRAINTS FACED BY THE FARMERS

It was found from the Tables 18-21, that several constraints were

encountered by respondents in different activities were discussed below.

5.5.1 Personal Constraints

from the Table 18, it was observed that, lack of decision making ability ,

lack of self confidence less outside contacts, less exposure to mass

media, Lack of awareness about training programmes, not willing to take

245

risk were the personal constraints perceived by the farmers of IPM and

non-IPM villages. For variation in adoption in IPM and non IPM villages,

the reason might be due to the fact that the respondent farmers may

accept the recommended practices, but their poor economic status may

not permit them to adopt the practices. Therefore, it could be necessary to

provide sufficient credit facilities to those who were in need and also show

positive results of recommended technology through result and method

demonstration in the farmer’s field. These findings were in agreement with

the results of Sangram, 1997; Rajanish Sharma et al., 2002; Anjani Kumar

and Jha, 2001;Ramya, 2005 and Joseph Kumar, 2006 .

5.5.2. Socio-Economic constraints

Table 19 inferred that, that total number of the (100.0%) farmers in

both IPM and non IPM villages expressed that high wage rate of labour as

the main constraint. Less Social Participation, Lack of exposure were the

other constraints perceived by the farmers, High cost of organic manures,

High cost of Pesticides, were the constraints faced by the farmers of non-

IPM villages. The possible reason was that necessary steps to be taken by

the Government to supply fertilizers on subsidy and affordable cost to the

farmers. Department of Agricultural and Rural Development should

organize the awareness camps at villages level to encourage the farmers

to participate into more social organizations. These results were in line

246

with the results of Ananad Singh,1995, Sangram,1997; Rajanish Sharma

et al., 2002; Anjani Kumar and Jha, 2001; Morales,2002; Dharmindra

Singh and Ravinder Kaur, 2004; Raja, 2004; Christian et al., 2005;

Ramya, 2005 and Joseph Kumar, 2006.

5.5.3. Technical Constraints

Table 20 enlightened that , Non-availability of labour, Lack of proper

technical guidance , Lack of sufficient technical staff , Lack of knowledge

about about IPM technology, Lack of skill were the technical constraints

expressed by the farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages. Government

should recruit the sufficient technical staff to guide the farmers at field level

and also to maintain the regular contacts with the farmers for providing

proper technical guidance according to their problems, which motivate the

farmers to practice new technologies. These findings were in concurrence

with the findings of Ananad Singh, 1995; Sudha Rani, 1999; Sangram,

1997; Krishna Murthy et al., 1999; Ravishankar, 2000; Anjani Kumar and

Jha, 2001; Morales, 2002; Dharmindra Singh and Ravinder Kaur, 2004;

Raja, 2004; Christian et al., 2005; Ramya, 2005; Joseph Kumar, 2006 and

Morales and Perfecto, 2007.

5.5.4. Organizational constraints

Results obtained from the table 21 indicated that Improper distribution of

inputs, lack of field visits by officers , insufficient stipend during training

247

programmes , Training centers are far , Less training periods training

programmes were the organizational constraints expressed by the

farmers of IPM and non-IPM villages. The reason might be due to the

multiplicity of the needs of the farmers have to be filled. For which, the

encouragement has to be given through selection of the farmers to the

trainings and also provide moral support at the time of adoption of

innovations. Off campus training programmes should be conducted in the

villages before commencement of the season to avoid the absence of the

farmer and more exposure visits need to be organized to mould the

farmers into advanced farming. These findings were in accordance with

the findings of Ananad Singh,1995; Sangram,1997; Rajesh kumar et al.,

1998; Sudha Rani, 1999; Ravishankar, 2000; Anjani Kumar and Jha,

2001; Morales, 2002, Dharmindra Singh and Ravinder Kaur, 2004, and

Ramya, 2005.

Despite these, adoption of IPM is low owing to a number of

institutional and policy constraints. On the supply side, lack of commercial

availability of biopesticides and inappropriate institutional technology

transfer mechanisms are the critical impediments to increased application

of IPM. The presence of private sector in biopesticide production and

marketing is marginal, and needs to be improved through economic

incentives. On the demand side, farmers though are aware of

technological failure of pesticides to control pests, and their negative

248

externalities to environment and human health, pest risk is too high to

experiment with newer approaches to pest management. IPM is a

complex process and farmers lack understanding ofbiological processes of

pests and their predators and methods of application of new technology

components. The socio-economic environment of farming is also an

important factor in adoption of IPM. There are a number of IPM practices

that work best when applied by the entire community and in a

synchronized mode. This is unlikely to happen without demonstrating

benefits of group approach, and external motivation and support to the

farmers.

Though many technology programs are based on community approach,

although, IPM has been accepted as the most attractive option for

protection of crops from the ravages of pests, implementation at the

farmers level hasbeen limited. Pesticides continue to dominate and their

injudicious use represents the greatest threat to IPM. For an effective

implementation strategy, it is necessary to identify the obstacles to its

dissemination, some of which are:

Low awareness and innovativeness of extension personnel and target

groups

Inadequate interaction between research and extension agencies

249

Problem of timely and adequate supply of quality inputs, including

biocontrol agents and Biopesticides.

Complexity of IPM vs simplicity of chemical pesticides

The dominant influence of pesticide industry

Non-availability of location-specific IPM modules for many crops

Essentials for implementation

o Availability of location-specific IPM modules, which are ecologically

sound, economically viable and socially acceptable

o High level of target group participation

o Area-wide dissemination strategy

o Removal of obstacles in dissemination of IPM

o Measuring, evaluating and publicizing the impacts of IPM.

Conservation of natural enemies of pests and their augmentation is of

prime importance. Besides, the intrinsic property of renewability,

reversibility and resilience of botanicals and biopesticides make them most

dependable tools for sustainable IPM. Hence, to maintain ecological

balance and to manage the pests, the use of bio-agents and

biopesticides/botanicals must receive priority attention.

250

5.6. To elicit the suggestions to overcome the constraints.

As seen from the Table 22, it was indicated that suggestions like

Awareness training programmes should be conducted about advanced

techniques before commencement of the season, Selection of participants

for training without any bias, Conduct more exposure visits, Method

demonstrations should be organized in farmers fields to give firsthand

experience, Inputs should be distributed without political intervention., Off

campus training programmes should be conducted frequently, Agricultural

officers, Agricultural Extension officers and K.V.K. Scientists should

maintain continuous contact with the farmers, More availability should be

provided for bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides, Provision of sufficient

stipend to the farmers during training programme, Proper follow-up

activities need to be undertaken were suggested by the farmers of IPM

practiced villages. These findings were on par with the finding of

Ravishankar (2000).

Thus, it could be inferred that it was the responsibility of the ICAR,

Zonal coordination units, department of Agriculture and Rural development

and welfare schemes for the overall development of the farmer.

From the table 23, it was observed that suggestions such as

Awareness training programmes should be conducted about advanced

techniques before commencement of the season by Agricultural Officers,

Provision of required fertilizers on subsidy rates, Provision of good quality

251

seed, Agricultural officers should conduct exposure visits, Inputs should be

distributed without political intervention, Agricultural officers should

conduct method demonstrations to give firsthand experience., Agricultural

officers, Agricultural Extension officers should maintain continuous

contact with the farmers., More availability should be provided for bio-

fertilizers and bio-pesticides, Provision of credit facilities, KVK should

extend its activities to more number of villages in the district were the

suggestions given by the farmers in order of their importance in non-IPM

villages. The results got backing from the studies conducted by

Satyannarayana (2004).

Thus, it is the responsibility of State Department of Agriculture, State

Agricultural universities to extend its activities through kvks to adopt more

number of villages and Government of India to see that the above

suggested facilities are provided to the farmers to overcome the

constraints in adoption of recommended practices in cultivation.

Same results were coded by Geier,1998, Saxena et al., 1998;

Sharma,1998; Kareem et al., 1998; Waage, 1998; Yudelman et al., 1998;

Uhm Ki Baik and Uhm, 1999; Bergamin et al.,1999; Kalariya et al., 1999;

Nortan et al., 1999; Proost, 1999; Sankaram, 1999; Ravishankar, 2000;

Burth et al., 2001; Saurabharma et al., 2001; Thrupp, 2001; Maumbe et

al., 2003; Satyanarayana, 2004 and Cuperus et al., 2004. In the present

dynamic time nearly everything is changing rapidly including process of

252

agriculture development and the role of extension agencies is to support

this development. With the globalization of Agriculture in the post WTO

era, Indian agriculture Extension strategies have been changed. Today’s

agriculture extension mainly focuses on location specific, need based

technology development with farmer’s participatory mode. The farmers’

ideas must be taken into account by the scientists to develop technology

suitable to their farming situation for promoting better adoption. Their

problems as well as suggestions should be considered while planning,

developing the new IPM technologies and recommending them for

ensuring effective results.

5.7. Empirical Model of the study

Fig.30 indicated that the profile characteristics of farmers of IPM

villages viz., education, farm size, extension contact, risk orientation,

scientific orientation, economic orientation, achievement motivation and

innovativeness has significant correlation with adoption. Social

participation and mass media exposure were not correlated significantly.

Fig.31 indicated that the profile characteristics of farmers of non

IPM villages viz., economic orientation and scientific orientation have

significant correlation with adoption. Education, farm size, extension

contact, risk orientation, achievement motivation and innovativeness were

not correlated significantly.

253

254