Group led extension by Pinakin C Patel

GROUP LED EXTENSION

Speaker : Patel Pinakin C Course : Ext. -591

Reg. No. : 04-2167-2013 Date : 16–10-2014

Degree : M. Sc. (Agricultural Extension) Time : 15:00-16:00

Major Guide : Dr. J. B. Patel Minor Guide : Dr. M. R. Patel

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS GROUP ?

CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUP

WHAT IS GROUP LED EXTENSION

TYPES OF GROUP

FARMER’S ORGANIZATION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Case study

Success story

CONCLUSION

Future thrust1

INTRODUCTION

2

What is a Group ?

A collection of individuals who have regular contact and frequent interaction, mutual influence, common feeling and who work together to achieve a common set of goals.

3

Characteristics of Group

Small in size

4

Needed resources

Common objectives

Interaction between members

Interdependency between members

Shared responsibilities

Works together

Measure their progress towards goal

Blend of skills

A way of disseminating information and technologies

on Agricultural and Rural development through group

of farmers

What is Group Led Extension?

5

Informal Group :

Self Help Group: Social issues

Farmer Interest Groups / Commodity Interest Groups : MANAGE

Formal Group :

Cooperatives: Autonomous

Livestock Breeders Association: Overall health

Watershed Association: Resource management

Vana Samrakshana Samithis: Forest Protection

Labour associations: Own issues

Dairy cooperatives: Dairy farmer

Types of Groups

6

Benefits of Farmer GroupsShare the farm implements, machinery, planting material and other

resources, ideas, experiences and problems.

Organize different services.

Strengthen bargaining power with traders.

Provide a forum for extension agents to introduce new technologies.

Reduce public extension cost.

Seek advices from different organizations.

Disseminate information to wide spectrum of users.

Make extension services more client driven.

7

Reasons for Group Led Extension

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Collective action

Equity

8

Communication and

Cooperation

Intra group trust

Workload sharing

Resources

Goal clarity

Openness

Group task

Feedback

Farmer Groups Performance depend on..

9

Recognition it gets from various bodies

Focus on income generating activities

Abilities of members

Visible benefits to its members

Extension officials support

Participatory approaches

Linkages with people and organizations

Tie up with other development

programmes

Inter group linkages

Capacity building of farmer groups

Recognition it gets from various bodies

Focus on income generating activities

Abilities of members

Visible benefits to its members

Extension officials support

Participatory approaches

Linkages with people and organizations

Tie up with other development

programmes

Inter group linkages

Capacity building of farmer groups

Success of Farmer Groups…

10

FARMER’s ORGANISATIONS

11

Types of Farmer’s Organizations

Community based, resource oriented

farmer organization

Commodity based, market oriented farmer

organization

12

Roles of Farmer organizations

Representational role

Technology role

Service role

13

Farmers Interest Group

14

The functions of FIG areThe functions of FIG are

Ensuring optimal production planning, meeting the market and

household food security needs

Maintaining common infrastructure - farm ponds, bore wells, tractors

and other

Equipment which cannot be afforded by one farmer but can be owned

by 20 farmers together

Linking with the local government at Panchayat level to access NREGA,

Watersheds and other agriculture development funds.

15

Number of members in a FIG – 15 to 20 (in small habitations, the number

may be 15only).

Age – above 18 years having a common interest

Resident of the village

While promoting FIGs, different other community institutions promoted in

the area under various government and non-government programmes have

to be kept in view.

The details of such institutions, lessons learnt etc. have to be kept in view

while promoting FIG’s.

Characteristics of the FIGCharacteristics of the FIG

16

Self Help Group

17

The Concept & Objectives of SHG’s

It generally aims to….. [a] Regularly save the amount from out of their earnings

[b] Collectively agree to contribute to a common fund

[c] Meeting their emergency needs

[d] Taking democratic decisions

[e] Resolving conflicts through discussions in open forum

[f] Providing surety-free loans at market driven rates to members

18

Advantages of Self-Help Groups

The advantages of SHGs are:

Low transaction cost.

Effectiveness in supervision.

Easy credit delivery to the poor.

Minimum procedures.

Better recycling of funds.

19

Objectives & Principles of FFS

Grow a healthy crop

Conserve natural enemies of crop pests

Conduct regular field observations

Make farmers competent in their own field

Reduce production costs

The farmers are participating in weekly meetings during a

full cropping season.

They learn important ecological principles by managing

learning plots and experiments themselves.

30 farmers form an FFS that is facilitated by two trainers.

The discussion between farmers is the pulling force in FFS

21

Review of research work

22

S. No. Benefits Mean score

Rank

1. Reduced work load76.88 I

2. Increased income 75.56 II

3. Better status and decision making power

62.24 III

4. Better access to credit facility 61.20 IV

5. Participation in social service and organized action

54.95 V

6. Repaid loans44.60 VI

n = 134

Table 1: Benefits obtained by farmers under SHG

Nirmala and Kavika (2004)Pondicherry

23

Table 2: IMPACT ON SHG WOMEN MEMBERS

Sr. No

Empowerment Variables Mean Std. dev Rank

IDecision making pattern

4.52 1

Education of children 3.43 0.922

Family planning 4.29 0.794

Buying and selling land, property and household goods

4.05 0.959

IIEconomic Empowerment

4.32 2

Make household purchases

4.12 0.667

Increased income 3.78 0.736

Access to loans 4.07 1.089

Control of use of credit 3.68 0.74524

Sr. No Empowerment Variables Mean Std. dev Rank

III Psychological aspects 4.26 3

Hope 3.89 0.521

Overall satisfaction 4.25 0.761

IV Confidence building 4.23 4

Confidence to talk within

family

4.22 0.561

Confidence to talk in SHG

meeting

3.42 0.661

Confidence to talk in public 4.14 0.588

Improvement in technical

and practical skills through

training

4.32 0.735

Acquisition of skills for

income generation

4.12 0.667

25

Sr. No Empowerment Variables Mean Std. dev Rank

VI Self esteem 4.18 5

Self image in community 4.16 0.761

Self reliance/independence 4.20 0.909

Das (2005)Assam

26

Table 3 : Impact on Annual income of the fisherwomen SHGs

Annual Income level

(Amount in Rs)

Before enrolling in SHGs After enrolling in SHGs

No % No %

Up to Rs 9,600 408 56.27 117 16.14

9,600-24,000 183 25.25 365 50.35

24,001-48,000 105 14.48 185 25.51

Above 48,000 29 04.00 58 08.00

Jayraman (2005)Tamilnadu

n=725

27

S. No.

Monthly Income

Before joining SHGs

After joining SHGs

1. No Income 30 (25.00%) 00 (00.00%)

2. Below 300 22 (18.33%) 20 (16.67%)

3. 301-600 36 (30.00%) 25 (20.83%)

4. 601-900 21 (17.50%) 48 (40.00%)

5. 901-1200 9 (7.50%) 17 (14.17%)

6. Above 1200

2 (1.67%) 10 (8.33%)

Total 120 (100.00%) 120 (100.00%)

Kanyakumari (Kerala) Ramacharan and Balakrishnan (2005)

Table 4: Impact of Women’s Self Help Group in terms of Income

n=120

28

Knowledge level

Farmers

Trained Untrained Total

No. % No. % No. %

High 32 53 19 32 51 42

Medium 12 20 14 23 26 22

Low 16 27 27 45 43 36

total 60 100 60 100 120 100

n=120

Table 5 : Overall knowledge of farmers of FFS in respect of IPM in rice

Krishnamurthy and Veerbhadraiah (1999)Bangalore

29

Adoption level

Farmers

Trained Untrained Total

No. % No. % No. %

High 29 48 14 23 43 36

Medium 20 33 20 34 29 24

Low 11 19 26 43 48 40

total 60 100 60 100 120 100

Table 6 :Overall adoption level of farmers of FFS in respect of IPM in rice

Bangalore

30

n=120

Krishnamurthy and Veerbhadraiah(1999)

FFSparticipants

Andinoparticipants

Non-participants

Number of Participants

45 (100 %) 64(100 %) 329(100%)

Knowledge aspects

Knowledge on late blight

35 (77.77 %) 29 (45.31%) 24 (7.29%)

Knowledge on Andean weevil

25 (55.55%) 14 (21.87%) 9 (2.73%)

Knowledge on potato tuber moth

15 (33.33%) 17 (26.56%) 6 (1.82%)

Pesticide knowledge

29 (64.44%) 25 (39.06%) 21 (6.38%)

Knowledge on resistant varieties

43 (95.55 %) 33 (51.56%) 16 (4.86%)

Table 7 :Knowledge Comparisons Across Groups of Farmers

Godtland et al.,(2004)Peru

31

Sr.No Crop Area in ha

Average yield Q/ha Per cent age

increase in yield

FFS plot yield

Local plot yield

1 Paddy 5.6 61.00 44.74 36.34

2 Hybrid maize

2.4 50.00 32.17 55.42

3 Sunflower 2.4 22.20 17.00 30.58

4 Ground nut

1.6 21.70 18.60 16.66

5 Ragi 1.6 30.20 22.22 35.91

6 Tomato 0.8 24.45 (t/ha)

20.20 (t/ha) 21.03

Anonymous (2005)

Table 8 :Average yield of major crops considered in FFS

Karnataka

32

Kg

/ ha

Figure 1 : Comparison of rice yield between FFS and non FFS fields during Kharif

Verma et al.,(2007)Karnataka

33

Figure 2 : Comparison of Cost of Cultivation before and after programme

Karnataka

34

Verma et al.,(2007)

Level of knowledge

Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries

Category Mean Score Category Mean Score

High 1.15 High 0.85

Medium 0.63 Medium 0.70

Low 0.30 Low 0.36

Total 2.08 Total 1.91

Table 9 :Impact of FFS on knowledge of participants about improved wheat production technology

Raghuvanshi et al., (2012)M.P

n=60

35

Fig 3 : Overall knowledge level of Maize farmers of FFS

Bangalore

PER

CEN

TA

GE

36

Sunitha et al., (2013)

Fig 4 : Overall knowledge level of Finger millet farmers of FFSPER

CEN

TA

GE

Sunitha et al., (2013)Bangalore

37

Table 10: Impact on productivity and income by adoption of HYVs in a group assisted by ATMA through NAIP project

Sr. No Crop

Productivity (kg/ha) Income (Rs/ha)Per cent increase in incomeBefore After Before After

Kharif

1 Castor 1763 2268 52890 68040 28.64

2 Pigeonpea 934 1078 23045 27165 17.87

3 Maize 656 1100 21495 31980 67.21

Rabi

4 Mustard 1958 2180 36490 40900 10.78

5 Wheat 3281 3710 28750 32500 13.04

Anonymous (2014)Banaskantha

38

Sr. No Crop


Kharif

1 Maize 763 2268 9576 27216 184.21

2 Pigeonpea 532 685 15960 20550 28.76

3 Paddy 726 966 10890 14490 33.06

Rabi

4 Gram 558 810 19530 28350 45.16

5 Wheat 1839 2640 27585 39600 43.56

Dahod

Table 11: Impact on productivity and income by adoption of HYVs in a group assisted by ATMA through NAIP project

Anonymous (2014)

39

Sr. No Crop


Kharif

1 Pigeon pea 1087 1445 27175 39878 46.75

2Cotton

(Sanali)

420 seed

165 cotton

615 seed

215 cotton105000 191000 81.90

3Cotton

(Vagdadi)-

585 seed

190 cotton- 181350 -

Table 12 : Impact on productivity and income from seed production in a group as assisted by Bio-Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Through NAIP project.


40

Sr. No Crop


Dahod

1 Maize 870 1210 13050 18150 39.00

2 Soybean 810 1290 21060 33540 59.25

Dangs

1 Groundnut 1200 1580 30000 55300 84.33

Table 13 : Impact on productivity and income from seed production in a group as assisted by Bio-Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Through NAIP project.

Anonymous (2014)Dahod & Dang

41

Sr. No

Crop

Productivity (kg/ha) Income (Rs/ha)Per cent increase

in income

As compar

ed to wheat crop Rs.

28750

Before After Before After

1 Okra

New Crops

4200

New Crops

45000 56.51

2 Chilli 3000 27000 6.08

3 Brinjal 4116 41160 43.16

4 Cowpea 2800 45000 56.52

5 Clusterbean 3800 51550 79.30

Table 14 : Impact on productivity and income from crop diversification in a group as assisted by Mahyco-Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Through NAIP project.


42

Sr. No

Crop

Productivity (kg/ha) Income (Rs/ha)Per cent increase

in income

As compare

d to Gram

crop Rs. 28750

Before After Before After

1 Okra

New Crops

4200

New Crops

45000 65.09

2 Brinjal 4116 41160 36.67

3 Cowpea 2800 45000 78.40

4 Clusterbean 3800 51550 85.72

5 Marigold 2000 14000 27.64

6 Soybean 1277 28103 45.23

Table 15 : Impact on productivity and income from crop diversification in a group as assisted by Mahyco-Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Through NAIP project.

Anonymous (2014)Dahod

43

CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL FARMERS' ORGANIZATIONS IN

INDIA

44

AMUL Registered on 1 December 1946AMUL is Co-Operative Society Headquarter-Anand, Gujarat, IndiaFounder – Dr. Verghese Kurien3.18 million milk producer member families.

www.amul.com

AIM of AMUL1.Establishment of a direct linkage between milk producers and consumers by eliminating middlemen.2.Milk Producers (farmers) control procurement, processing and marketing.3.Professional management.

AMUL is the largest food brand in India. World's Largest Pouched Milk Brand with an annual turnover of US $2.54 Billion

(2012–13). Currently Unions making up GCMMF have 3.18 million producer members with

milk collection average of 16.8 million liters per day.

45

Co-operative in AMUL

Village Dairy Co-ope. Society

Dist. Milk Co-op. Union

State Co-op.Milk Mktg Fed.

The Consumer

Milk Producer

46

IFFCO

www.iffco.com

On 3 November 1967 Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) was

registered as a Multi-unit Co-operative Society

IFFCO commissioned an ammonia - urea complex at Kalol and the NPK/DAP plant at

Kandla both in the state of Gujarat in 1975. Another ammonia - urea complex was set up at

Phulpur in the state of Uttar Pradesh in 1981. The ammonia - urea unit at Aonla was

commissioned in 1988.

It was an unique venture in which the farmers of the country through their own Co-

operative society created this new institution to safeguard their interests. The number of

co-operative society associated with IFFCO have risen from 57 in 1967 to 39,824 at

present. 47

The IFC was established during 1996 by KVK, Babaleshwar, Ahmednagar

district in Maharashtra.

Financial assistance from NABARD.

Initially started with of 60 farmers in three villages.

“Innovative Farmers Clubs” In ahemadnagar district of maharashtra.

Achievements:Collective purchases and marketing- 18 farmers clubs, brand name of

SRIRAM.

Saving 10-15 per cent in input cost and getting 20-25 per cent more in market

prices.

Export quality production of pomegranate and grapes by 20 farmers clubs.

Now 144 farmers clubs have been established in 144 villages with 3168

volunteers (farmers).

Messaging system through cell phones provided by 30 farmers clubs.48

Rural Biofuel Growers Association, Hadonahally

Benefits: Direct procurement ensure correct measurement and assured price (2.5 times more).

Availability of fresh and quality oil locally.

Availability of high quality cake to the farmers locally.

Reduction of over head charges.

Bio fuel plant

Seeds crushed<kg>

Cost ofseeds (Rs.)

Yield (kg) Income (Rs.)

Oil Cake Oil Cake GrossNetincome

Pongamia39,02

55,85,375 9756 27317 4,03,436 3,47,742 7,51,178 1,65303

Neem 100100

08 70 480

1400

1880 880

Castor 350700

07500 500

5,93,375 9764 27387 4,03,916 3,49,142 7,60,558 1,67,183Other operational cost (electricity, labour. Bank Interest, etc. 1,02,183

Net profit 65,000

Castor seeds were procured @ Rs.20/kg & sold the seeds by keeping Rs.500 as profit

49

Hobli Jack Growers Association Kachahalli.

Jack Growers Association was mooted during April 2007

Total members : 65

Organization of Jack Melas

Byelaws formed and related activities have been taken up

Total 15,956 seedlings were raised and sold and generated an

income of Rs. 2,39,340

Jack Growers Association was mooted during April 2007

Total members : 65

Organization of Jack Melas

Byelaws formed and related activities have been taken up

Total 15,956 seedlings were raised and sold and generated an

income of Rs. 2,39,340

50

SUCCESS STORIES OF FARMERS' ORGANIZATIONS IN

INDIA

54

Cashew Ratna in MAHARASHTRA

Cashew growers in Ratnagiri formed into groups

and marketed cashew under the name of Cashew

Ratna and obtain benefit.

Commodity Based Groups – Block Level

Processors Group – District level

Grading, Packing, Marketing

Cashew growers in Ratnagiri formed into groups

and marketed cashew under the name of Cashew

Ratna and obtain benefit.

Commodity Based Groups – Block Level

Processors Group – District level

Grading, Packing, Marketing

55

ProcessorsGroup

1 2 3 4

Block Level Processors Group

District Level Processor

& Farmer Orgn.

Common Godown•Grading •Packing

•Further grading •Packing •Marketing

State :MaharashtraDistrict :Ratnagiri

CASHEW RATNA

Commodity Based Groups 56

Mango Fair – A leap towards Direct Marketing

Alphanso predominant horticultural crop in Ratnagiri, Kokan's region of Maharashtra.

99% of growers sell the produce at 1/4th price that too through middle men

Sindhudurg district organised Mango fair in Mumbai and farmers got 4 times as compared to earlier prices.

57

Success of WIGs

The women dairy farmers of Penumur

village of Chittoor have formed as WIG.

Most of the group members are land less

labourers and represented to provide loan

amount for leasing of land to raise green

fodder. ATMA has provided Rs.2000/- to

the group to take up the land on lease.

The group members have leased the land

and raised Fodder Jowar SSG5912 and

Maize African Tall in the plot. The group

has successfully raised the green fodder

crop in the waste land and fed the milk

animals, there by increased their milk

yield. 58

Challenges to group-led extension

Different mind setup

Farmers active participation

Information technology

Diverse conditions

Group intelligence

Governmental Policy

59

ConclusionGLE has the impact on various activities such as empowerment

of women through increasing decision making pattern,

strengthening economic background.

It helps in reducing the workload of the group members.

Public, Private extension agencies and NGOs should involve

farmer groups.

GLE helps in increasing the level of knowledge on particular

aspect subsequently boost up the adoption rate of newer

technology which ultimately helps them to get higher productivity

that leads to fetch more income.

Extension strategies should involve in groups.

60

Future thrust

Policy decision to contact farmers in groups instead of individual

contacts

Groups should be demand driven

Group formation could be taken up where some NGOs / societies are

working

Disseminate the message about the advantages of group formation

Size of the group should be kept small

Demonstrate the process of group formation by organizing visits of

group of farmers to already developed active farmers groups in nearby

areas

61

“More hands make for lighter work.”

“The more the

merrier.”

Group led extension by Pinakin C Patel

Education

Transcript of Group led extension by Pinakin C Patel