2 KVKs 78 93.97 3 Extension worker 32 38.55 4 Television 79 95.18 5 Radio 32 38.55 6 Newspaper 35 42.16 7 Farmers‘ fair 73 87.95 8 Internet 41 49.39 9 Government Demonstration 26 31.32 10 Information kiosk 2 2.40 11 Input dealer 12 14.45 12 Progressive farmers 40 48.19 13 Private agency 2 2.40
*Multiple responses were allowed
A perusal of Table 29 reveals that among all the modern means of communication; farmers mostly accessed television (95.18 per cent) followed by KVKs (93.97 per cent). Farmer‘s fair (87.95 per cent) and trainings attended (78.31 per cent) were the next most popularly accessed media (Fig. 5). Internet was used by almost half (49.39 per cent) of the farmers to get agricultural
information. Newspapers were also read by the 42.16 per cent farmers. A fair proportion of respondents also contacted the progressive farmers for latest updates of agriculture. It was interesting to note here that radio is still popular among the farmers and about 38.55 per cent farmers used it for agricultural updates, extension workers were also contacted by 38.55 per cent farmers. This is followed by government demonstration (31.32 per cent), input dealers (14.45 per cent) and information kiosks (2.40 per cent) and private agencies (2.40 per cent).
Though information kiosks are promoted most by the central and state government but still it was observed that least number of farmers accessed it. This may be because of differential treatment of the sanchalaks and in most cases computers were kept in one of the villager‘s house and the traditional village system does not allow everybody to enter to anybody‘s house. It can also be concluded that like mobile phones internet started penetrating in the society but with a slower pace.
Farming experience
It refers to the total number of years spent in farming by the respondent at the time of investigation.
Table 30: Distribution of farmers on the basis of farming experience (N=83)
S.No. Category Number of
farmers Percentage
1 Low (less than 10 years) 53 63.85
3 High (more than 20 years) 13 15.66
Total 83 99.99
Table 30 shows that majority of farmers had low (63.85 per cent) farming experience followed by medium (20.48 per cent) farming experience and high (15.66 per cent) farming experience. Thus, it can be concluded that most of the farmers had less than 10 years of farming experience and only few farmers had more than 20 years of farming experience. But in general farmers were fairly experienced. The findings are in confirmity with Prabhakar (2010). Land holding
It is the operational size of farm which a farmer has actually put into cultivation. Data were collected by asking respondents about the area under irrigation, leased in land, leased out land and total operational holding.
Table 31: Distribution of farmers on the basis of land holding (N=83) S.No. Category Number of farmers Percentage
1 Small farmers (2.51 to 5 acres) 24 28.91 2 Medium farmers (5.0 to 10 acres) 29 34.93 3 Large 10.01 acres) farmers (above 30 36.14
Total 83 99.99
Data regarding land holdings of trainees has been presented in Table 31. It is clear from table that maximum (36.14 per cent) numbers of respondents were large farmers followed by medium
(34.14 per cent) and small (28.91 per cent) farmers respectively. Since the respondents were progressive farmers so, it was quite obvious that they were resourceful with large land holdings. However, the findings vary with the observations made by Singh (2008) and Chauhan (2010).
Livestock possession
It refers to the animal possessed by a family. In present study total number of animals was used as an indicator of livestock. Table 32: Distribution of farmers on the basis of livestock
possession (N=83)
S.No. Category Number of
farmers Percentage
1 Low (less than 1) 30 36.14
2 Medium (1-7) 44 53.01
3 High (more than 7) 9 10.04
Total 83 99.19
Mean= 3.94 SD= 2.96 CV = 75.92
Data regarding livestock possession by the farmers has been presented in Table 32. It is clear from Table that majority (53.01 per cent) of the farmers had 1-7 animals followed by 36.14 per cent of those who had 1 or less animals. Only nine per cent farmers had more than seven animals. SD (2.96) and CV (75.92 per cent) values showed that farmers were highly heterogeneous with regard to their livestock possession.
Table 33: Distribution of farmers on the basis of crop wise cultivated area (N=83)
S.No. Category Number of
farmers Percentage
1 Low (less than 2 crops) 35 42.16
2 Medium (2-3 crops) 42 50.60
3 High (more than 3 crops) 6 7.22
Total 83 99.98
A perusal of Table 33 shows that almost half of the farmers grow 2-3 crops on yearly basis. Around 42.16 per cent farmers grow less than two crops and only 7.22 per cent farmers grow more than three crops in a season. This is concluded that despite of being progressive farmers, they still followed the traditional cropping pattern and did not go for diversification and inter cropping.
SECTION – B
5.2. Impact of selected Agri-portals in Uttarakhand 5.2.1 General information of farmers
Extent of awareness
The extent of awareness about selected Agri-portals were studied in two dimensions viz. the extent of awareness about
S. No. Extent of awareness No. of farmers (Agropedia) Percentage No. of farmers (aAQUA) Percentage 1 Aware 83 100 83 100 Total 83 100 83 100
selected Agri-portals from the users of these Agri-portals and level of awareness of the users. Hence, with two different groups the awareness study had been conducted to know how far the farmers were aware of its existence.
Table 34: Distribution of farmers on the basis of extent of awareness of selected Agri-portals (N=83)
This analysis gives a broad picture about extent to which farmers were aware about the existence of selected Agri-portals. The response was obtained in the form of those who were ‗aware‘ and ‗not aware‘ about Agropedia and aAQUA. It is clear from Table 34 that all the farmers (100 per cent) were aware about the existence of selected Agri-portals viz Agropedia and aAQUA. The findings clearly indicate that selected Agri-portals were known to the farmers and also that ICT started penetrating in to farming community. This high level of awareness might be due to the high publicity made about the existence of selected Agri-portals in the villages where more farmers reside. The SAU experts and KVK scientists did play an important role in popularizing it among the farming communities.
Efforts need to be taken to promote awareness in such a way that it should reach teven to the small farmers. Proper selection of media for creating awareness is the deciding factor to have a better reach to the farmers living in remote areas. Although it is clear from the Table that efforts were appreciable to create awareness about selected Agri-portals among the progressive farmers but appropriate efforts should be taken to make it popularized among the small and marginal farmers too.
The extent of awareness of farmers was analyzed in terms of the time of awareness and sources of awareness of selected Agri- portals.
Time of awareness
Table 35: Distribution of farmers on the basis of time of