Extension Education Dharwad

IMPACT OF FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL (FFS) ON
COTTON CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN

DHARWAD DISTRICT

Thesis submitted to the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

IN

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION

BY

SHABNAM M. ADHONI

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION EDUCATION
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD 580 005

JUNE, 2011

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD (S. S. DOLLI)
JUNE, 2011 MAJOR ADVISOR
Approved by :

Chairman : ____________________________
(S. S. DOLLI)

Members : 1. __________________________
(K. A. JAHAGIRDAR)

2. __________________________
(S. L. PATIL)

3. __________________________
(R. K. PATIL)

4. __________________________
(BALACHANDRA K. NAIK)

5. __________________________
(ASHALATHA K. V.)

C O N T E N T S

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars
CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
LIST OF APPENDIX
1. INTRODUCTION
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Profile of Farmers Field School (FFS) participants
2.2 Knowledge level of respondents
2.3 Impact of FFS on ICM of cotton
2.4 Factors contributing to the effectiveness of FFS
2.
2.5 Problems faced and suggestions obtained by farmers for
successful conduct of FFS
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
3.2 Locale of the study
3.3 Sampling procedure
3.4 Operationalization of variables and their measurement
3.5 Instrument used for data collection
3.
3.6 Statistical methods employed for analysis of data
RESULTS
4.1 Profile of FFS participants
4.2 Distribution of FFS participants based on their characteristics
4.3 Knowledge level of FFS and non FFS farmers about integrated
crop management (ICM) practices in cotton
4.4 Adoption level of the integrated crop management (ICM)
practices in cotton by FFS and non FFS participants
4.5 Factors contributing to the effectiveness of FFS.
4.
successful conduct of FFS.

Contd..

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars
DISCUSSION
5.1 Profile of FFS participants
5.3 Knowledge level of FFS and non FFS farmers about integrated
practices in cotton by FFS and non FFS participants
5.
successful conduct of FFS
6. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

LIST OF TABLES

Table
No.
Title
1. Selection of the taluks and villages
2. Profile of FFS participants
2a Education level
2b Extension contact
2c Organizational participation
2d Mass media exposure
3. Cropping intensity of FFS participants
4. Participation Level of farmers in FFS activities
5. Distribution of FFS participants based on their characteristics
6. Extent of knowledge level of FFS and non FFS farmers about cotton
ICM practices
7. Knowledge index of different components of ICM of FFS and non
FFS farmers
8. Distribution of FFS participants according to their knowledge level
about integrated crop management ( ICM) practices of cotton crop
9. Extent of Adoption of recommended integrated crop management
(ICM) practices by groundnut FFS and non FFS farmers
10. Adoption index of different components of ICM of FFS and non FFS
farmers
11. Distribution of FFS participants according to their adoption level about
integrated crop management (ICM) practices of cotton crop
12. Comparison of mean yield levels of cotton of FFS and non FFS
farmers
13a. Association of method of selection of FFS participant and plot with
knowledge and adoption level of FFS participants
13b. Association of nature of collaborator with knowledge and adoption
level of FFS participants
13c. Association of FFS events with knowledge and adoption level of FFS
participants
13d. Association of nature of facilitators with knowledge and adoption level
of FFS participants
14a. Problems faced by FFS participants in FFS programme
14b. Suggestion of FFS participants for successful conduct of FFS
programme

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
No.
Title
1. Flow chart showing sampling procedure
2. Profile of FFS farmers
3. Knowledge index of FFS and non FFS farmers
4. Distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their
knowledge level about ICM practices in cotton crop
5. Adoption index of different components ICM of FFS and non FFS
farmers
6. Distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their adoption
level
7. Comparison of mean yield of cotton of FFS and non FFS farmers
8. Conceptual framework of FFS

LIST OF PLATES

Plate
No.
Title
1. Long term experiment (seed to seed)
2. Learning through games
3. Taking observations in CESA
4. Presentation of CESA charts by FFS participants

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix
No.
Title
I. Interview schedule

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent past, there has been a shift in agriculture extension services from supply
driven to demand driven approaches and from central command and control to local
management and services in an effort to increase effectiveness, efficiency and equity.
Therefore participatory community-driven development, a process in which community groups
initiate, organize and take action to achieve common interest and goals, it has assumed
importance in developing nations.
The participatory approaches are more effective as they focus on needs and interest
of local people. In these methods farmers wisdom and experiences are respected and
agricultural extension agents put themselves in the roles of better listeners and facilitate and
develop a responsive two-way communication process. Participatory approaches believe in
bottom up approach and empowerment of local people. Hence, these methods have been
adopted by both government and non government organizations.
There is limited scope for expanding the area under different crops in India. However,
it is possible to increase the production per unit area by promoting the adoption of modern
agricultural technology among farmers. Organized attempts for agricultural development
predate the planning era in India. Over the years, the country has tried many extension and
development strategies that helped to increase and enhance farm production, productivity
and overall quality of human life. After the independence, first extension direction to
agricultural development was Community Development (CD) approach. The basic idea of CD
programme was to bring overall development of the rural community through community
participation but, not many positive results were seen due to lack of conviction, commitment
and expertise and the compelling situation of food shortages. During sixties, the agricultural
production situation was very critical and intensification of agriculture with the use of high
yielding varieties became must and agricultural development became the sole indicator and
measure of rural development. The programmes such as IADP (Intensive Agriculture District
Programme), IAAP (Intensive Agriculture Area Programme), ND (National Demonstration)
and HYVP (High Yielding Varieties Programme) gained momentum. At this point, the sole
purpose was to increase crop yields. These approaches, though paid good dividend,
generally failed to help especially the poor farm households and reduce inequity.
Superimposed on transfer of technology (ToT) approach was the T & V system with emphasis
on the role of extension in technology transfer to encourage utilization of research results.
But, usually the flow of information was one-way and the feedback was minimal. The system
was found to be too narrow in its approach and not suitable for small farms and rain-fed
areas, which are surrounded with so many uncertainties. Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) has also launched innovative extension programmes namely, Operational
Research Project (ORP), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) and Lab to Land Programme (LLP). All
these programmes including National Demonstration (ND) were later merged under the
programme of KVK. The farming system research and extension programme was also started
through KVKs. These programmes did receive some success, but could not make much
impact, particularly in ensuring peoples participation. It was realized that the modern
technologies did not match with the farmers need and resources, and therefore, farmers
participation was partial in the programmes. The situation demanded an emphasis on
farmers need-based and problem-oriented technology generation with active participation of
the farmers. The need for technology appraisal, refinement and transfer was felt and IVLP
(Institute Village Linkages Programme) based on participatory methodology was launched in
selected locations in the country. In addition, National Watershed Development Programme
for Rain-fed Areas was also launched by Govt. of India in selected states with basic
consideration of peoples participation. Recently, Agriculture Technology and Management
Agency (ATMA) have been making effort to integrate various department as well as private
sectors to bring improvement in farming situation using bottom up planning approach. By and
large, the impact of different programmes in terms of active peoples participation has not
been so satisfactory. All these strategies considered farming problems essentially as
individual concern and never as a collective issue. The development planning is for the
people and, therefore, it has to be of the people and by the people. If the development efforts
are to be controlled by people, it is essential that they also contribute and are fully involved in
all the phases of development process.

The techniques such as Participatory Rural Appraisal, Rapid Rural Appraisal,
Participatory Learning and Action and Agro-ecosystem Analysis are well known and popular.
The participatory approach needs to be cultivated and nurtured in the rural community based
on rapport, trust, interpersonal relationship and democratic but structural functioning.
There is increasing recognition to meet the diverse needs of modern farming, a
change of approach is called for, towards educating and enabling farmers to define and solve
their own problems, and take some responsibility for the extension service they require.
Framers Field School (FFS) is one of the participatory methods that provides farmers an
opportunity of learning by doing, experimenting technologies and seeing the results in their
own situation.
During recent years, number of development agencies including the World Bank,
have promoted FFS as a more effective approach to extend science-based knowledge and
practices to farmers. Though pioneered and first promoted by Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) a practical way of diffusing knowledge intensive integrated pest
management concept and practices for East Asian rice based systems, the FFS has since
evolved to include a much broader coverage of other farm relevant topics in its curriculum.
FFSs have spread rapidly to all continents since their first introduction in 1989 in Indonesia,
where Integrated Pest Management FFSs were developed to help farmers deal with the
problem of rice brown plant hoppers (BPH) in irrigated rice. As the concept has spread, it has
been adapted for a wide range of crops (including tree crops such as bananas, various high
value crops such as vegetables and fruits, industrial crops such as cotton, cocoa). FFSs
curricula and learning processes also have been developed for the livestock sector (dairying,
veterinary care, poultry and integrated rice-duck systems, goat husbandry, aquaculture and
fishing) and for land productivity issues (land and water management, soil fertility, land
degradation). These innovations have brought new types of participants within its ambit.
The FFS concept has been developed far beyond integrated pest management (IPM)
in rice. Now FFS is being practicing in over 30 countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh,
China, Philippines, Sudan, Kenya, Egypt, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Peru, Pakistan, Cameron,
Angola, USA etc) around the world, encouraging farmer learning in the areas as diverse as
dairy farming, conservation agriculture and even community health. In India, FFS is
introduced in 1989 under the assistance provided by the FAO of the United Nations
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programme on cotton implemented on a pilot basis. FFS
has been adopted in most of the crops especially high valued crops like cotton, pigenpea,
groundnut, maize, etc.
India has the largest cotton area in the world with about 90 lakh hectares accounting
for one-fourth of the global cotton area. Cotton contributes 29.90 per cent of the Indian
agricultural gross domestic product and provides livelihood to nearly 6 crore people
(Pratiyogitha Darpana, 2010). In Karnataka, cotton is grown on an area of 5.34 lakh hectares
with the production of 10.00 lakh bales and productivity of 318 kg per hectare (Pratiyogitha
Darpana, 2010). Since introduction of hybrids, pest menace in cotton is severe resulting in
indiscriminate use of insectiside, increase in crop losses and reduction in productivity and
income to farmers. In some of the area it was discontinued due to severe attack of insect
pests. As FFS is the best approach to educate farmers on IPM it was adopted in cotton crop.
FFS curriculum is broad based to suit farmers needs about integrated crop management
(ICM) of cotton which are cost effective and also ensure sustainable production.
Concept of FFS
Farmers field school is a non-formal learner centered educational process. Education
is seen as a process of learning science by experimenting. It seeks to empower people to
solve their field problems, actively by fostering participation, interaction, joint decision making
and self confidence. Farmers learn, for themselves by carrying out various activities related to
a selected farming technology and through constant observation of the technology
performance in the field viz., Agro Eco-System Analysis (AESA). (Ramamurthy, 2005).
Participants, collaborator, facilitator are main three categories of actors involved in
FFS. Farmers selected are willing to be learners in the farmer field school. Participants should
be willing for regular participation, active involvement, sharing learnt skills and knowledge and
to adopt identified practices. Collaborator is a farmer/farm women who give land for
conducting field studies. He/she should be co-operative, non-political, volunteer to spare

her/his land and bear the input cost, and be available during sessions. Facilitator is technically
competent person to lead members and he will participate in discussion sessions as a
contributor rather than leader in arriving at an agreed consensus and makes the farmers to
carry out the activities.
Normally, FFS is conducted in 2 acres of land which is near to the village and
convenient to all participant farmers and facilitators to participate in all sessions. The land is
divided into FFS plot (0.75 acre), control plot (0.75 acre) and experimental plot (0.5 acre).
However the effectiveness of the FFS depends on various factors such as farmers
participation, collaborator nature, facilitators nature, curriculum and effective conduct of FFS.
Considering the importance and potentiality of FFS in ToT, it is essential to study the
impact of FFS on integrated crop management practices of cotton crop. In this context, the
study was designed with the following specific objectives.
1. To know the impact of FFS on knowledge level of farmers.
2. To analyse the impact of FFS on Integrated Crop Management Practices (ICM) of
cotton crop.
3. To identify the factors contributing to the effectiveness of the FFS.
4. To enlist the problems experienced and suggestions by the farmers for
successful conduct of FFS.
Scope of the study
The study was focused on impact of FFS on knowledge level and adoption of ICM
practices in cotton crop. The results open up the scope for adoption of FFS in different crops
especially for high valued crops. The insight on factors that influences effectiveness of FFS is
of immense use to field staff to articulate and provide thrust on such of the factors that
contribute directly to the effectiveness of FFS. The results of the study provide base for
planning and organizing FFS in different situation and design the methodology accordingly.
Limitation of the study
The present study had limitation of the time and other resources. However,
considerable care has been exercised in making the study as objective and systematic as
possible. It may however be recognized that the findings of study may be generalized within
the boundaries of the area under investigation and such other areas having same agro
climatic and socio-economic conditions. Thus, the study becomes meaningful to the planners,
policy makers and extension personnel for transfer of technology (ToT).
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The studies related to the research study are reviewed in this chapter. A few studies
were available on FFS, related studies were reviewed under this chapter.
2.2 Knowledge level of respondents
2.4 Factor contributing to the effectiveness of FFS
2.5 Problems faced and suggestions obtained in conduct of FFS programme
Vinayak Reddy (1991) in his study conducted in Chitradurga district of Karnataka
reported that 53 per cent of cotton growers belonged to high income group.
More et al. (2000) conducted study in Parbhani, revealed that majority of cotton
growers were middle aged (55.00%), medium level of education (62.15%), socioeconomic
status (63.57%), mass media exposure (55.71%), extension contact (62.86%) and risk
preference (62.14%).
Sriram and Palaniswamy (2001) conducted study in Salem district of TN, the revealed
that 59.16 per cent of cotton growers had medium level of awareness and higher proportion
(98.00%) of cotton growers were highly educated and had high mass media exposure.
Patil et al. (2007a) study was undertaken to study the mass media utilization pattern of
cotton growers in Malaprabha and Tungabhadra command area of north Karnataka indicated
that, considerable percentage of respondents read news papers regularly (30.42%) and
occasionally (23.75%). A negligible percentage of respondents occasionally read agricultural
magazines (6.25%). Further a negligible percentage of respondents listened agriculture
programmes broadcasted or telecast over radio (3.75%) and television (1.25%) regularly.
Patil et al. (2007b) reported that, respondents had more often contacted the
Agriculture Assistants whenever problem arose (42.08%), once in month (32.08%), once in
fortnight (8.33%) and 17.08 percent never contacted. Similarly, the respondents were also
contacted extension workers of bank and input companies whenever problem arose
(22.08%), once in month (22.08%) and never contacted (25.83%). A meager per cent of
respondents contacted University scientist/Extension guides (9.58%) and Assistant Director of
Agriculture (6.67%), whenever problem arose.
Patrick et al. (2007) conducted study in Central Benin reported that, smallholders
acceptance of innovation depends largely on the approach used to take their needs and
constraints into account. The adoption of IPM practices by smallholders lead to the reduction
in pesticide use in cotton.
Yeshwant kumar (2008) conducted study in Bellary district to know the knowledge and
adoption of ICM practices by FFS participant. He reported that majority of FFS respondents
were young aged (40.00%) studied up to middle school (34.00%). Over fifty per cent of
farmers were belonged to medium extension participation and high innovative category.
David Dolly (2009) conducted study in West Indies reported that, the FFS participants
had a mean age of 44.75 years, which was ten years younger than the non FFS participants.
The FFS attracted younger farmers who may understand long term implication in vegetable
production. Reported mean monthly farm income of FFS farmers ($ 3409.52) higher than that
of non FFS participants ($3197.5).
Kiran (2010) conducted study in Warangal district of A.P. reported that majority of
cotton growers were medium aged group (68.00%), education (80.00%), socioeconomic
status (80.00%), information source utilization (67.00%) and extension participation
(67.00%).
The above reviews indicate that, majority of cotton growers were belonged to middle
aged group, medium extension participation category, high income group and studied up to
middle school.
2.2 Knowledge level of FFS participants
Juliana et al. (1991) observed that most of the marginal and small farmers possessed
only medium level of knowledge about IPM practices. More than half of the big farmers
possessed high level of knowledge. In contrast to this, only 2.50 per cent of marginal farmers
and one fourth of small farmers had high level of knowledge.
Parthasarthi and Govind (2002) reported that a very high percentage score (53.74%)
was found in the case of knowledge on ETL of different pests among FFS farmers. But a very
low mean percentage score (6.66%) was observed in the case of Non FFS farmers. This
indicates that the FFS farmers were more knowledgeable on ETL of different pests than Non
FFS farmers.
Godtland et al. (2003) in their study evaluated the impact of a pilot Farmer-Field-
School (FFS) programme on farmers' knowledge of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
practices related to potato cultivation, reported that farmers who participated in the
programme have significantly more knowledge about IPM practices than those in the non-
participant comparison group. Furthermore, improved knowledge about IPM practices has a
significant impact on productivity in potato production.
Darling and Vasanthkumar (2004) indicated that 59.16 per cent of the respondents
possessed medium level of knowledge and 28.33 per cent of the respondents had low level of
knowledge on various dimensions of botanical pesticides.
Dharminder and Ravinder (2004) conducted a study on cotton growers in Bathinda
district of Punjab and revealed that 73.77 per cent of farmers had medium knowledge level.
Whereas 21.30 per cent of them fell in the high knowledge category regarding IPM in cotton.
Godtland et al. (2004) conducted a study on the impact of a pilot Farmer Field School
(FFS) programme on farmers' knowledge (as measured by a knowledge test score) and,
subsequently, on the productivity levels in potato cultivation reported that FFS participation
significantly enhances knowledge on pests, fungicides, and resistant varieties all
instrumental in implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices. It also finds
evidence that the FFS approach adds to the traditional transfer-of-technology approach in
imparting knowledge on technical issues related to IPM to farmers. Results of a simulation
exercise indicate that FFS participation would raise the average potato seed output-input ratio
by 2.5, or approximately 32 per cent of the average value in a normal year.
Noorjehan et al. (2004) reported that majority (90.00%) of paddy growers in Trichy
district of Tamil Nadu had noticed of respondents had low to medium level of knowledge on
pest management practices in rice. Only 10.00 per cent of them were found to have higher
level of knowledge of pest management practices.
Ortiz et al. (2004) studied on the Peruvian FPR-FFS programme indicated that
participants are more knowledgeable and that their expertise further increased after an
additional year of participation. The benefits to participants can be evaluated more directly by
comparing the productivity of participants' farms compared with non-participants' farms. For
the Peruvian FPR-FFS programme, participants had significantly higher average levels of
productivity.
Ooi and Kenmore (2005) observed in their study that there is 16.9 per cent increase in
biological control knowledge of FFS farmers for recognizing natural enemies compared to 2.3
per cent for non-IPM FFS farmers.
Venkatashivareddy (2006) find out that in knowledge and adoption of IPM practices
among vegetable growers of Gadag district in north Karnataka. Majority of the vegetable
growers possessed medium level of knowledge about IPM practices in tomato (66.70%) and
cabbage (61.60%).
Bunyatta et al. (2006) in Kenya find out in their study that there was a significant
difference in knowledge acquired in Soil and Crop Management (S&CM) technologies by FFS
compared to NFFS farmers.
About 50 per cent of FFS farmers had acquired high to very high level of the
knowledge of all the eight technologies disseminated while the majority (>80%) of the NFFS
farmers had acquired less than 50 per cent of the same knowledge.
Yamini Verma and Rajendran (2007) reported that 45 per cent of farmers gain correct
knowledge towards IPM, resistant varieties (40.00%), INM (35.00%), chemical pesticides
(55.00%) and biological control (50.00%) compared to non-FFS farmers (40.00%, 35.00%,
30.0%, 40.00% and 30.00%, respectively).
Yeshwant Kumar (2008) conducted study in Bellary district to know the knowledge and
adoption of ICM practices by FFS participant and he reported that 42 per cent of maize FFS
participants were in medium knowledge level category. Where as 40 per cent of respondent
had high level knowledge level. While 18 per cent of the maize FFS participants, were in low
knowledge level category. He reported that 52 per cent of groundnut FFS participants were in
medium level knowledge, where as 30 per cent of groundnut FFS participants had high and
18% had low knowledge level of ICM practices.
George and Hegde (2009) reported that there was a significant difference in knowledge
levels before and after implementation of the programme. The farmers level of knowledge
increased significantly from 35.70 per cent before the FFS to 82.20 per cent after the FFS.
From the above reviews it could be inferred that majority of the FFS participants
were belonged to medium knowledge level category and also knowledge level of FFS
farmers about IPM practices was higher than non FFS farmers.
Nerkar et al. (1999) reported that 45 to 100 per cent of the target population has realized
increase in production, while 27 to100 per cent target population has realized increase in
productivity of crops and 100 per cent target population has realized increase in profitability
and sustainability of agriculture.
Islam et al. (2002) conducted a comparative study between DAE Trainer Farmers
Field School (DT-FFS) and Farmer-Trainer Farmers Field School (FT-FFS) in Bangladesh.
The results showed that the highest proportions (65-95%) of farmers had medium IPM skill
levels. About 26 per cent of DT-FFS farmers had high skill levels as compared to 1.82 per
cent of FT-FFS farmers.
Davies et al. (2003) reported that the combined application of FYM, DAP and Tithonia
resulted in a less serious loss of nitrogen than the current practice of using a single
application of FYM or DAP. This benefit in using organic and inorganic inputs in combination.
Vijayalakshmi et al. (2003) concluded that, FFS has helped farmers change their
attitudes considerably from the all insects are pests mindset and resorting to indiscriminate
pesticides sprays, improvement in farm income and soil quality following the use of intercrops
as a pest management option. The ultimate outcome of FFS was a decrease in cost of
cultivation leading to higher net incomes.
Mallah and Korejo (2005) carried out investigation on Farmer Field School (FFS)
activities in Pai Farm Sakrand (Sindh, Pakistan) .The study compared the results of the
experimental IPM plot to that of a grower's plot (managed under current farmers' practices). It
is revealed that the IPM plot provided more (25.00%) yield and a net profit of Rs 3705
(38.03%) increase over the profit from the grower's plot.
Ooi and Kenmore (2005) reported that there is a reduction in use of insecticides
(43.00% for IPM FFS farmers versus 34 per cent for non-IPM FFS farmers). With the skills
acquired at FFS, farmers have increased incomes, as farmer education activities help
consolidate the impact of biological control in farmers' pest management decision making
(34.00% increase in FFS farmers as compared to 10.00% for non-FFS farmers).
Berg et al. (2007) reported that rice farmers in intervention villages who graduated
from the field school took vector-control actions as well as improving environmental sanitation
and their personal protection measures against disease transmission. They also reduced their
use of agricultural pesticides, especially insecticides.
Mancini et al. (2007) reported that Farmer field schools (FFSs) were conducted in
Southern India to reduce pesticide input and enhances sustainability of cotton production
systems. This study was carried out to determine the additional benefits of FFSs in the social
and economic arena, using the sustainable livelihoods (SL) concept to frame the evaluation.
Farmers who had participated in the integrated pest management (IPM) FFSs perceived a
range of impacts much beyond the adoption of IPM practices. The reduced cost of cultivation
allowed for financial recovery from debt and the building of physical assets. IPMFFS
households and production systems were perceived by the participants to have become more
economically resilient than Non-IPMFFS control groups when faced with adversity. IPMFFSs
also led to enhanced individual and community social well-being, a benefit valued in particular
by the women participants.
Mancini et al. (2008) conducted study in Andhra Pradesh, reported that FFS farmers
(73.00%) drastically reduced the use of highly toxic pesticides as a result of increased
knowledge on biological control principles.
Suresh et al. (2007) reported that after conduct of FFS programme in Dinnahalli village
of Kolar District, (93.00%) farmers/farm women were convinced about the technology. In
subsequent season, summer 2006-07, (73.00%) farmers have adopted the same technology
in their fields. During Kharif 2007, (93.00%) farmers have continued adoption of aerobic
method of paddy cultivation. Thus, the FFS is a tool to build capacities of farmer groups and
field staff in managing crop ecosystem, make them better decision makers in promoting
sustainable use of resources at cropping, farming and watershed system levels.
Yamini Verma and Rajendran (2007) reported that there was a yield increase of 14.5
per cent over the control after the conduct of FFS. The cost of cultivation could be reduced by
9 per cent after FFS programme. Decrease in the use of Carbofuran 3G from 30 kg/ha to
20kg/ha in rice. The incidence of pesticide application was five times during a cropping
season earlier. This was reduced to two times during the cropping season during the FFS. It
was also observed that defender population had increased in FFS plots and reached a level
sufficient for control of pest.
Tchoumo et al. (2008) reported that there was 47 per cent reduction in the frequency
of spraying fungicides and 17 per cent reduction in the number of sprayers applied per
treatment following the implementation of FFS programme. A partial budget analysis revealed
that the IPM practices lowered overall costs of production by 11 per cent relative to previous
practices.
Yeshwant Kumar (2008) revealed that, 30 per cent of maize FFS participants were in
high yield producer category when compared to non FFS participant (20%).Further, 40 per
cent of maize FFS participants were in high economic return category when compared to the
non FFS participants (32%) indicating positive impact of FFS on maize yield levels and
economic returns of the participants.
George and Hegde (2009) reported that as a result of FFS programme the frequency of
insecticide spray came down to 2.50 from 8.50 times per crop in farmers practice. Frequency
of fungicides came down to 3 as compared to 4.50 in farmer practice in farmers practice. The
incidence of tomato spotted wilt virus was 7.60 per cent in IPM compared to 25.60 per cent in
farmers practice. The incidence of fruit borer came down to 7.80 per cent in IPM compared to
21.88 per cent in farmers practice. In wilt resistant varieties of the incidence of blight reduced
from 7.79 per cent to 4.00 per cent. The marketable yield obtained was 51.30 t/ha in IPM
plots compared to 44.60 t/ha in farmers practice.
The above studies revealed that, the farmers who had participated in FFS programme
benefited in many aspects such as, reduced pesticide application, cost of cultivation and
increase farmers skill, profit as well as enhanced social well being than the non FFS farmers.
2.4 Factor contributing to the effectiveness of FFS
Sivakumar et al. (1998) conducted study in Chennai district of TN state reported that,
education, farm size, mass media exposure and innovativeness had a positive and significant
relationship with know how behavior of FFS farmers. Where as, farm size, mass media
exposure, innovativeness and know how behavior were the characteristics that had a positive
and significant relationship with the do how behavior of FFS farmers.
Krishnamurthy (1999) reported that age and farming experience were negative and
highly significant with knowledge level of the respondents, whereas education, extension
participation and risk orientation are highly significant with knowledge level about IPM in rice
cultivation.
Islam et al. (2002) reported that educational background and agricultural knowledge of
DT-FFS and FT-FFS farmers were significantly correlated with their IPM skills. Cosmopolitan
outlook, extension contact and innovativeness of DT-FFS farmers and farm size and income
of FT-FFS were also significantly related with their IPM skills.
Vijayalakshmi et al. (2003) concluded that, the adoption of the technologies
disseminated through FFS largely depends on the initiative and interest shown by the
individual farmers. To be able to sustain and spread on its own, the processes need to be
institutionalizes within the group. Till that time, regular follow up for the FFS trained groups is
necessary. If facilitated in a meaningful way, the FFS approach will enable improving
livelihoods of farmers in a relatively short time.
Rafee et al. (2006) conducted a study to determine farmers' knowledge level regarding
cotton cultivation and servicing as well as their utilization of various information sources. The
educational level and land holdings of the respondents had significant correlation with
cultivation and servicing of cotton yield. Three independent variables were found to have
significant correlation with farmers' field schools, including: farmers' educational level, attitude
toward innovation, and degree of mental flexibility. Moreover, farmers' age and mass media
utilization were observed to have significant correlation with the sources of information.
Arun and Rajendra (2007) found that the effectiveness of FFS programme will
depend to a large extent on whether and how the community managed resource centers will
continue to use the services of the trained FFS facilitators. Regular monitoring and refresher
courses for updating the facilitators knowledge and skills are essential to maintain the impact
of FFS in future. If these resource centers are able to provide sustainable follow-up to the
FFS, with minimum external support, it will mean that FFS can become an effective,
affordable and sustainable extension strategy in dry land agriculture.
Lapbim et al. (2008) reported that level of formal education, household size,
membership to a formal organization and knowledge of improved spraying had a positive and
significant influence on the probability of adopting full IPM technologies ( shade management,
improved spraying practices, pruning and phytosanitory harvest) at 10 per cent, 10 per cent, 5
per cent and 1 per cent respectively.
Yeshwant Kumar (2008) reported that education was highly significant correlated with
knowledge level of FFS participants. Variables such as extension participation and
innovativeness were significantly associated with knowledge level, where as, variables age,
farming experience and risk orientation were positively correlated and non-significant
relationship with knowledge level of FFS participants.
The above reviews depicts that, education, extension participation, mass media
exposure, innovativeness, farm size are positively associated with knowledge as well
adoption level of farmers. It also showed that interest of participants, follow up activity and
regular monitoring and refresher courses for updating the facilitators knowledge and skill are
essential to maintain the impact of FFS in future.
2.5 Problems faced and suggestions obtained in conduct of FFS
programme
Krishnamurthy (1999) reported that non-availability of seeds and fertilizers (98.00%),
lack of literature (98.00%), non availability of plant products (100.00%) and lack of literature
(98.00%) are the major constraints expressed by the respondents.
Christian et al. (2005) reported that cotton growing farmers in Vadodara district of
Gujarat had faced the major problems of untimely availability of training on IPM (100.00%)
and lack of skilled labour (70.00%). Similarly, the non-availability of plant production
appliances, bioagents in time (47.50%) and high cost of plant protection input (98.33%) were
the other constraints in the adoption of IPM.
Chitins and Kothiklane (2000) reported the constraint of non-availability of inputs
(19.00%), pheromone trap (14.00%) biotic agents (12.00%) and non-availability of IPM lab at
taluk level.
Hein and Muhammad (2007) reported that, with each change in the FFS curriculum
there is a risk of losing quality. Newly introduced topics need to be field tested and adopted
until they can be presented in a participatory and practical way. Introducing new topics in the
FFS can also create time constraints, reducing time available for activities such as an AESA
and participatory decision making.
Patrick et al. (2007) conducted study in Central Benin reported that, the subdivision of
the demonstration plot according to suggestions made by farmers during the discussion did
not lead to marked difference in terms of yield, but were very useful as initiating in case of
effect of density or fertilizers. In some cases, the reasons for rejection or non adoption were:
lack of labour, access to technology, competition with other crops in the calendar or risk
management. For these issues, more efforts should be made to plan the sessions in order to
facilitate identification of farmers demand for technology and assessment of farmers
knowledge at the end of the training sessions.
Yeshwant Kumar (2008) reported in his study that, 68 per cent and 84 per cent of
maize and groundnut FFS participants expressed FFS sessions should continue to one more
season on same village on another farmers field, 46 per cent and 70 per cent expressed that
more FFS sessions is needed, while 26 per cent and 42 per cent were expressed we need to
avoid odor while preparation of NSKE, biodigester and panchagavya of maize and groundnut
FFS participants, respectively. It was observed that 52 per cent and 68 per cent of both maize
and groundnut FFS participants expressed the problem of non availability of seed treatment
material respectively.
From the above findings it could be inferred that, major problems in FFS experienced
by farmers was non availability of inputs as well as labour. Before introducing new topics in
FFS, need to be field tested because, it creates a time constraint.
3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology used for carrying out investigation is discussed under the following
headings.
3.1 Research design
3.6 Statistical methods employed for analysis of data
3.1 Research design
Ex-post facto research design was used in the investigation. The FFS conducted
during 2008-09 was considered to draw the samples.
3.2.1 Description of the study area.
Dharwad district was selected for the study. The district is situated in the northern
part of Karnataka state at 14
0
31N latitude and 74
0
28E longitude. The district comes under
the transition zone. It is bounded by Belgaum district in north, Haveri district in south, Gadag
district from north east to south east and Uttar Kannada from north west to south west. It has
five taluks and 403 villages.
3.2.2 Soil type and cropping pattern
Soils in Dharwad district comprised of red, medium black and deep black soils.
Whereas, Dharwad taluk and Kalaghatgi taluk mostly comprised of red and medium black
soils and in Hubli taluk, major part of soils comprised of deep black cotton soils. Dharwad
district comprises of three Agro-climatic zones, i.e. dry zone (zone - 3), northern transitional
zone (zone - 8) and part of hilly zone (zone - 9). Transitional zone (zone - 8) comprises three
taluks Dharwad, Hubli and Kundagol. In this tract the average annual rainfall is 700 750
mm. Red and black soils are predominant in this areas. Groundnut, soybean, hybrid jowar,
green gram and maize are the important crops grown in kharif. The hybrid cotton is grown as
commercial crop. Bengal gram and jowar are grown during the rabi on residual soil moisture.
In black soil double cropping is common in this area. Among horticulture crops mango,
sapota, guava and banana are main fruit crops and vegetables like peas, brinjal, tomato,
green chilli etc. are also grown. The entire taluk of Kalaghatagi comes under hilly tract (zone -
9). It is characterized by high rainfall areas with average rainfall up to 900 mm. Majority of
soils are red mixed black with low fertility. Drill sown paddy occupies major area under rainfed
situations. The area under soybean, cotton and maize has been increasing due to changing
rainfall pattern since one decade.
3.2.3 Climate
The monsoon varies from April-May to September-October with two peaks, one in July
and other in September enabling two cropping seasons. The temperature ranges from a
maximum of 39
0
C to the minimum of 13
0
C.
3.3.1 Selection of the taluks and villages
Farmers Field School (FFS) is one of the important activities of Department of
Agriculture (DoA) to educate farmers on crop management practices especially in high valued
crops like, cotton and Tur. Department of Agriculture, Dharwad had organized 60 FFS in
cotton crop with the help of NGO (VIPMTEDS) in five taluks of Dharwad district during 2008-
09.Out of five taluks three taluks namely Dharwad, Kalghatagi and Hubli were selected
purposively for the study as more number of FFS were conducted in these taluks. The village
wise list of FFS conducted in selected taluks was obtained from department of agriculture.
Four villages from each taluk were selected randomly. The list of village selected for the study
is mentioned below.
3.3.2 Selection of respondents
The list of FFS participants from each of the selected villages was obtained from the
concerned agriculture department. From list of FFS participants ten farmers were selected by
simple random procedure. In order to compare the knowledge and adoption level, five Non
FFS farmers were also selected randomly from same village
(Fig. 1). Totally 120 FFS participant and 60 non-FFS participant farmers were selected for the
study.
3.4.1 Dependent and independent variables
Knowledge level and Crop management practices of cotton crop were considered,
as the dependent variables. Independent variables such as education, land holding, income
level, farm resources, extension contact, innovativeness, organization participation, mass
media exposure, participation level and FFS activities were considered for the study.

Fig. 1: Flow chart of selection of the taluks, villages and respondents

Table 1: Selection of the taluks and villages
District Taluk Village FFS farmers Non FFS farmers
Dasankoppa 10 5
Kanvihonnapur 10 5
Belligatti 10 5
Dharwad
Naglavi 10 5
Dummawad 10 5
Nirsagar 10 5
Kanyanayakankoppa 10 5
Kalghatagi
Gambyapur 10 5
Sherewad 10 5
Pale 10 5
Bummasamudra 10 5

Dharwad
Hubli
Balagli 10 5
Total sample size = 180 120 60

3.4.1.1 Construction of teacher made knowledge test
A teacher made knowledge test was developed to measure the knowledge level of
FFS participants about cotton crop management practices. The curriculum of FFS was
obtained from the Department of Agriculture. Questions were drawn from the FFS curriculum.
Experts and facilitators were consulted for the relevance of the questions and ambiguity. Later
questions were finalized. The knowledge test was divided into four components namely seed
management, integrated nutrient management, integrated water management and integrated
pest and disease management. Number of items under these components is as detailed
below.
Components No. of items
Integrated seed management 7
Integrated nutrient management 19
Integrated water management 3
Integrated pest and disease
management
9
Total 38

The knowledge test was administered to the respondents. The score of one and zero
was given for correct and incorrect answers, respectively. The score of all the individual items
were summed up to get knowledge score of respondents. The maximum score that one could
get was 38 and the minimum score was zero. Based on the total score, the respondents were
classified into three categories namely, low, medium and high knowledge level using mean
(X) and standard deviation (SD) as a measure of check.

Knowledge Category Criteria
Low Less than (X-0.425SD)
Medium Between(X+0.425SD)
High More than(X+0.425SD)

Knowledge index was computed for different components like Integrated Seed Management
(ISM), Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), Integrated Water Management (IWM),
Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPDM) and also overall knowledge index. Based
on the score obtained by respondents and maximum possible score of the component
following formula was used.

Actual score obtained by farmers in each component
Knowledge index (%) = x 100
Maximum possible score of each component

3.4.1.2 Crop management practices

Crop management practices was operationalzed as package of ICM practices
adopted by the FFS participants to improve the growth, development and yield of cotton crop
as adopted by Dept. of Agril. in FFS curriculum. All the important ICM practices of cotton crop
were listed. Total number of recommended ICM practices selected were 29. The no. of items
under different ICM components are as below.

Components No. of items
Integrated seed management 6
Integrated nutrient management 12
Integrated water management 2
Integrated pest and disease
management
9
Total 29

The responses elicited from the respondents were quantified as full, partial and non
adoption of the recommended practices. A score of two for full adoption, 1 for partial adoption
and zero for non-adoption was given. The maximum score that respondents could obtain was
29 and minimum was zero depending upon total score obtained by each of the respondent.
The respondents were grouped into 3 categories as low, medium and high categories
based on mean (X) and standard deviation (SD) as a measure of check.

Category Criteria
Medium Between (X+0.425SD)
High More than (X+0.425SD)

Adoption index was also computed for each component viz. Integrated Seed
Management (ISM), Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), Integrated Water Management
(IWM) and Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPDM) using total score under the
components by using following formula.

Actual score obtained by farmers in each component
Adoption index (%) = x 100
Maximum possible score of each component

3.4.2 Independent variable
3.4.2.1Age

Age was operationalized as the chronological age of the FFS participants at the time
of investigation. The participants were categorized into three age group based on procedure
followed by Wondang (2010).

Category
Age (years)
Young Less than 31
Middle Between 31 to 50
Old More than 50

3.4.2.2 Education level

Education was operationalized as the extent of formal education undergone by
the respondents. The respondents were grouped into different levels of education based on
the frequency and percentage. The procedure followed by Raghavendra (2005) and
Jayaprada (2007) was adopted for computation.

Education (standard) Scores
Illiterate 0
Primary school (1st 4th) 1
Middle school (5th 7th) 2
High school (8th 10th) 3
PUC 4
Graduate 5
Post graduate 6

3.4.2.3 Land holding

Land holding is the actual land owned by the farmer in acres. The irrigated land was
converted into rainfed land by following the procedure as specified in the notification of
Government of India (GoI) through circular no. 280-12/16/19-RD.III-Vol-X dated 15Nov, 1991.
Accordingly one acres of wet land is equal to three acres of dry land. The respondents were
categorized based on the procedure suggested by GoI.

Category Land holding (acres)
Marginal farmer Up to 2.5
Small farmer 2.51 to 5.00
Semi medium farmer 5.01 to 10.00
Medium farmer 10.01 to 25.00
Big farmer More than 25.00

3.4.2.4 Farm resources

Farm resources was operationalised as the type and extent of resource base of the
farmer that support crop production system. The resources such as land, water, livestock and
farm equipments were considered to compute farm resources. The relevant components
related to farm resources were selected by referring literature and consulting the consultants.
For extent of possessions of these resources, the scores were assigned. The relevance of
components and wieghtage was tested by taking opinions of judges. The Subject Matter
Specialist (SMS) of Agriculture Technology and Information Centre (ATIC), KVK, scientists of
agronomy and extension departments University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad were
considered to get expert opinion for different items. The components and item score assigned
are as bellow.

Resource type Category Score
Land type Black 3
Red 2
Non arable 1
Water Irrigated 3
Rainfed 1
Livestock Draft animal 3
Baffallo 3
Sheep and goat 2
Poultry 2
Farm equipments Tractor 1
Bullock cart 1
Plough 1
Other equipments 1

Based on the total score of farm resources, the respondents were classified into three
categories such as low, medium and high by considering mean and standard deviation as
a measure of check.

Category Criteria

3.4.2.5 Innovativeness
Innovativeness was operationalized as the behavior pattern of a FFS farmer who had
interest in and desire to seek changes in farming technologies and to introduce such changes
in to his operations which were practical and feasible.
Innovativeness was measured by using Mouliks (1965) method of self rating as
followed by Venkteshivareddy (2006). The scale consisted of three sets of statements. Each
set containing three short statements with weightage 3, 2 and 1 respectively, indicating high,
medium and low degree of innovativeness. The responses of the respondents as most like
and least like choices was obtained as in original scale, for each of the three sets of
statements, the scoring was done by assigning 3 score to most like and score 1 for least
like.
The final score was arrived by summing up the score of the weightage of the most like
statements and the weightage of the least like statements. As there will be three sets of
statements for innovativeness scale, the sum of scores for the three sets were considered by
respondents, thus score ranges from 18 to 54. Later, the respondents were categorized into
three categories based on mean and standard deviation as the measure of check. High score
of the respondents reveals ones more innovative nature.

Category Criteria

3.4.2.6 Extension contact

It refers to the frequency of contact of the respondents with different extension
personnel (A.A., A.O., UAS scientist and private company representative) to acquire
information on agriculture and allied enterprises. The data were quantified by using the
procedure followed by Manjunath (2007).

Frequency of contact Score
Once in a week 3
Once in fortnight 2
When needed 1
Never 0

Based on the total score of extension contact, the respondents were classified into
three categories such as low, medium and high by considering mean and standard
deviation as a measure of check.

Category Criteria

3.4.2.7 Organization participation

This refers to degree of participation of respondent in local organizations (SHGs,
VLCs, VCSs, Gram panchayat, farmers club, Jaikisan group and cotton cooperative society)
and their activities either as member or as office bearer. This variable was measured by using
procedure developed by Trivedi (1963) and as followed by Savita (2008).

Category Score
Membership 1
Non Membership 0
Degree of participation Score
Regularly 2
Occasionally 1
Never 0

The composite score was arrived at by summing up the score obtained by
respondent were classified into three categories by using mean and standard deviation as
measure of check

Category Criteria

3.4.2.8 Mass media exposure

It refers to extent of use of mass media such as Radio, Television, News papers and
Agriculture Magzines by the respondents. The respondents were asked to indicate their
degree of participation in terms of listening, viewing and reading behavior. The data was
presented in terms of frequency and percentage. The variable was quantified on the basis of
procedures followed by Umamaheshwara (2009).

Subscription/possession Score
Subscriber /Owned 1
Non subscriber/Not owned 0
Behavior of listening/reading/viewing Score
Regular 2
Occasional 1
Never 0

The composite score was arrived at by summing up the score obtained by
respondent and were classified into three categories by using mean and standard deviation
as measure of check.

Category Criteria

3.4.2.9 Income level

It was measured by considering the total income of the family from all the sources
such as agriculture, allied enterprises and others. The classification was as suggested by
Ministry of Rural Development, GOI was used and the same was followed by Deepak (2003).

Category Income (Rs/annum)
High income Above 51,000
Medium income 34,001 to 51,000
Semi medium income 17,001 to 34,000
Low income Up to 17,000

The results were expressed in frequency and per cent for each category.

3.4.2.10 Participation level

Level of participation of farmers in FFS was operationalised as the extent of
participation of respondents in different activities such as Group Dynamics/games, short
studies, Cotton Ecosystem Analysis (CESA), drawing of CESA charts, presentation of CESA,
group assignments, insect zoo, long term experiments and field day. The level of participation
was measured by using a three point continuum as, lead role, participation only and
observation only, with the score 2,1 and 0, respectively. The total score indicated the extent
of participation of the respondents in FFS. The maximum score one could obtain was 18 and
minimum was 0.

Level of participation
Sl.
no.
Statements Lead role
(2)
Participation only
(1)
Observation only
(0)
1 Games/GD
2 Short studies
3a CESA
b Drawing of CESA charts
c Presentation of CESA
4 Group assignment
5 Insect zoo
6 Long term
experimentation

7 Field day

3.4.2.11 FFS activities
FFS activities was operationalised as key elements of FFS such as participants, FFS
plot, collaborators nature, facilitators nature and FFS sessions. An attempt was made to
understand the extent of influence of these elements on participants knowledge and
management practices.
The FFS activities were measured by giving score 1 for positive response and 0
score for negative response. The total score was obtained for each element. Further
frequency and percentage was used to present the data.
3.4.2.12 Cropping intensity
It is defined as the ratio of gross cropped area to the total land holding expressed
in terms of percentage. The cropping intensity was calculated according to the procedure
followed by Wondang (2010). The cropping intensity of respondents was categorized in to up
to 100 per cent, 100-150 per cent, 150-200 per cent and above 200 per cent. The data was
presented in frequency and percentage.
Keeping in view the objectives and variables of the study, a structured interview
schedule was developed in consultation with experts. Based on the nature of the responses,
necessary corrections were made so as to standardize the interview schedule. Pre-testing of
schedule was carried out in the non-sample area and necessary corrections were
incorporated. The final format of the interview schedule is given in Appendix I.

3.6 Statistical tools used
The statistical tools such as mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage, t test
and modified chi-square were used wherever found appropriate and data were analyzed to
draw inference.
4. RESULTS
The results of the investigation are presented under the following main headings.
4.1 Profile of the FFS respondents
4.3 Knowledge level of FFS and Non FFS farmers about integrated crop
management (ICM) practices in cotton
4.4 Adoption level of the integrated crop management (ICM) practices in cotton by
FFS participants
4.6 Problems faced by FFS participants and their suggestions.
4.1.1 Education
With regard to education, higher proportion (36.77%) of FFS participants were
studied up to primary, followed by middle school (16.77%), high school (16.77%), illiterate
(10.83%), while equal (9.17%) no. of FFS participants studied PUC and graduate and only
one respondent was post graduate (table 2a).
4.1.2 Extension contact
It was clear from the Table 2b that among different extension personal UAS scientists
were contacted by relatively high percentage (3.33%) of respondents once in a week,
fortnightly (7.50%) and when needed (80%). Similarly Agriculture 0fficers (AOs) were
contacted by very few (2.50%) Once in a week, fortnightly (1.77%) and when needed
(53.33%). Agriculture Assistants (AAs) were contacted by only four respondents when
needed. Only three respondents were contacted private company representative when
needed. Over 90 per cent of the respondents never contacted either AAs or private
companies, nearly half (42.50%) of respondents never contacted AOs and very meager
(9.17%) no. of FFS participants never contacted UAS scientist.
4.1.3 Organizational participation
The results presented in the Table 2c clearly depicts that majority of respondents
were not member of local organizations. However, 13.33 per cent were having membership in
SHGs with regular attendance, participation in Farm club activities was regularly (12.50%)
and occasionally (2.50%). Similarly other members found to have participated in J aikisan
group (8.33%) with regular attendance. Few (5.83%) respondents were members in Village
Level Committees, only six attended meetings regularly and only one occasionally. Very few
respondents were member in Village Cooperative Societies (3.33%), Cotton Cooperative
Societies (CCSs) (2.50%) and Gram panchayat (1.66%) respectively. Less than five percent
of members attended meetings regularly in Village level committees, CCSs and Gram
panchayat.
4.1.4 Mass media exposure
It could be seen from Table 2d that, the majority (85.83%) of FFS respondents
possessed the Television and used it as main source of information for agriculture regularly
(73.33%), and occasionally (15.00%), while 9.17 per cent respondents viewed regularly,
occasionally (65%) for general information. Second important media was News papers,
subscribed by 8.33 per cent, whereas, 40 and 25 per cent of the respondents used news
papers for agriculture and general purpose, while about fifty per cent of respondents used
occasionally agriculture (41.77%) and general information (51.77%). Radio was possessed by
15.83 per cent of respondents and they listened the agriculture and general programme
regularly ((7.50% & 1.77%), occasionally (21.77% & 8.33%), respectively. Among all,
agricultural magazine were least used regularly (10.83%) and only one respondent read the
magazine. Majority (88.33% and 84.17%) of respondents were not used agricultural
magazine and Radio as their sources of information regarding agriculture respectively.
Table 2: Profile of the FFS respondents
a: Education l evel n =120
Sl. No. Categories Frequency Percentage
1 Illiterate 13 10.83
2 Primary 44 36.77
3 Middle school 20 16.77
4 High school 20 16.77
5 PUC 11 9.17
6 Graduate 11 9.17
7 Post graduate 1 00.83
Table 2: Profile of the FFS respondents
b: Extension contact n=120
Frequency of contact
Once in
week
Once in
fortnight
When
needed
Never
Sl.
No.
Extension
personnel
F P F P F P F P
1 Agril.Assitant 1 0.83 1 0.83 2 1.77 116 96.77
2 AO 3 2.5 2 1.77 64 53.33 51 42.50
3 UAS scientist 4 3.33 9 7.50 96 80.00 11 9.17
4 Private companies - - - - 3 2.50 117 97.50
F =Frequency P =Percentage
Table 2: Contd..
c: Organizational parti cipation n=120
Extent of participation
Member
Regular Occasional Never
Sl.
No.
Name
F P F P F P F P
1 SHG 16 13.33 16 13.33 - - 88 73.33
2 Village level committee 7 05.83 6 5.00 1 0.83 106 88.33
3
Village cooperative
society
4 03.33 4 3.33 - - 112 93.33
4 Gram panchayat 2 01.77 1 0.83 1 0.83 116 96.77
5 Farmers club 12 10.00 12 10 - - 96 80.00
6 Youth club 6 05.00 3 2.50 3 2.50 108 90.00
7 J aikisan group 10 08.33 10 8.33 - - 100 83.33
8
Cotton cooperative
society
3 02.50 3 2.50 - - 114 95.00
Table 2: Contd..
d: Mass media exposure n=120
Extent of reading/listening/viewing
behavior
Possession/
subscription
Sl.
No.
Category Information
F P F P F P F P
General 30 25.00 62 51.77 28 23.33
1
News
paper
Agricultural
10 8.33
48 40.00 50 41.77 22 18.33
2
Agril.
magazine
Agricultural
14 11.77 13 10.83 1 0.83 106 88.33
General 2 1.77 26 21.77 92 76.77
3 Radio
Agricultural
19 15.83
9 7.50 10 8.33 101 84.17
General 11 9.17 78 65.00 31 25.83
4 T.V
Agricultural
103 85.83
88 73.33 18 15.00 14 11.77
4.1.5 Cropping intensity
The results in Table 3 revealed that higher proportion (79.17%) of FFS farmers had
cropping intensity of 200 per cent, followed by 18.33 per cent of farmers had grown crops for
three seasons and only two respondents had 150 per cent of cropping intensity. Only one
respondent had 100 per cent cropping intensity.
4.1.6 Participation level
The Table 4 revealed that 29.17 per cent of farmers participated in FFS activities
taking a lead role in games, while majority (66.77%) of respondents just participated in
activities and only 4.17 per cent of participants were observers of FFS activities like games.
It was also seen that 30 per cent of farmers equally participated taking a lead role in
short studies, CESA (drawing of CESA charts, presentation of CESA), group assignment,
insect zoo, long term experiment and field day, while 70 per cent of respondents participated
only equally in short studies, CESA (drawing of CESA charts, presentation of CESA), GD,
insect zoo, long term experiment and field day.
The results pertaining to distribution of FFS participants based on their characteristics
is presented in Table 5 and fig 2.
4.2.1 Age
The results presented in Table 5 indicate that 45.83 per cent of FFS participants were
middle, followed by young age category (37.50%) and 16.77 per cent were in old age
category.
4.2.2 Land holding
Higher proportion (35.83%) of FFS participants belong to small farmers category
followed by semi medium category (33.33%), marginal category (13.33%), medium
category (12.50%) and big farmers category (4.17%).
4.2.3 Income level
Income level of FFS participants, as observed from Table 5 revealed that, majority of
FFS participants (70.00%) belonged to high level of income group (>Rs. 51,000/-) followed
by medium level(20.00%) with income of Rs.34, 000/- to Rs. 51,000/- and only 10 per cent
of FFS participants found in semi-medium level of income group (Rs.17, 000/- to Rs. 34,000/-
). No farmer was found in low level (<Rs.17, 000/-) of income group.
The results showed in Table 5 that majority of FFS participants (55.00%) belonged to
medium extension contact category followed by low extension contact category (36.77%)
and only 8.33% 0f FFS participants belonged to high extension contact category.
4.2.5 Organization participation
The results shown in Table 5 depicts that majority of FFS participants (40.83%)
belonged to high level of organization participation and 4.16 per cent of farmers were in
medium level of organization participation. No farmer was found in low level of organization
participation category.
Mass media exposure of FFS participants, as observed from Table 5 revealed that,
majority of FFS participants (40.83%) belonged to low level of mass media exposure
followed by high level(37.50%) of mass media exposure and 21.77 per cent of FFS
participants belonged to medium level of mass media exposure.
Table 3: Cropping intensity of FFS participants
n =120
Cropping intensity index
Sl. No. Categories
Frequency Percentage
1 Up to 100 1 0.83
2 100 - 150 2 1.77
3 150 - 200 95 79.17
4 >200 22 18.33
Table 4: Participati on l evel of farmers in FFS activities
n =120
Lead role Participation only Observation only
Sl.
No.
Statements
F P F P F P
1 Games /GD 35 29.17 80 66.77 5 4.17
2 Short studies 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0
3 a CESA 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0
36
30.00
84
70.00
0 0
c Presentation of CESA 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0
4 Group assignment 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0
5 Insect zoo 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0
6 Long term experiment 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0
7 Field day 36 30.00 84 70.00 0 0
Table 5: Distribution of FFS participants based on thei r characteristics
n =120
Sl.
No.
Characteristics Categories Frequency Percentage
Young age (up to 31 years) 45 37.50
Middle age (31 to 50 years) 55 45.83
1 Age
Old age (above 50 years) 20 16.77
Marginal (up to 2.5 acre) 16 13.33
Small (2.51-5.00 acre) 43 35.83
Semi medium (5.01-10.00acre) 40 33.33
Medium (10.01-25.00acre) 15 12.50
2 Land holding
Big (>25.00 acres) 5 4.17
Low income (upto Rs 17000) 0 0.00
Semi medium income ( Rs 17001-
34000) 12 10.00
Medium income ( Rs 34001-
51000) 24 20.00
3 Annual income
High income ( >Rs 51000) 84 70.00
Low (<1.33) 44 36.77
Medium (1.33 2.21) 66 55.00
High (>2.21) 10 8.33
4 Extension contact
Mean =1.775 SD =1.04
Low (<0.44) 66 55.00
Medium (0.44 1.46) 5 4.17
High (>1.46) 49 40.83
5 Organization
participation
Mean =0.95 SD =1.19
Low ( <4.03) 49 40.83
Medium (4.03 5.94) 26 21.77
High (>5.94) 45 37.50
6 Mass media
exposure
Mean =4.99 SD =2.24
Low (<33.29) 38 31.77
Medium (33.29 38.82) 26 21.77
High ( >38.82) 56 46.77
7 Innovativeness
Mean =36.82 SD =6.50
Low ( <3.79) 59 49.17
Medium (3.79 5.30) 31 25.83
High ( >5.30) 30 25.00
8 Farm resources
Mean =4.55 SD =1.78
Fig.2: Profile of the FFS respondents
4.2.7 Innovativeness
The data presented in Table 5 shows that more than half (56.00%) of FFS
participants were found in high innovativeness category, followed by low innovativeness
categories(38.00%) and medium innovativeness categories (26.00%) .
4.2.8 Farm resources
Farm resources of the farmers were computed by considering the different resources
like land, water, livestock and material possession. Farm resources of FFS participants, as
observed from Table 5 indicates that, majority of FFS participants (49.00%) belonged to low
level of farm resources followed by medium level(25.83%) and high level (25.00%) of farm
resource base.
4.3 Knowledge level of FFS and Non FFS farmers about integrated
4.3.1 Extent of knowledge of FFS and non FFS farmers about cotton ICM
practices
The result presented in Table 6 depicts the knowledge level of FFS and Non FFS
farmers about integrated crop management (ICM) practices in cotton crop. The knowledge
level of participants about different practices under different components is presented below.
I. Integrated Seed Management
It was observed that all the FFS farmers had correct knowledge about all the
integrated seed management practices. Whereas, incase of non FFS farmers majority had
correct knowledge about seed rate (100.00%), followed by variety/hybrid (95.00%) and
spacing (95.00%) and dibbling depth (80.00%). The low level of knowledge was observed in
required seed germination percentage and intercropping (18.00%). Whereas, none of the
non FFS farmers had knowledge about germination test.
II. Integrated Nutrient Management
In case of nutrient management practices, all the FFS participants possessed correct
knowledge about all most all of the practices such as, benefit of soil test, FYM quantity/acre,
time of application of FYM, vermicomposting, application of chemical fertilizers. While,
seventy five per cent of respondents had correct knowledge about ZnSo
4
quantity/acre, time
of application as well as method of application.
It is interesting to note that all non FFS participants had also correct knowledge about
chemical fertilizers, followed by FYM quantity/acre(90.00%), time of application of basal
fertilizers(85.00%), and time of FYM application(60.00%), method of fertilizer application.
Fifty per cent of respondents know about benefit of soil testing and vermicomposting. None
of non FFS farmers had knowledge of ZnSo
4
application in cotton crop.
III. Integrated Water Management
The findings about the knowledge related to water management showed that, all FFS
participants had correct knowledge on irrigation methods and irrigation criteria in cotton
crop, followed by critical stage of irrigation(75.00%). Majority (70.00%) of non FFS
participants had correct knowledge on irrigation method, irrigation criteria (20.00%) and
critical stage of irrigation (10.00%).
IV. Integrated Pest and Disease Management
All FFS farmers had correct knowledge of insect identification, IPM practices,
beneficial insects, diseases identification and disease management followed by Prey for
beneficial insect and No. of prey eaten by beneficial insect per day (90.00%). In case of non
FFS participants more than half (55.00%) had knowledge regarding disease management
followed by insect identification (40.00%). Only 5 per cent of non FFS farmers had
knowledge about beneficial insects, IPM practices and disease management. None of non
FFS farmers knew about prey for beneficial insects and No. of prey to be fed by beneficial
insects per day.
Table 6: Extent of knowledge of FFS and non FFS farmers about cotton ICM practi ces
FFS Farmers
(n
1
=120)
Non FFS Farmers
(n
2
=60)
Sl.
No.
Practices
F P F P
I Integrated Seed Management
1 Variety /Hybrid 120 100.00 57 95.00
2 Required seed germination % 120 100.00 18 30.00
3 Germination test 120 100.00 00 00.00
4 Seed rate /acre 120 100.00 60 100.00
5 Spacing 120 100.00 57 95.00
6 Dibbling depth 120 100.00 48 80.00
7 Intercrop 120 100.00 18 30.00
II Integrated Nutrient Management
1 Benefit of soil test 120 100.00 30 50.00
2.1 FYM quantity/acre 120 100.00 54 90.00
2.2 Time of FYM application 120 100.00 36 60.00
3 Vermicompost manure 120 100.00 30 50.00
4 Basal dose of fertilizer - quantity 120 100.00 06 10.00
4.1 Time of application 120 100.00 51 85.00
4.2 Method of application 120 100.00 24 40.00
4.3 Top dressing of fertilizer - quantity 120 100.00 03 05.00
5.1 ZnSo
4
- quantity 90 75.00 00 00.00
III Integrated Water Management
1 Critical stage of irrigation 90 75.00 06 10.00
2 Irrigation method 120 100.00 42 70.00
3 Irrigation criteria 120 100.00 12 20.00
IV Integrated Pest & Disease Management
1 Insect pest identification 120 100.00 24 40.00
2 IPM measures 120 100.00 03 05.00
3 Beneficial insects 120 100.00 03 05.00
4 Prey for beneficial insects 90 75.00 00 00.00
5
No. of prey to be fed by beneficial
insects per day
90 75.00 00 00.00
6 Disease identification 120 100.00 33 55.00
7 Management of diseases 120 100.00 03 05.00
8.1 5% NSKE component 120 100.00 12 20.00
8.2 Method of preparation 5% NSKE 120 100.00 06 10.00
8.3 Purpose of use of 5% NSKE 120 100.00 12 20.00
9.1 3%Chilli-Garlic extract component 120 100.00 06 10.00
9.2
Method of preparation of 3%Chilli-
Garlic extract
120
100.00
03 05.00
9.3
Purpose of use of 3%Chilli-Garlic
extract
120 100.00 06 10.00
All FFS farmers had correct knowledge about 5%NSKEand 3% Chilli-garlic extract,
the component used in their preparation, method of preparation and purpose of use of both
organic preparations. Whereas, almost all non FFS farmers had no knowledge about these
organic preparation. Only 20 per cent of non FFS farmers had knowledge about components
used in 5% NSKE preparation as well as its purpose of use and very less (10.00%) knew
about 5% NSKE and 3% chilli-garlic preparation method, components in 3%chilli-garlic
preparation. Only three non FFS farmers knew about 3% chilli-garlic preparation method.
4.3.2 Knowledge index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS
farmers
The data related to mean knowledge index of FFS and Non FFS farmers about
different components of cotton ICM practices such as integrated seed management,
integrated nutrient management, integrated water management and integrated pest & disease
management is presented in Table 7 and fig 3. There exists highly significant difference in
mean knowledge index of FFS and non FFS farmers. The data reveals that, wide gap in
mean knowledge index was observed in case of integrated pest and disease management
(92.85% & 18.33%), followed by integrated nutrient management (91% & 28.68%),
integrated seed management (100% & 60.62%) and integrated water management (65% &
33.33%). The gap between overall mean knowledge index (97.33% & 33.51%) of FFS and
non FFS farmers, respectively was also high.
4.3.3 Distribution of FFS and non FFS famers based on knowledge level
about Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices of cotton crop
The data in Table 8 and fig 4 pertains to the knowledge level of FFS and non FFS
farmers about ICM practices of cotton. It was observed that relatively high (65.00%) per cent
of FFS farmers were in high knowledge level category, followed by low knowledge level
category (33.33%). Whereas, in case of non FFS farmers high (43.33%) per cent of farmer
were in medium knowledge level category, followed by low knowledge level category
(31.77%) and high knowledge level category (25.00%).
practices in cotton by FFS and non FFS farmers
4.4.1 Extent of adoption of recommended Integrated Crop Management (ICM)
practices of cotton by FFS and non FFS farmers
The data presented in Table 9 shows the extent of adoption of various ICM practices
in cotton by FFS and non FFS farmers. The results are presented under different components
as below.
I. Integrated Seed management
It is clear from the table that all FFS and non FFS farmers had fully adopted
variety/hybrid as well as seed rate followed by spacing and dibbling depth by over
seventy per cent of respondents. Over fifty per cent of FFS farmers fully adopted germination
test and very meager per cent had adopted Intercropping (5.83%). Whereas, none of non
FFS farmers adopted germination test as well as intercropping. It is interesting to observe
that high per cent (57.50%) of non FFS farmer partially adopted seed per hill than the FFS
farmers (37.50%). Further thirty per cent of FFS farmers partially adopted dibbling depth,
spacing (24.17%) and germination test (21.77%). Whereas, equal (18.33%) number of non
FFS farmers partially adopted spacing as well as dibbling depth. Over ninety per cent of
FFS farmers had not adopted intercropping and only 24.17 per cent farmers had not adopted
germination test.
It can be seen from the table that all FFS and non FFS farmers fully adopted time of
application of basal dose of fertilizer followed by FYM quantity (75%). Overall it was
observed that, FFS farmers had adopted more number of improved technologies than the non
FFS farmers.
Table 7: Knowledge index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS farmers
Mean knowledge index
Sl.
No.
Components of ICM
FFS farmers Non FFS farmers
t value
1 Integrated Seed Management 100 60.62 39.33**
2 Integrated Nutrient
Management
91.25 28.68
42.83**
3 Integrated Water management 65.00 33.33 14.65**
4 Integrated Pest and disease
management
92.85 18.33
48.30**
5 Overall 97.33 33.51 54.33**
**=significant at 1 % level
Table 8: Distribution of FFS participants according to their knowledge level about
Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices of cotton crop
n =120
FFS farmers (n=120) Non FFS farmers (n=60)
Sl.
No.
Categories
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
1 Low 40 33.33 19 31.77
2 Medium 02 01.77 26 43.33
3 High 78 65.00 15 25.00
Mean =37.93 Mean =12.40
SD =1.51 SD =3.88
Fig.3: Knowledge index of FES and Non FFS farmers
Fig.4: Distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their knowl edge level
about ICM practices in cotton crop
The higher difference can be observed in case of method of basal fertilizer dose
application (83.33% & 5%), time of FYM application (77.50% & 20%), vermicompost
manuring (64.17% & 7.50%) and quantity of fertilizer for top dressing (49.17% & 5%). Over
seventy per cent of FFS farmers fully adopted method of top dressing fertilizer followed by
quantity of basal dose of fertilizer (59.17%) and time of top dressing of fertilizers (49.17%).
ZnSo
4
quantity (48.33%), time of application (53.33%) method of application (19.17%) was
adopted only by FFS farmers, while none of the non FFS farmers adopted these practices.
All non FFS farmers had partially adopted quantity of basal dose of fertilizer followed
by method of basal fertilizer dose application (87.50%). Equal (43.33%) per cent of non FFS
farmers had partially adopted time of FYM application, time of top dressing fertilizer and
method of top dressing of fertilizer. Over thirty per cent of FFS farmers partially adopted
quantity of basal fertilizer, quantity of top dressing fertilizer as well as time of top dressing
fertilizer.
Majority (87.50%) of non FFS farmers had not adopted vermicompost manure and
equal (57.50%) per cent had not adopted quantity of top dressing fertilizer, time of top
dressing fertilizer as well as method of top dressing fertilizer whereas, only few of FFS
farmers were not adopted the same practices.
III. Integrated Water management
In case of water management 23.33 and 21.77 per cent of FFS farmers had fully
adopted irrigation method and critical stage of irrigation, respectively. Very less i.e. 15 per
cent and 13.33 per cent had partially adopted critical stage of irrigation and irrigation
method, respectively. While, higher proportion (63.33%) of FFS farmers had not adopted
irrigation method and critical stages of irrigation. While none of non FFS farmers adopted
water management practices.
IV. Integrated Pest and Disease management
The findings about the extent of pest and disease management practices showed that
all FFS and non FFS farmers fully adopted summer ploughing. Whereas, over seventy per
cent of FFS farmers had fully adopted conservation of beneficial insect and 5% NSKE
application and fifty five per cent of farmers had adopted 3% chilli-garlic extract application.
Less then half had fully adopted physical destruction of adult insect (48.33%). Very less no
of FFS farmers fully adopted trap cropping (35.83%), Trichogramma card release (20.00%)
and chemical spray for disease control (14.17%). Only five non FFS farmers had fully
adopted chemical spray for insect control and only three farmers adopted trap cropping.
Majority (66.77%) of FFS farmers and only forty per cent of non FFS farmers partially
adopted chemical spray for disease control. Over thirty per cent FFS farmer and 27.50 per
cent non FFS farmers were partially adopted trap cropping. It is interesting to observe that
relatively high per cent (45.00%) of non FFS farmers partially adopted chemical spray for
insect pest control than the FFS farmers (30.83%). Whereas, practices like Trichogramma
card release (32.50%) followed by conservation of beneficial insect (23.33%) and 3%chilli-
garlic extract (18.33%), 5%NSKE application (15.00%) had partially adopted by FFS
farmers.
Majority (69.17%) of FFS farmers had not adopted chemical spray for insect pest
control followed by physical destruction of adult insect (51.77%), Trichogramma card
release (47.50%). Thirty per cent of FFS farmers had not adopted trap cropping and very
few had not adopted chemical spray for disease control (19.77%), 5% NSK
application(13.33%). None of non FFS farmers had adopted 'conservation of beneficial
insect, Trichogramma card release, physical destruction of insect, 5%NSKE and 3%chilli-
garlic extract. Over sixty per cent of non FFS farmers had not adopted trap cropping as well
as chemical spray for disease control and nearly half (47.50%) of non FFS farmers had not
adopted chemical for insect pest control.
4.4.2 Adoption index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS
farmers
The data related to mean adoption index of FFS and Non FFS farmers about different
components of cotton ICM practices are presented in Table 10 and fig 5. There exists highly
significant difference in mean adoption index of FFS and non FFS farmers.
Table 9: Extent of Adoption of recommended Integrated Crop Management (ICM)
practices of cotton by FFS parti cipants
FFS farmers (n
1
=120) Non FFS farmers (n
2
=60)
Sl.
No.
Practices
Full Partial Not Full Partial Not
I Integrated Seed Management
1 Variety/hybrid
120
(100.00)
- -
60
(100.00)
- -
2 Germination test
65
(54.17)
26
(21.77)
29
(24.17)
- -
60
(100.00)
3 Seed rate
120
(100.00)
- -
60
(100)
- -
4 Spacing
91
(75.83)
29
(24.17)
-
42
(70.00)
11
(18.33)
7
(12.50)
5 Dibbling depth
87
(72.50)
33
(27.50)
0
42
(70.00)
11
(18.33)
7
(12.50)
6 Intercropping
7
(5.83)
0
113
(94.17)
0 0
60
(100)
II Integrated Nutrient Management
1 FYM quantity/acre
90
(75.00)
30
(25.00)
00
45
(75.00)
12
(20.00)
03
(05.00)
2
Time of FYM
application
93
(77.50)
27
(22.50)
00
12
(20.00)
26
(43.33)
22
(37.50)
3
Vermicompost
manure
77
(64.17)
26
(21.77)
17
(14.17)
05
(7.50)
03
(2.50)
52
(87.50)
4.1
Basal dose of fertilizer
- quantity/acre
71
(59.17)
49
(40.83)
00 00
60
(100.00)
00
4.2 Time of application
120
(100.00)
00 00
60
(100)
00 00
4.3
Method of
application(ring/row)
100
(83.33)
16
(13.33)
4
(3.33)
03
(5.00)
52
(87.50))
05
(7.50)
5.1
Top dressing of
fertilizer -
quantity/acre
59
(49.17)
44
(36.77)
17
(14.17)
03
(5.00)
23
(37.50)
34
(57.50)
59
(49.17)
44
(36.77)
17
(14.17)
00
26
(43.33)
34
(57.50)
5.3
Method of
application(ring/row)
88
(73.33)
15
(12.50)
17
(14.17)
00
26
(43.33)
34
(57.50)
6.1
ZnSo
4
- quantity/acre
(4kg)
58
(48.33)
9
(07.50)
53
(44.17)
00 00
60
(100.00)
Table 9. Contd..
FFS farmers (n
1
2
=60)
Sl.
No.
Practices
Full Partial Not Full Partial Not
64
(53.33)
3
(02.50)
53
(44.17)
00 00
60
(100.00)
6.3
Method of
application(soil
application)
23
(19.17)
34
(28.33)
63
(52.50)
00 00
60
(100.00)
III Integrated Water Management
1
Critical stage of
irrigation
26
(21.77)
18
(15.00)
76
(63.33)
00 00
60
(100.00)
2
Irrigation method
(drip/furrow/paired
row)
28
(23.33)
16
(13.33)
76
(63.33)
00 00
60
(100.00)
IV Integrated Pest & Disease Management
1 Summer ploughing
120
(100.00)
00 00
60
(100.00)
00 00
2 Trap cropping
43
(35.83)
41
(34.17)
36
(30.00)
03
(5.00)
17
(27.50)
40
(66.66)
3
Conservation of
beneficial insect
88
(73.33)
00
32
(26.77)
00 00
60
(100.00)
4
Trichogramma card
release
24
(20.00)
39
(32.50)
57
(47.50)
00 00
60
(100.00)
5
Physical destruction
of adult insect
58
(48.33)
00
62
(51.77)
00 00
60
(100.00)
6 5% NSKE
86
(71.77)
18
(15.00)
16
(13.33)
00 00
60
(100.00)
7 3%Chilli-garlic extract
66
(55.00)
22
(18.33)
32
(26.77)
00 00
60
(100.00)
8
Chemical spray for
insect pest
-
37
(30.83)
83
(69.17)
05
(7.50)
27
(45.00)
28
(47.50)
9
Chemical spray for
diseases
17
(14.17)
80
(66.77)
23
(19.77)
-
24
(40.00)
36
(60.00)
Note: The figures mentioned in parenthesis indicate percentage.
Table 10: Adoption index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS farmers
Mean adoption index
Sl.
No.
Components of ICM
FFS farmers
Non FFS
farmers
t value
1 Integrates Seed Management 73.21 62.73 6.07**
2 Integrated Nutrient Management 72.60 33.75 15.34**
3 Water management 29.40 0.00 5.53**
4 Pest and disease management 55.80 18.88 18.17**
5 Overall 62.71 32.71 20.17**
**=significant at 1 % level
Table 11: Distri bution of FFS participants according to their adoption level about
Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices of cotton crop
FFS farmers (n
1
2
=60) Sl. No. Adoption category
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
1 Low 36 30.00 26 43.33
2 Medium 43 35.83 18 30
3 High 41 34.17 16 26.66
Mean =40.84 Mean =20.28
SD =6.85 SD =2.51
Fig.5: Adoption index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS farmers
Fig.6: Di stri bution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their adoption level
The mean overall adoption index of FFS farmers is high in case of integrated seed
management (73.21% & 62.73%). Whereas, the higher difference was observed in case of
integrated nutrient management (72.56% & 33.75%) and integrated pest and disease
management (55.78% & 18.88%). It is also seen that in case of integrated water
management FFS farmers had less (29.37%) mean adoption index while non FFS farmers
mean adoption index was zero. The gap between overall mean adoption index of FFS and
non FFS farmers (62.71% & 32.71%) was also high.
4.4.3 Distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their adoption
level about Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices of cotton crop
The data presented in Table 11 fig 6 pertains to the adoption level of FFS and non
FFS farmers about ICM practices of cotton. It is observed that majority (35.83%) of FFS
farmers were found in medium adoption category whereas, non FFS farmers were in low
adoption category (43.33%) followed by medium adoption category (30.00%) and less were
found in high adoption category (26.66%). Further, 34.17 per cent of FFS farmers were in
high adoption category followed by low adoption category (30.00%).
4.4.4 Comparison of mean yield levels of FFS and non FFS farmers
The data presented in Table 12 and fig 7 depicts that FFS farmers obtained higher
mean yield (7.85q/acre) of cotton than the non FFS farmers (6.25q/acre). The gap in the
mean yield level was 1.60q/acre and 25.60 percentage of increase in the yield in case of FFS
farmers .This shows the positive impact of FFS programme on ICM practices in cotton crop
adopted by FFS participants.
4.5.1.1 Association of method of selection of FFS participant with knowledge and adoption
The data in Table 13a indicate the association of method of participants selection
with knowledge and adoption level of FFS participants. It is clear from results that there exists
a highly significant difference in knowledge as well as adoption with respect to different
methods of selection of FFS participants. Majority (42.50% & 23.33%) of FFS farmers were
found in high knowledge and adoption category, respectively in case where participants were
selected by sign and symptoms method. While, less number (25.00% & 20.83%) of farmers
were found in low knowledge and adoption category, respectively in case of method where
participants were selected through listing by village leader. It means sign and symptoms
method for selection of the participants is most appropriate for selection of interested and
enthusiastic farmers (fig 7).
4.5.1.2 Association of location of plot with knowledge and adoption level of FFS participants
The data in Table 13a showed the association of plot selection with knowledge and
adoption level of FFS participants. There is no significant difference exists in knowledge and
adoption level of participants with respect to plot location. Whereas, a highly significant
difference was observed in knowledge as well as adoption level of farmers with respect to
representativeness of plot and accessability to them. Majority (65.00% & 34.17%) of the
farmers were found in high knowledge as well as adoption category, respectively where plot
was totally represented as well as where plot was always access to them. The farmers
knowledge level and adoption level was low in case of restricted access to plot as well as
where plot is not representative(fig 7).
4.5.2 Association of nature of collaborator with knowledge and adoption level
of FFS participants
The data presented in Table 13b depict that collaborator nature found to be not
associated with knowledge and adoption level of FFS farmers. Collaborator is the farmer who
provides his/her field to conduct the FFS programme. He/she is one among the FFS
participants (fig 8).
Table 12: Comparison of mean yiel d levels of cotton of FFS and non FFS farmers
Mean yield FFS farmers
(n
1
=120)
Non FFS farmers
(n
2
=60)
Yield gap
(%)
Cotton (q/acre) 7.85 6.25 25.60
Table 13a: Associ ati on of method of selection of FFS participant with knowledge and
adoption l evel of FFS participants
n =120
1. Method of selection of FFS participants
Knowledge level category Adoption level category
Sl.
No.
Methods
Low Medium High Total 2 Low Medium High Total 2
a
Sign and
symptoms
10
(8.33)
0
51
(42.5)
61
12
(10)
21
(17.50)
28
(23.33)
61
b
Group
discussion
0 0
9
(7.50)
9 0
2
(1.77)
7
(5.83)
9
c
Listing by
village leader
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
18
(15)
50
33.13**
25
(20.83)
19
(15.83)
6
(5.00)
50
26.41**
2. Plot selection
2.1 Location of plot
a Up to 0.5
34
(28.33)
1
(0.83)
72
(60)
107
31
(25.83)
40
(33.33)
36
(30)
107
b >0.5
6
(5.00)
1
(0.83)
6
(5)
13
4.69
NS
6
(5)
2
(1.77)
5
(4.16)
13
2.79
NS
2.2 Representativeness of plot
a Total
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
78
(65)
110
27
(22.50)
42
(35)
41
(34.17)
110
b Partial
10
(8.33)
0 0 10
10
(8.33)
0 0 10
c No 0 0 0 0
21.81**
0 0 0 0
58.77**
2.3 Accessibility to the plot
a Always
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
78
(65)
110
27
(22.50)
42
(35)
41
(34.17)
110
b Sometime
10
(8.33)
0 0 10
10
(8.33)
0 0 10
c Restricted 0 0 0 0
21.81**
0 0 0 0
58.77**
** =significant at 1% level, NS =non significant
Fig.7: Comparison of mean yield levels of cotton of FFS and non FFS farmers
4.5.3 Association of FFS events with knowledge and adoption level of FFS
participants
The data presented in Table 13c shows that there is no association exists between
knowledge level of FFS farmers with number of sessions, regularity of sessions and CESA
duration. Whereas, a highly significant difference exist in adoption level of farmers. The equal
proportion (30.83%) of farmers were found in high adoption category and medium adoption
category in case of no. of sessions conducted up to 15 and more than 15, respectively.
Whereas, majority (29.17%) were found in medium adoption category in case, where
sessions were conducted regularly. Majority (33.33%) of farmers were found in medium
adoption category in case of CESA conducted more than 2 hours. While, only 1.77 per cent
of farmers were found in medium adoption category in case where CESA was conducted up
to 2 hours.
Data showed that a highly significant difference exists in knowledge as well as
adoption with respect to insect zoo, short studies and special topics. Majority (39.17% &
19.17%) of farmers were found in high knowledge and low adoption category in case of
insect zoo conducted to study about 5-6 insect life cycles, respectively. Similarly, majority
(78.00% & 42.00%) had high knowledge and medium adoption, respectively in case, where
short studies like germination test as well as water holding capacity were conducted.
Majority of farmers (78.00% & 42.00%) were found in high knowledge and medium adoption
category, respectively in case of vermicomposting method demonstration. It was also
observed in the table that, there is no relationship exists between long term studies with
respect to knowledge and adoption level of partcicpants (fig 8).
4.5.4 Association of nature of facilitators with knowledge and adoption level of
FFS participants
The data presented in Table 13d depicts that no association was observed between
knowledge levels of farmers with different nature of facilitators. Whereas, highly significant
difference exists in adoption level of farmers with respect to nature of facilitator. It was seen
that majority (30.00%) of the farmers were found in medium adoption category in case,
where facilitators were having medium communication skill, regular in conducting sessions
and have involvement characteristics. None of participants adopted technology where
facilitators had low communication skill, regularity of conducting sessions and involvement
(fig 8).
Table 13b: Association of nature of coll aborator with knowledge and adoption level of FFS
participants
n =120
3. Nature of collaborator
3.1
Collaborator
category
Big farmer
19
(15.83)
2
(1.77)
46
(38.33)
67
20
(16.77)
21
(17.50)
26
(21.77)
67
Small
farmer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium
farmer
19
(15.83)
0
29
(24.17)
48
17
(14.17)
20
(16.77)
11
(9.17)
48
Margin
farmer
0 0 0 0
2.79
NS
0 0 0 0
3.29
NS
3.2 Resourcefulness of Collaborator
Land
L M H T L M H T
Fertile land
19
(15.83)
2
(1.77)
46
(38.33)
67
20
(16.77)
21
(17.50)
26
(21.77)
67
Moderate
land
19
(15.83)
0
29
(24.17)
48
17
(14.17)
20
(16.77)
11
(9.17)
48
Poor land 0 0 0 0
2.79
NS
0 0 0 0
3.29
NS
Material L M H T L M H T
Sufficient
farm
equipments
19
(15.83)
2
(1.77)
46
(38.33)
67
20
(16.77)
21
(17.50)
26
(21.77)
67
Moderate
19
(15.83)
0
29
(24.17)
48
17
(14.17)
20
(16.77)
11
(9.17)
48
Insufficient 0 0 0
2.79
NS
0 0 0 0
3.29
NS
Economic status
High
19
(15.83)
2
(1.77)
46
(38.33)
67
20
(16.77)
21
(17.50)
26
(21.77)
67
Moderate
19
(15.83)
0
29
(24.17)
48
17
(14.17)
20
(16.77)
11
(9.17)
48
Low 0 0 0 0
2.79
NS
0 0 0 0
3.29
NS
3.3 Cooperativeness of Collaborator #
High
38
(31.77)
2
(1.77)
75
(62.5)
115
37
(30.83)
41
(34.17)
37
(30.83)
115
Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
3.4 Innovativeness of Collaborator
High
19
(15.83)
2
(1.77)
46
(38.33)
67
20
(16.77)
21
(17.50)
26
(21.77)
67
Moderate
19
(15.83)
0
29
(24.17)
48
17
(14.17)
20
(16.77)
11
(9.17)
48
Low 0 0 0 0
2.79
NS
0 0 0 0
3.29
NS
* =significant at 5% level, ** =significant at 1% level, NS =non significant
#=in total FFS respondents five respondents were collaborator
Table 13c: Associati on of FFS events wi th knowl edge and adoption level of FFS
parti cipants
n =120
4. Sessions
4.1
No. of
sessions Low Medium High Total 2 Low Medium High Total 2
a Up to 15
10
(8.33)
0
29
(24.17)
39
17
(14.17)
5
(4.10)
37
(30.83)
59
b >15 to 20
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
49
(40.83)
81
2.76
NS
20
(16.77)
37
(30.83)
4
(11.77)
61
51.16**
4.2 Regularity of session
a
Most
Regular
10
(8.33)
1
(0.83)
23
(19.17)
34
5
(4.10)
7
(5.83)
22
(18.33)
34
b Regular
30
(25)
1
(0.83)
55
(45.83)
86
0.73
NS
32
(26.77)
35
(29.17)
19
(15.83)
86
19.76**
5. Activities
5.1 CESA duration
Up to 2
hrs
10
(8.33)
0
11
(9.17)
21 2.60
NS 14
(23.33)
2
(1.77)
5
(4.10)
21
16.11**
>2 hrs
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
67
(55.83)
99
23
(19.17)
40
(33.33)
36
(30)
99
5.2 Insect zoo number
Low (up
to 4)
20
(16.77)
0
20
(16.77)
40
23
(19.17)
11
(9.17)
6
(5.00)
40
Medium
(5-6)
0
2
(1.77)
47
(39.17)
49
11
(9.17)
20
(16.77)
18
(15)
49
High (>6)
20
(16.77)
0
11
(9.17)
31
44.35**
3
(2.50)
11
(9.17)
17
(14.17)
31
24.23**
5.3 Short studies
Germinati
on test
40
(33.33)
2
(1.77)
78
(65)
120
37
(30.83)
42
(35)
41
(34.17)
120
WHC
40
(33.33)
2
(1.77)
78
(65)
120
37
(30.83)
42
(35)
41
(34.17)
120
Sign &
symptoms
10
(8.33)
0
50
(41.77)
60
12
(10)
20
(16.77)
28
(23.33)
60
Tricho.
Card
preparatio
n
40
(33.33)
2
(1.77)
58
(48.33)
100
30
(25)
34
(28.33)
36
(30)
100
Seed
treatment
10
(8.33)
2
(1.77)
8
(6.77)
20
21.89**
3
(2.50)
4
(11.77)
13
(10.83)
20
34.94**
5.4 Long term studies
Varietal
selection
10
(8.33)
2
(1.77)
8
(6.77)
20
3
(2.50)
4
(11.77)
13
(10.83)
20
Defoliatio
n trial
20
(16.77)
2
(1.77)
38
(31.77)
60
14
(23.33)
25
(20.83)
21
(17.50)
60
Removal
of fruiting
bodies
40
(33.33)
2
(1.77)
78
(65)
120
7.18
NS
37
(30.83)
42
(35)
41
(34.17)
120
8.51
NS
5.5 Special topic
Vermicom
posting
40
(33.33)
2
(1.77)
78
(65)
120
37
(30.83)
42
(35)
41
(34.17)
120
Azolla
cultivation
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
48
(40)
80
19
(15.83)
30
(25)
31
(25.83)
Soil
sampling
method
10
(8.33)
0 0 10
17.65**
0
1
(0.83)
9
(7.5)
12.95*
* =significant at 5% level, ** =significant at 1% level, NS =non significant
4.6.1 Problems faced by FFS participants in FFS programme
The results presented in Table 14a showed that majority (20.83%) of farmers
expressed the problem in case of fixed day of conducting FFS session (other than Monday),
followed by timings of session (17.50%) and short duration of FFS programme (16.77%).
Whereas, few (12.50%) of FFS farmers expressed problem about insufficient time of
sessions as well as insufficient innovative practices.
4.6.2 Suggestion of FFS participants for successful conduct of FFS
programme
The data presented in Table 14b depicts that only some of the FFS respondents gave
suggestions for successful conduct of FFS programme such as, FFS sessions should be
conducted on Monday only (20.83%), followed by sessions should be conducted in
afternoon (17.50%), the duration of FFS programme should be extended (16.77%) and
games should be removed from FFS programme (14.77%). Very few (12.50%) respondents
suggested that timings of sessions should be increased from 2 hours to 4 hours as well as
FFS programme should include still more innovative practices.
Table 13d: Association of nature of facilitators with knowledge and adoption level of FFS
participants
n =120
6
Facilitators
nature
6.1 Communication skill
High
10
(8.33)
0
22
(18.33)
32
4
(11.77)
6
(5.00)
22
(18.33
)
32
Medium
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
56
(46.77)
88
33
(27.5)
36
(30)
19
(15.83
)
88
Low 0 0 0 0
0.87
N
S
0 0 0 0
23.32**
6.2 Regularity of conducting sessions
High
10
(8.33)
0
22
(18.33)
32
4
(11.77)
6
(5.00)
22
(18.33
)
32
Medium
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
56
(46.77)
88
33
(27.5)
36
(30)
19
(15.83
)
88
Low 0 0 0 0
0.87
N
S
0 0 0 0
23.32**
6.3 Involvement
High
10
(8.33)
0
22
(18.33)
32
4
(11.77)
6
(5.00)
22
(18.33
)
32
Medium
30
(25)
2
(1.77)
56
(46.77)
88
33
(27.5)
36
(30)
19
(15.83
)
88
Low 0 0 0 0
0.87
N
S
0 0 0 0
23.32**
** =significant at 1% level, NS =non significant
Table 14a: Probl ems faced by FFS participants in FFS programme
Sl.
No.
Problems Frequency Percentage
1 Fixed day of session (other than Monday) 25 20.83
2 Timings of session 21 17.50
3 Short duration of FFS programme 20 16.77
4 Insufficient time of session 15 12.50
5 Insufficient innovative practices 15 12.50
Table 14b: Suggestion of FFS parti ci pants for successful conduct of FFS programme
Sl.
No.
Suggestions Frequency Percentage
1 Time of session should increase from 2 hrs to 4 hrs 15 12.50
2 Sessions should be conducted in afternoon 21 04.17
3 FFS sessions should conduct on Monday 25 20.83
4 FFS programme duration should be increased 20 16.77
5 Games /GD should be removed from the programme 17 14.17
6 Include still more innovative practices 15 12.50
Fig.8: Conceptual frame work of farmers Field School
Plate 1. Long term experiment (seed to seed)
Plate 2. Learni ng through games
Plate 3. Taking observations in CESA
Plate 4. Presentation of CESA charts by FFS participants
5. DISCUSSION
The results of the study are discussed in this chapter under the following headings.
5.3 Knowledge level of FFS and Non FFS farmers about integrated crop
management (ICM) practices in cotton
5.4 Adoption level of the integrated crop management (ICM) practices in cotton by
FFS and non FFS farmers
5.1.1 Education
The data in Table (2a) reveals that high percentage of the FFS participants studied
up to primary school, high school and middle school level. Less number of respondents were
illiterate and equal number of respondents had college education and graduation. Only one
respondent was post graduate. It implies that the farmers with minimum education of primary
and middle school had shown inclination to participate in FFS. Recent past, changes were
observed in education level in rural areas because of realization of influence of formal
education in ones life. Availability of proper educational facilities in study area and having
interest in continuing education to improve standard of living. The above findings are
contradictory with findings of Savita (2008), where majority of beneficiaries of community
based tank management project were illiterates.
It is clear from the Table (2b) that among different extension personal UAS scientist
were contacted by relatively high percentage (3.33%) of respondents once in a week,
fortnightly (7.50%) and when needed (80%). Similarly Agriculture 0fficer (AOs) was
contacted by few (2.5%) Once in a week, fortnightly (1.77%) and when needed (53.33%).
Agriculture Assistants (AAs) were contacted by only four respondents when needed. Only
three respondents were contacted private company representative when needed. Over
ninety per cent of the respondents never contacted either AAs or private company
representatives and nearly half (42.50%) of respondents never contacted AOs.
The results indicate that in general the contact of farmers with extension
personnel is very low. As such no regular contacts are made with any of extension personal.
However, University scientists were contacted by majority followed by AOs when needed. So
this means FFS participants are relatively progressive and have a tendency of contacting
higher officials such as scientists and officers. It is also fact that UAS, Dharwad is located
closer to them. Hence, these personnels were contacted by relatively more number of
farmers when needed. The results are in contradictory with findings of Patil et al. (2007b),
where more number of cotton growers contacted Agriculture Assistants whenever needed.
5.1.3 Organizational participation
The results presented in the Table (2c) clearly depicts that higher proportion of
respondents were not member of any local organizations. However, 13.33 per cent were
having membership in SHGs with regular attendance, participation in Farm club activities was
regular (10.00%). Similarly other members found to have participated in Jaikisan group
(8.33%) with regular attendance. Few respondents were members in Village level committees
and attended meetings regularly. Very few respondents were member in Village Cooperative
Societies, Cotton Cooperative Societies and Gram panchayat. Less than five per cent of
members attended meetings regularly in the Village Cooperative Societies, Cotton
Cooperative Societies and Gram panchayat. Lower participation in Village Level
Organizations indicates that these organizations are not attracting farmers and not providing
many benefits. However, these organizations provide common platform to share the
information as well as team building. Hence, farmers should be empowered to participate in
these organizations. The results are in contradictory with the findings of Savita (2008), who
reported that all beneficiaries of community based tank management project had participated
in many of local organizations.
It could be seen from Table (2d) that, the majority (85.83%) of FFS respondents
possessed the Television and used it as main source of information for agriculture regularly
(73.33%) and occasionally (15%), while 9.17 per cent respondents viewed regularly,
occasionally (65%) for general information. Second important media was news papers,
subscribed by 8.33 per cent, 40 and 25 per cent of the respondents who used news papers
for agriculture as well as general purpose, while about fifty per cent of respondents used
occasionally agriculture (41.77%) and general information (51.77%). Radio was possessed by
15.83 per cent of respondents and they listened to the agriculture and general programmes
regularly ((7.50% & 1.77%), occasionally (21.77% & 8.33%), respectively. Among all
agricultural magazine were least used regularly (10.83%). Majority (88.33% and 84.17%) of
respondents were not used agricultural magazine and Radio as their sources of information
regarding agriculture respectively.
An overall view of mass media exposure revealed that higher proportion of FFS
participants used television as a measure source to know agriculture information. To be
successful agriprenure one needs day today information regarding improved cultivation
practices, market behavior, government policies etc. As Television has become an important
media used by family members for education and entertainment, it might have served as one
of the important source of information. The findings are in conformity with findings of Deepak
(2003), who reported that there were 82.67 per cent of beneficiaries of WYTEP programme
possessed television and 82.67 per cent used it regularly.
5.1.5 Cropping intensity
The results in Table 3 revealed that higher proportion (79.17%) of FFS farmers had
cropping intensity of 200 per cent, followed by more than two hundred per cent cropping
intensity (18.33%) and very meager per cent of farmers had cropping intensity up to 100- 150
per cent. It was observed during investigations that majority of farmers were growing the
cotton which spread to two crop season resulting in cropping intensity of 200 per cent. This is
clear that farmers were growing crops for two season and vey less farmers utilizing their land
for three seasons. Hence, variation is found in cropping intensity. The results are in line with
the findings of Wondang (2010), she reported that, majority of demonstrator farmers had high
cropping intensity.
5.1.6 Participation level
It is evident from table 4 that all FFS farmers had participated in different activities
whereas few have taken lead role in participation of activities. Higher proportion (70%) of
farmers were just participated in FFS activities such as short studies, CESA (drawing of
CESA charts, presentation of CESA), group assignment, insect zoo, long term experiment
and field day. While, thirty per cent of farmers were participated in above FFS activities taking
a lead role. Whereas, majority (66.77%) of respondents were just participated, while 29.17
per cent of respondents participated by taking lead role in case of games/group dynamics.
Few of the farmers were observed the games/group dynamics activities.
FFS is participatory extension method, that emphasis on farmers initiative and action
in all activities. The technical staff plays the role of facilitators. The activities such as CESA,
short studies, insect zoo etc are designed to stimulate farmers participation in learning by
experimenting and observation. Hence, the higher participation was observed. However few
members had taken lead role and majority had just participated.

5.2.1 Age
The results revealed that majority (45.83%) of FFS participants were belonged to
middle age group (Table 5). It shows middle aged farmers had shown more interest to
participate in FFS and to acquire improved knowledge on ICM practices in cotton crop. The
middle aged farmers are generally more innovative and ready to adopt the new technologies.
The findings of the present study are in contradictory with the findings of Sushma (2007), she
reported that, majority of the EDP trained womens were belonged to young aged group.
5.2.2 Land holding
The distribution of respondents according to land holding as presented in Table 5
revealed that majority of FFS participants belonged to small (35.83%) and semi medium
(33.33%) farmers category. Very few (4.17%) of FFS participants belonged to big farmers
category. It means most of the medium and semi medium farmers participated in FFS. The
results are in conformity with findings of Savita (2008). In her study majority of beneficiaries of
community based tank management project were found in medium farmers category.
5.2.3 Income level
The results regarding income level indicated that majority (70%) of respondents had
high income level followed, by medium income level (20%) and only 10 per cent of the
respondents had semi medium income level and no respondent was found in low income
level. As indicated earlier, the farmers in this region are growing commercial crops like cotton
and sugarcane. Hence, their income levels are high though their landholdings are smaller.
The results are in conformity with the findings of Sudhir (2009) who reported that, majority of
cotton growers had high income level.
Majority (55%) of FFS farmers belonged to medium extension contact category and
only 36.77 per cent were noticed in high extension contact category. The possibility of getting
information from informal sources and non availability of extension workers at the time of
farmers need might be the possible reasons for the situation. In view of this Dept. of
Agriculture should make arrangement to ensure availability of extension workers and improve
their capacity for solving the problems of farmers. The results are in line with the findings of
Venkatashivareddy (2006) who reported that, majority of vegetable growers were belonged to
medium extension contact category.
5.2.5 Organization participation
The results presented in table 5 depicts that, majority of farmers were not the
member of any of the local organization and more than one third of FFS farmers were
belonged to high organizational participation category. The local organizations had not
influenced the farmer to become members in local organization. The results are in
contradictory with findings of Savita (2008). She had reported that majority of beneficiaries of
community based tank management project were belonged to medium organization
participation category.
The distribution of respondents according to mass media exposure presented in
Table 5 revealed that, majority of FFS farmers were belonged to low mass media exposure
(40.83%) category followed by high mass media exposure (37.50%). It was observed that
mass media such as radio and news papers were used by very less number of farmers. Less
utility of News papers, radio sets and farm magazines could be attributed to these findings.
The same results were observed by Munikishore (2006) in case of beneficiaries of Sujala
watershed project.

5.2.7 Innovativeness
The results in Table 5 revealed that majority of respondents belonged to high
innovativeness category followed by low innovativeness category. The reason might be that,
since majority of FFS participants belonged to young aged group and growing cash crops
such as cotton and sugarcane which needs more innovativeness, to understand new
methods and adopt them. The results are in contradictory with the results of Suresh (2004). In
his study he reported that, majority of milk producers were belonged to medium
innovativeness category.
5.2.8 Farm resources
The results presented in table 5 depicts that nearly fifty per cent of FFS farmers
belonged to low farm resource category followed by medium farm resource (25.83%)
category. High proportions of farmer were in small and semi medium type of farmers category
therefore they fall under low and medium farm resource categories.
5.3 Knowledge level of FFS and Non FFS farmers about integrated
5.3.1 Extent of knowledge level of FFS and non FFS farmers about cotton
ICM practices
I. Integrated Seed management (SM)
It can be observed from Table 6 that all FFS farmers possessed correct knowledge in
all seed management practices. Whereas, higher proportion of non FFS farmers had
knowledge about seed rate (100%), variety/hybrid (95%), spacing (95%) and dibbling
depth (80%). However, majority of them lack knowledge with respect to required germination
percentage, germination test and intercropping. Dharwad is traditionally cotton growing
area where farmers were growing cotton since more than two decades. Hence, all farmers
possessed knowledge about variety/hybrid, seed rate, spacing and dibbling depth. The
FFS farmers have been educated about germination test and intercropping through short
studies. Hence, all FFS farmers were well known about these aspects.
Above findings are in line with the results of Yeshwant (2008). He observed that majority
of farmers had knowledge about seed management practices.
II. Integrated nutrient management (INM)
In case of nutrient management practices all FFS farmers had correct knowledge
about benefit of soil test, FYM quantity, time of application of FYM, vermicomposting,
application of chemical fertilizers. Higher proportion of non FFS farmers also had correct
knowledge about chemical fertilizer application, FYM quantity, time of basal fertilizer dose,
time of FYM application, method of fertilizer application, benefit of soil testing and
vermicomposting.
The traditionally followed practices such as FYM application and quantity of FYM is
well known by all the farmers. It is interesting to note that fifty per cent of non FFS farmers
knew about vermicompost manuring. As farmers generally apply chemical fertilizers in the
form of urea and DAP most of the non FFS farmers lack the knowledge about exact quantity
as a basal dose as well as for top dressing. Similarly over fifty per cent of them lack
knowledge about method of application. It means that these aspects are delt clearly with
demonstration and short studies to the FFS participants which is reflected in the results that
all FFS farmers knows about these aspects. The results also imply that ZnSo
4
application was
also delt in detail in FFS resulting into 75 per cent of FFS farmers having correct knowledge.
The findings are in conformity with Yeshwant (2008) who reported that higher
proportion of FFS participants had correct knowledge about benefit of soil test, depth of soil
sampling and size of vermicompost pit.

III. Integrated Water management (IWM)
The findings about the knowledge related to water management showed that, all FFS
participants had correct knowledge on irrigation methods and irrigation criteria in cotton
crop, followed by critical stage of irrigation(75%). Whereas, majority (70%) of non FFS
farmers were aware about irrigation method. Higher proportion of non FFS farmers lack
knowledge about irrigation criteria and critical stage of irrigation. It was observed during
investigation that only one third of total sample farmers had a irrigation facility. Hence, the
critical stages of irrigation and irrigation methods were found to be not applicable to them.
However, comparatively higher per cent of FFS farmers had correct knowledge about water
management practices than the non FFS farmers. Hence, FFS farmers were educated about
these practices through short study i.e Water Holding Capacity (WHC) of different soils and
criteria to irrigate.
Above findings are in line with the results of Yeshwant (2008), he observed that
majority of FFS participant are aware about method of irrigation and land leveling.
IV. Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPDM)
All FFS farmers had correct knowledge of insect identification, IPM practices,
beneficial insect, diseases identification and disease management, 5%NSKEand 3%
Chilli-garlic extract, the component used in their preparation, method of preparation and
purpose of use of both organic preparations followed by Prey for beneficial insect and No. of
prey eaten by beneficial insect per day (90%). None of the non FFS farmers knew about
prey for beneficial insect and No. of prey eaten by beneficial insect per day. Only few non
FFS farmers knew about botanicals (5%NSKE & 3% Chilli-garlic extract), beneficial insect,
IPM practices and disease management. In all FFS sessions, cotton ecosystem analysis
(CESA) was carried out which is the core activity of FFS. In CESA the participants take
observation on pest and predators population, plant growth parameters. Later they analyse
the information on number of insects and predators in relation to the stage of the crop growth.
CESA basically focuses on bringing the relationship between environment, pest and host. In
addition to this, they also conduct insect zoo where they observe the life cycle of insects and
relationship between predators and prey. Thus, they are given with a conviction that beneficial
insects have to be conserved to manage pests & disease. They were also impressed that
pests can be managed by using botanicals and very less chemicals. Initially FFS were
introduced to overcome the problem of pest & disease on important crops such as, cotton,
rice and tur etc. Hence, the curriculum is more tailored on pest & disease management
aspects. As observed in table, all FFS farmers had convinced on these aspects. Contrary to
this, general cotton farmers normally go for chemical spray. Hence, many of them do not
know the beneficial insects and their preys. They had not been exposed to use of botanicals.
Hence, they lack the knowledge. It is important to note that the low cost, environment friendly
approach of pest & disease management is essential for all cotton growers. Hence,
department of agriculture should make efforts in spreading this knowledge to rest of the
farmers through different extension activities like demonstration, exhibition and film shows
etc.
In case of non FFS farmers more than half (55%) had knowledge regarding disease
management followed by insect identification (40%). As cotton is commercial crop all
farmers were aware about these aspects. The results are in line with the findings of Yamini
and Rajendra (2007), who reported that, majority of FFS farmers had correct knowledge
about IPM than non FFS farmers.
5.3.2 Knowledge index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS
farmers
The data related to mean knowledge index of FFS and Non FFS farmers as presented
in Table 7 revealed that, there exists a wide gap in mean knowledge index of FFS and non
FFS farmers with respect to different component like pest and disease management
(92.85% & 18.33%) and integrated nutrient management (91% & 28.68%). As discussed
earlier FFS curriculum was more focused on INM and IPDM through conducting short studies
(5% NSKE preparation, 3% chilli-garlic extract preparation, Trichogramma card preparation,
use of yellow sticky trap etc.).

The knowledge level of FFS farmers about INM and IPDM aspects was quite higher than
non FFS farmers. Hence, the knowledge index was quite higher than non FFS farmers.
5.3.3 Distribution of FFS and non FFS famers according to their knowledge
The distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers based on knowledge level about ICM
practices of cotton presented in Table 8.revealed that majority (65%) of FFS farmers
belonged to high knowledge level category whereas, 43.33 per cent of non FFS farmers
were found in medium knowledge level category. As it was observed in Table 6 & 7 that,
higher proportion of FFS farmers had correct knowledge with respect to most of the ICM
practices in cotton such as seed management, integrated nutrient management, water
management and integrated pest and disease management than the non FFS farmers.
Majority of non FFS farmers were unaware of the many of the ICM practices. The results are
in contradictory with results of Yeshwant (2008) who reported that, over forty per cent of FFS
farmers were in medium knowledge level category.
practices in cotton by FFS and non FFS farmers
5.4.1 Extent of adoption of recommended Integrated Crop Management (ICM)
practices of cotton by FFS and non FFS farmers
I. Integrated Seed management
It is clear from the table 9 that all FFS and non FFS farmers had fully adopted
variety/hybrid as well as seed rate followed by spacing (75.83%), dibbling depth
(72.50%). The reason is that these are the traditional practices in cotton crop followed by all
cotton growers since long back. Hence, all farmers had correct knowledge and adopted these
practices. Over ninety per cent of FFS farmers had not adopted intercropping. Whereas,
none of non FFS farmers adopted germination test as well as intercropping. Farmers
normally dont conduct germination test as they bring certified or truthfully labeled (TL) seeds.
However FFS farmers had conducted germination test as its importance was felt to them in
FFS sessions. Intercropping was not adopted by FFS farmers also inspite of the fact that all
sample respondents had knowledge about it. During interaction with the farmers it was learnt
that intercropping of chilli and cotton was followed by farmers when they were growing
DCH32. It was discontinued since they are growing Bt cotton. Farmers believe that Bt cotton
has higher vegetative growth which suppresses the intercrop. There is need to evolve suitable
intercrop and management practices in case of Bt cotton. The results are in line with the
findings of Yeshwant (2008) who reported that, majority of FFS participants fully adopted
spacing.
All FFS and non FFS farmers were fully adopted time of basal fertilizer application
followed by FYM quantity (75%). FYM application was followed by farmers traditionally in
other crops also. Therefore both the farmers had adopted these practices.
INM practices such as time of FYM application, quantity of basal fertilizer as well as
method of application was fully adopted by FFS farmers. While these practices are partially
adopted by non FFS farmers. As cotton is commercial crop and require higher quantity of
nutrient. They have been using chemical fertilizers. However, non FFS farmers lack
knowledge of correct dose of fertilizer. Hence, they had applied partial dose. It is also
important to note that vermicompost manure, quantity of top dressing fertilizer, time of
application as well as method of application was followed fully by FFS farmers. While,
majority of non FFS farmers did not follow them. It is important to educate farmers on such a
no cost practices. In FFS special emphasis was given on ZnSo4 application, over fifty per
cent of FFS farmers were able to apply ZnSo4 as per recommendation and no non FFS
farmers adopted ZnSo4 application.

Thrust was given on balanced application of nutrient in FFS. Short studies on
vermicompost application and nutrient management were conducted in FFS. This resulted the
FFS farmers to adopted INM practices. It was observed that, none of non FFS farmers were
knew about these aspects hence, they had not adopted above mentioned practices. The
results are contradictory with findings of Yeshwant (2008). None of the FFS farmers adopted
INM practices.
III. Integrated Water management
Very less proportion of FFS farmers had adopted critical stage of irrigation and
irrigation method. While, majority had not adopted irrigation method and critical stages of
irrigation. Higher proportion of non FFS farmers had not adopted water management
practices. It was observed during data collection that two third of FFS farmers and all non
FFS farmers were not having irrigation facility and they are practicing rainfed cotton
cultivation. Hence, these respondents did not have opportunity to adopt these practices. The
results are in line with results of Yeshwant (2008), who reported that very few of FFS farmers
had adopted water management practices.
IV. Integrated Pest and Disease Management
All FFS and non FFS farmers were adopted the summer ploughing. The reason is
that it is a traditional practice followed in all other crops also. Higher proportion of FFS
farmers were fully adopted conservation of beneficial insect, 5% NSKE as well as 3% Chilli-
garlic extract. Heavy incidence of pests and disease was observed in cotton crop since many
years. That is one of the reasons to adopt FFS method for cotton crop. Hence, FFS farmers
were made to focus more on pest and disease management through conservation of natural
enemies and use of botanicals. In FFS, short studies such as sign and symptoms, 5%
NSKE, 3% Chilli-garlic extract preparation and use were conducted. In CESA farmers had
learnt the relationship of natural enemies and pest. These activities influenced the farmers to
adopt no cost practices. However, majority of FFS farmers had not adopted physical
destruction of adult insect and trichogramma card release. This was due to non availability
of labour as well as material.
It was observed that none of the non FFS farmers had adopted conservation of
beneficial insect, Trichogramma, physical destruction of adult insect, 5% NSKE and 3%
Chilli-garlic extract. As it was observed in table 6 non FFS farmer had no knowledge about
IPM measure, moreover after the introduction of Bt cotton farmers had taken less measure for
pest and disease control even though some of the farmers knew about these practices.
During interaction with non FFS farmers it was observed that farmers believes that there is no
need of any pest and disease management measure in Bt cotton cultivation because, there is
less incidence of pests and disease. However, it may be noted that due to lack of knowledge
on identification of pests and disease, farmers do not practice proper method. Hence, non
FFS farmers had not adopted any IPDM practices. The results are in conformity with results
of Mancini et al. (2007) who reported that, majority of FFS farmers adopted the IPM practices
than non FFS framers.
5.4.2 Adoption index of different components of ICM of FFS and Non FFS
farmers
The data related to mean adoption index of FFS and Non FFS farmers about different
aspects of cotton ICM practices presented in Table 10.
A wide gap was observed in mean adoption index of FFS and non FFS farmers in
case of integrated nutrient management as well as integrated pest and disease
management. As it is presented in Table 9 that higher proportion of FFS farmers had adopted
the practices with respect to INM and IPDM practices. It was observed that over one third of
FFS respondents were having irrigation facility and two third of farmers did not have
opportunity to adopt IWM. While, in case of non FFS farmers all are practicing rainfed cotton
cultivation. Hence, the mean adoption index of FFS farmers was low and non FFS farmers
was zero in case of integrated water management. As observed in Table 9 integrated seed
management practices were adopted by both FFS non FFS farmers. As such there was not
much difference between FFS and non FFS farmers.
5.4.3 Distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers according to their adoption
The data presented in Table 11 pertains to the distribution of FFS and non FFS
farmers into low medium and high adoption level categories. It was seen that relatively equal
proportion of FFS farmers were found in medium adoption category and high adoption
category. Whereas, higher proportion of non FFS farmers belonged to low adoption
category.
The results presented in table 9 & 10 made it clear that majority of FFS farmers had
adopted the ICM practices and their mean adoption index was higher than the non FFS
farmers. In Table 8 it was presented that higher proportion of FFS farmers had correct
knowledge with respect to seed management, integrated nutrient monument, integrated water
management and integrated pest and disease management practices. FFS farmers were able
to adopt these practices, as they are low cost and easy to adopt them. The similar results are
reported by Krishnamurthy (1999) who reported that, majority of FFS farmers were belonged
to medium adoption category.
5.4.4 Comparison of mean yield levels of FFS and non FFS farmers
The data presented in Table 12 depicts that FFS farmers obtained higher mean yield
(7.85q/acre) of cotton than the non FFS farmers (6.25q/acre). The FFS farmers obtained 1.6
q/acre more yield than non FFS farmers. As it was observed in table 9 that higher proportion
of FFS farmers had adopted INM as well as IPDM practices. These practices have
contributed to higher yield. Hence, FFS farmers yield level of cotton was higher than non FFS
farmers. It may be noted that FFS farmers had a lower production cost than the non FFS
farmers, as they had used botanicals as well as bio-control measures for pest and disease
management. The results are in line with the Mallah and Korejo (2005), who reported that, the
yield level of FFS farmers was higher than the non FFS farmers.
5.5.1.1 Association of method of selection of FFS participant with knowledge and adoption
The data in Table (13a) indicate the association of method of selection of participants
with knowledge and adoption level of FFS participants. It is clear from result that there exists
a highly significant difference in knowledge as well as adoption level of participants with
respect to different methods of selection of FFS participants. Majority of farmers were found in
high knowledge and adoption categories in case where sign and symptoms method was
used for selection of participants. Over twenty per cent of farmers were found in low
knowledge and adoption categories in case of method where participants were selected
through listing by village leader. It means sign and symptoms method for selection of the
participants is most appropriate for selection of interested and enthusiastic farmers.
Sign and symptoms is the entry point activity conducted in FFS. Here the ill effects
of pesticides on human health were highlighted and farmers were informed that the solution
for this could be obtained through FFS programme. The participants who had experienced the
ill effect of pesticide on their health and farmers who were really interested and enthusiastic to
know the improved methods had participated in FFS. Hence, their knowledge as well
adoption level was higher in case where sign and symptoms method was adopted.
5.5.1.2 Association of location of plot with knowledge and adoption level of FFS participants
The data presented in Table (13a) showed the association between method of plot
selection with knowledge and adoption level of FFS participants. There exists no significant
difference in knowledge and adoption level of participants with plot location. As observed
during investigation the location of the plot is within a kilometer. Hence, it did not make much
difference to the participants. Whereas, a highly significant difference was observed in
knowledge as well as adoption level of farmers with representativeness of the plot and also
access to them. Majority (65% & 34.17%) of FFS farmer were found in high knowledge as
well as adoption category, respectively where plot was totally represented as well as always
access to plot, respectively. The farmers knowledge and adoption level was low in case of
restricted access to plot as well as where plot is not represented.
Representative plot means the FFS plot has same type of soil and other resources as
that of participants field. This means all the learnings and experiences gained in FFS, the
farmers were able to relate to their own field. Hence, representativeness of plot had direct
influence on their knowledge and adoption level. Similarly accessibility had helped farmers to
visit frequently and see the important activities. The findings indicate that FFS plot should
necessarily representative and should have easy access to farmers.
5.5.2 Association of nature of collaborator with knowledge and adoption level
of FFS participants
The data presented in Table (13b) depicts that collaborator nature was found to be not
associated with knowledge and adoption level of FFS farmers. Collaborator is the farmers
who had given his/ her field to conduct activities of FFS. Collaborator is one among the
farmers who had participated in FFS programme. As observed in the table, and opinioned by
the participant, collaborators were found to have better resources and cooperative nature. It
means only innovative and cooperative farmers whose fields were closer to the village were
selected. Hence, it did not make much difference.
5.5.3 Association of FFS events with knowledge and adoption level of FFS
participants
The results indicated that, there exists non significant association between knowledge
level of FFS participants with no. of sessions, regularity of sessions and duration of CESA.
While, significant difference exists with adoption level. As it was observed in table that equal
proportion of farmers (30.83%) were belonged to high and medium adoption category where
number of sessions were conducted up to 15 and more than 15 sessions, respectively. As
discussed earlier CESA which is core activity of FFS mainly includes observation of plants in
relation to environment. Higher duration has resulted in building the confidence of participants
leading into adoption.
The association of insect zoo, short studies and special topics with knowledge and
adoption level was found to be highly significant. While, in case of long term experiments non
significant association was observed. It means short studies, insect zoo and special topics
had played a supplementing role to cover the FFS curriculum. In case of insect zoo, life cycle
of insect pests and beneficial insects feeding behavior was observed while, short studies
were conducted on germination test, water holding capacity, sign and symptoms,
trichogramma card preparation and seed treatment etc. Similarly special topics were focused
on vermicompost manuring, soil sampling method and azolla cultivation. Hence, these events
positively contributed to the knowledge and adoption level. The purpose of long term studies
is to test different technological options like variety, spacing, indigenous practices etc. They
are not having direct link with ICM practices. Hence, it did not have direct affect on knowledge
and adoption level.
5.5.4 Association of nature of facilitators with knowledge and adoption level
of FFS participants
The data presented in Table (13d) depicts that facilitators nature like communication,
involvement and regularity of conducting sessions had highly significant association with
adoption but non significant association was observed with knowledge level. Normally
facilitators do not explain the technical information but, provide an opportunity to farmers to
learn by observation, experimenting and experiences. No direct classes are conducted by
facilitators in FFS. Their communication skills had helped in conducting short studies, CESA
etc. effectively. Regularity of conducting sessions and involvement in conduct of FFS had
stimulated participants to adopt the practices that they learnt during the FFS.
5.6.1 Problems faced by FFS farmers in FFS programme
The results presented in Table 14a showed that relatively less proportion of farmers
faced the problems during FFS programme. Only 20.83 per cent of farmers expressed the
problem in case of fixed day of conducting FFS session (other than Monday) followed by
timings of session (17.50%) and short duration of FFS programme (16.77%).
Whereas, few (12.50%) of FFS farmers expressed problem about insufficient time of
sessions as well as Insufficient innovative practices. As it is indicated in Table 6 and 9
higher proportion of farmers possessed high knowledge level and high adoption level,
respectively. Majority of the farmers were fully convinced with ICM practices carried through
FFS programme. While, in case of FFS programme, wherever less number of sessions were
conducted, such farmers expressed the problem of Insufficient innovative practices, short
duration of FFS programme as well as insufficient time of sessions.
5.6.2 Suggestion of FFS participants for successful conduct of FFS
programme
The data presented in Table 14b depicts that over twenty per cent of respondents
suggested that FFS sessions should be conducted on Monday only, followed by sessions
should be conducted in the afternoon, the duration of FFS programme should be extended
and games should be removed from FFS programme Very few (12.50%) respondents where
sessions were conducted for short time suggested that timings of sessions should be
increased from 2 hours to 4 hours as well as FFS programme should include still more
innovative practices.
The prescribed time of conducting FFS is 4 hours however, as observed in table
(13c) very less proportion (1/6
th
) of the sample respondents indicated that, CESA was
conducted up to 2 hours. This means that total duration of FFS sessions was also less, in
such cases farmers expressed inadequate timings of sessions. There is need to monitor the
duration of FFS to ensure that sufficient time is given to farmers. The results revealed that,
FFS programme conducted in cotton crop contributed more to fulfill the felt needs of
participated farmers.
6. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
Forming partnerships and groups to work together for agricultural development is
very important. Participatory extension approaches such as farmer-to-farmer exchanges and
farmer field school (FFS) encourages farmers to share their knowledge and experiences.
These methods provide opportunities to learn new skills to improve their farming and effective
resources use. Participatory approaches aims to empower individuals, families and
communities, by building their sense of confidence and self reliance.
Farmer field school (FFS), is an informal institution and it is based on the
assumptions that, farming community has a vast body of knowledge, skill and experience, on
which they can build their future. The local farmer knowledge, insights are based on their vast
experience, rooted in their own local context. Farmers field school have been adopted by
both Government and Non Government Organizations to educate and equip farmers in
integrated crop management. It is important to know the impact on this innovative method.
Hence, a study was conducted to analyse the impact of FFS on cotton crop management
practices with the following objectives
1. To know the impact of FFS on knowledge level of farmers.
2. To analyse the impact of FFS on integrated crop management practices of cotton
crop.
3. To identify the factors contributing to the effectiveness of FFS.
4. To enlist the problems experienced and suggestions by the farmers for successful
conduct of FFS.
The study was conducted during the year 2010-11 in Dharwad, Kalghatagi and Hubli
taluks of Dharwad district, to study the impact of FFS on cotton crop management practices.
The list of FFS conducted during 2008-09 was obtained from the Agriculture Departments of
respective taluks. From each taluk four FFS were selected and from each FFS ten farmers
were selected by simple random procedure. Five non FFS farmers were randomly selected
from same village in order to compare the knowledge and adoption level. The data was
collected with the help of structured interview schedule and were tabulated and analysed by
using statistical tools such as frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation,t test and
modified chi-square. The major findings of the investigation are as follows.
Major findings
1. Nearly fifty per cent of FFS participants belonged to middle age group. Over thirty five per
cent of the respondents were studied up to primary. Thirty five per cent were small type
of farmer. Higher proportion (70%) of participants belonged to high income group,
medium extension contact category (55%). Fifty five per cent of participants belonged to
Low organization participation category and high innovativeness (46.77%) category.
Nearly fifty per cent of the participants were belonged to low farm resource category.
2. Majority (79.17 %) of FFS farmers cultivated crops for two seasons (i.e. cotton).
3. Higher proportion (70%) of FFS farmers had participated in all the FFS activities such as
short studies, Cotton Ecosystem Analysis (drawing of CESA charts, presentation of
CESA), group assignment, insect zoo, long term experiment and field day, however low
proportion of farmers had taken lead role.
4. All FFS farmer had correct knowledge about all the seed management practices and pest
& disease management practices. All FFS farmers were knew about benefit of soil test,
quantity of FYM, time of FYM application, vermicompost manure, chemical fertilizer
application. Seventy five per cent of FFS farmers had knowledge about ZnSO
4

application whereas, none of the non FFS farmers knew about ZnSO
4
application. All
FFS farmers had correct knowledge about irrigation method and irrigation criteria in
cotton.

5. The findings have shown that the mean knowledge index of FFS farmers was higher
than the non FFS farmers in all components of ICM such as, integrated seed
management (100.00% & 60.62%), integrated nutrient management (91.25% & 28.68%),
integrated water management (65.00% & 33.33%) and integrated pest & disease
management (92.85% & 18.33%).
6. With respect to knowledge category majority (65%) of FFS farmers were found in high
knowledge category, whereas, higher proportion (43.33%) of non FFS farmers were found
in medium knowledge category.
7. All the FFS and non FFS farmers had fully adopted variety/hybrid as well as seed rate
followed by spacing and dibbling depth (>70%), respectively. Over fifty per cent of FFS
farmers had adopted germination test whereas, none of the non FFS farmers adopted
germination test.
8. All FFS and non FFS farmers fully adopted time of basal fertilizer application followed by
quantity of FYM (75%). Nearly fifty per cent of FFS farmers adopted ZnSo4 application
whereas none of non FFS farmers adopted ZnSo4 application.
9. Over twenty per cent of FFS farmers had adopted irrigation method and critical stage of
irrigation whereas none of the non FFS farmers adopted water management practices.
10. All FFS and non FFS farmers were adopted summer ploughing. Higher proportion
(>75%) of FFS farmers were adopted integrated pest and disease management practices
whereas none of the non FFS farmers had adopted integrated pest and disease
management practices, especially use of botanicals and bio-agents.
11. The findings have shown that the mean adoption index of FFS farmers was higher than
the non FFS farmers in all components of ICM such as, integrated seed management
(73.21% & 62.73%), integrated nutrient management (72.60% & 33.75%), integrated
water management (29.40% & 0.00%) and integrated pest & disease management
(55.80% & 18.88%).
12. With respect to distribution of FFS and non FFS farmers based on adoption category,
equal proportion of FFS farmers were found in medium adoption category as well as
high adoption category (34.17%). Whereas, over forty per cent of non FFS farmers were
found in low adoption category.
13. In case of mean yield levels of cotton, FFS farmers had obtained high yield (7.85q/acre)
than the non FFS farmers (6.25q/acre).
14. Sign & symptom method of selection of participants was found to be effective for
selecting interested and enthusiastic farmers. Highly significant difference exists in
knowledge as well as adoption level of respondents with respect to different methods of
selection of FFS participants. Majority (42.50% & 23.33%) of FFS farmers were found in
high knowledge and adoption category, respectively in case where participants were
selected by sign and symptom method.
15. Location of plot had no association with knowledge as well as adoption level of FFS
farmers. Whereas, a highly significant difference was observed in knowledge as well as
adoption level of FFS farmers with respect to representativeness of plot and accessibility
to them. Majority (65% & 34.17%) of farmers were found in high knowledge as well as
adoption category, respectively where plot was totally represented as well as where plot
was always access to them.
16. Nature of collaborator (type, resourcefulness, innovativeness and cooperativeness) had
no association with knowledge as well as adoption level of FFS farmers.
17. There exists no significant association between knowledge level of farmers and number
of FFS sessions, regularity of sessions as well as CESA duration. Whereas, highly
significant difference exist in adoption level of farmers with respect to no. of sessions,
regularity of sessions as well as CESA duration. Long term experiment had no
relationship with knowledge as well as adoption level of farmers. Whereas, highly
significant difference exists in knowledge as well as adoption level of farmers in case of
FFS events like insect zoo, short studies and special topics.
18. There is no relationship between knowledge level of farmers and nature of facilitators.
Whereas, direct relationship exist between nature of facilitators and adoption level of FFS
farmers.
19. Over twenty per cent of FFS farmers expressed the problem of fixed day of conducting
FFS sessions (other than Monday).
20. Over twenty per cent of FFS farmers suggested that FFS sessions should be conducted
on Monday only.
Implications and recommendations
1. As FFS is an effective method to educate farmers on improved methods, the Dept. of
Agriculture should design a programme of FFS on major crops of the villages to cover all
the villages. As the benefits of FFS limited to participants farmers, other farmers can also
be educated by organizing interaction meeting between FFS farmers with others during
the crop season.
2. Four components namely plot, participants, collaborator and facilitators plays a key role in
effectiveness of FFS. Proper care should be taken to plan and conduct FFS events. Sign
and symptoms or any method that stimulate participation of the participant need to be
adopted for selecting of participants instead of listing by village leaders. It is necessary to
ensure the plot selected is representative of resource base of most of the farmers and
have easy access to participants. Short studies, insect zoo, CESA and special topics
directly contributed to the knowledge and later adoption by participants. Hence, FFS
should invariably include these activities.
3. Low cost, environment friendly practices are being promoted through FFS. It is necessary
to bring out success stories on these for circulating in the same and surrounding villages.
The posters on successful practices should be prepared for wider publicity. The organic
inputs promoted by FFS should be made available at RSK.
4. FFS can be used as best platform for establishing linkage among farmers, extension
workers and scientists. It is necessary to invite state agriculture university/ ICAR scientists
in one or two sessions to get first hand information on field situation. The operational
research on some of topics can be designed and conduct at FFS.
Future line of work
1. FFS have been conducted in all districts that have different agro climatic situations. Hence,
it is suggested that investigation may be taken up in other districts where FFS programme
was conducted, to develop suitable strategies for the regions.
2. The comparative study with respect to knowledge and adoption of ICM practices could be
taken up with non-FFS participants in other crops.

REFERENCES
Arun, B. and Rajendra, H., 2007, Our experience with modified farmers field school in dryland
areas. LEISA INDIA, 9(4): 17-18
Berg, H., Van den., Hildebrand, A Von., Vaithilingam Ragunathan and Das, P. K., 2007,
Reducing vector borne disease by empowering farmers in integrated vector
management. Bull. World Health Org., 85(7): 561-566
Bunyatta, D. K., Mureithi, J. G., Onyango, C. A. and Ngesa, F. U., 2006, Farmer field school
effectiveness for soil and crop management technologies in Kenya. J. Internat.
Agric. Extn. Edu., 13(3): 47-63.
Chitins, D.H. and Kothiklane, R.H., 2000, Extension methodology for implementing
IPM programme. Maharashtra J. Extn. Edu., 19: 112-116.
Christain, B. M., Vyasa, H. V. and Patil, K. F., 2005, Adoption of IPM strategy by cotton
growers. Rural India, 130-131.
Darling, B. S. and Vasanthakumar, J., 2004, Knowledge and adoption level of botanical
pesticides. J. Extn. Edu., 15(2&3) : 3655-3658.
David Dolly, 2009, An assessment of the implementation and outcomes of recent farmer field
schools to improve vegetable production in Trinidad and Tobago. Internat. J.
Agric. Extn. Edu., 16(2): 7- 19.
Davies, O., Fredrick M., Louis, G. and Andre, D.J., 2003, Farmers Field School on nutrient
management. LEISA INDIA, 5(4): 29-30
Deepak, M.P., 2003, A study on perception of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries towards
WYTEP programme in Dharwad district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Dharminder, S. and Ravinder, K., 2004, Knowledge level of cotton growers regarding IPM
practices. J. Extn. Edu., 15(2&3) : 3611-3617.
George, S. and Hegde, M.R., 2009, Impact of farmers field school in Tomato. Asian J. Extn.
Edu., 27(2): 67-72
Godtland, E. M., Sadoulet, E., Janvry, A. de., Murgai, R. and Ortiz, O., 2004, The impact of
farmer field schools on knowledge and productivity: a study of potato farmers in
the Peruvian Andes. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change, 53(1): 63-92.
Godtland, E., Sadoulet, E., Janvry, A de., Murgai, R. and Ortiz, O., 2003, The impact of
farmer field schools on knowledge and productivity: a study of potato farmers in
the Peruvian Andes. Working Paper Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics and Policy, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University
of California, 963: 24.
Hein, B. and Muhammad, A.I., 2007, Changing the strategies of farmer field school in
Bangladesh. LEISA INDIA, 9(4): 19-21
Islam, M. R., Biswas, J. C. and Islam, M. N., 2002, Correlates of some selected
characteristics of FFS farmers with their integrated pest management skill.
Bangladesh J. Train. Dev., 15(1/2): 75-80
Jayaprada, B. D., 2007, Impact of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank on agriculture
development of beneficiaries in Dharwad district, Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis,
Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Juliana, C.S., Annamalai, R. and Somasundaram, S., 1991, Adoption of inetegrated pest
management practices. Indian J. Extn. Educ., 27 (3 & 4): 23-27.
Kiran, S., 2010, Farmers opinion on cultivation of Bt cotton in Warangal district of Andhra
Pradesh. Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 44(1): 165-170.

Kiranvani, 2007, A study on knowledge and adoption of selected health and nutritional
practices by rural women in Belgaum district, Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis,
Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Krishnamurthy, B., 1999, An analysis of impact of the farers field school on integrated pest
management in rice. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Lapbim, J.N., Gockowski, J., Tchoumo, I.R. and Wandji, D.,2008, Factors that influence the
adoption of cocoa integrated pest management by farmer field school graduates in
Cameroon. J. Extn. Sys., 24(1):76-89.
Mallah, G. H. and Korejo, A. K., 2005, Establishment of integrated pest management (IPM) in
cotton through farmer field school (FFS) in Pai Farm Sakrand, Sindh, Pakistan.
Indus Cottons, 2(2): 127-131.
Mancini, F., Bruggen, A. H. C. van. and Jiggins, J. L. S. and Termorshuzien, A. J.,2008,
Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cotton farming through
farmer education in Andhra Pradesh, India. Agric. Sys., 96(1-3):16-25.
Mancini, F., Bruggen, A. H. C. van. and Jiggins, J. L. S., 2007, Evaluating cotton integrated
pest management (IPM) farmer field school outcomes using the sustainable
livelihoods approach in India. Exptl. Agric., 43(1): 97-112.
Manjunath, S. K., 2007, A study on rehabilation farmer in Upper Krishna Project area of
Bagalkot district in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad,
Karnataka, India.
More M. R., Jadhav S. N. and Pendke M. S., 2000, Impact of training of Krishi Vigyan Kendra
on knowledge and adoption of cotton cultivation practices by farmers. Maharashtra
J. Extn. Edu., 19: 335-337.
Moulik, T. K. and Rao, C. B. S., 1965, Self rating personality scales for farmers: In a Pareek
V. and Rao, V. T., Handbook of Psychological and Social Instruments Samithi,
Baroda.
Munikishor, S., 2006, Beneficiaries attitude and project facilitation services of sujala
watershed project. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India.
Nerkar, Y.S., Sawant, G.K. and Khot, B.B., 1999, Out of university discussion on farmers
field: A innovative approach for TOT. Maharashtra J. Extn. Edu., 18(18):234-239.
Noorjehan, A. K. A., Hanif and Ganesh, R., 2004, Knowledge level of rice farmers on pest
management practices. J. Extn. Edu., 15(2&3) : 3628-3632.
Ooi, P. A. C. and Kenmore, P. E., 2005, Impact of educating farmers about biological control
in farmer field schools. Second International Symposium on Biological Control of
Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12-16 September , pp. 277-289
Ortiz, O., Garrett, K. A., Heath, J J., Orrego, R. and Nelson, R. J., 2004, Management of
potato late blight in the Peruvian highlands: evaluating the benefits of farmer field
schools and farmer participatory research. Pl. Dis., 88(5): 565-571.
Parthsarthi, S. and Govind, S., 2002, Knowledge of trained and untrained farmers on IPM
practices. J. Extn. Educ., 12(40): 3293-3297.
Patil, S. L., Budihal R. A. and Hanumanaikar R. H., 2007a, Mass media utilization pattern of
cotton growers. Souvenir and Abstract, National seminar on appropriate extension
strategies for management of rural resources, UAS, Dharwad 18-20 December,
pp. 199
Patil, S. L., Budihal R. A., Hanumanaikar R. H. and Gopal M., 2007b, Awareness and extent
of contact of cotton grower with Agricultural Extension Agents. Souvenir and
Abstract, National seminar on appropriate extension strategies for management of
rural resources, UAS, Dharwad 18-20 December, pp.239-240.
Patrick, P., Loko S., Daniel D. and Maurice V., 2007, Factors limiting the adoption of IPM
practices by cotton farmers in Benin: A participatory approach. Expl. Agric.,
43(1):113-124.

Pratiyogitha Darpana., 2010, General Studies of Indian Economy, Upkar Prakashan
Publication, New Delhi 02.
Rafee, H. E. A., El Feshawy, T. M. A. and El Katatny, A. M. M. 2006, Effect of farmers' field
schools on farmers' knowledge about field crops in Sohag and Assuit
Governorates. Ann. Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, 2003., 41(1): Ar21-Ar42.
Raghavendra, 2005, Knowledge and adoption pattern of improved sugarcane practices in
Bidar district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Ramamurthy, V. and Jagdish, P., 2005, Farmer field schools- A new participatory approach.
Agri. Ext. Rev., 17(2): 9-12.
Savita, 2008, Impact of community based tank management project on socio-economic status
of beneficiary farmers in Bidar district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Shashidhara, K. K., 2003, A study on socio-economic profile of drip irrigation farmers in
Shimoga and Davanegere districts of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Siddaramaiah, B. S. and Jalihal, K. A., 1980, A scale to measure extension participation of
farmers. Indian J. Agric. Extn. Edu., 19 : 74-77.
Sivakumar, U., Annamalai, R. and Vennila, M.A., 1998, Know-how and Do-how behavior of
FFS and NFFS farmers. J. Extn. Edu., 9(3): 2163-2166.
Sriram, N. and Palaniswamy A., 2001, Extent of awareness about the ecofrriendly agriculture
practice in cotton. J. Ext. Edu., 12(2): 3146-3149.
Sudhir, B. N., 2009, A study on knowledge and adoption of (bt) cotton practices followed by
farmers in Haveri district, Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India.
Suresh, R., Nagraja N. and Savitha C. M., 2007, Impact of farmers field school on
collaborator and participants at Dinhalli village- A case study. Souvenir and
Abstract, National seminar on appropriate extension strategies for management of
rural resources, UAS, Dharwad 18-20 December, pp.129.
Sushma, K. C., 2007, An analysis of enterprenuring development in women through EDP
training. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India.
Tchoumo, I. R, Lapbim, J. N., Wandji, D. and Gockowski, J., 2008, Socio-economic impact of
cocoa integrated crop and pest management diffusion knowledge through farmer
field school approach in Cameroon. J. Extn. Edu. Sys., 22: 1-13.
Trivedi, G., 1963, Measurement and analysis of socio-economic status of rural families. Ph.
D. Thesis. Indian Agril. Res. Inst., New Delhi
Umamaheshwara, M.S., 2009, A study on community participation in irrigation tank
management in Haveri district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad,
Karnataka, India.
Venkatashivareddy, V., 2006, Knowledge and adoption of IPM practices among vegetable
growers of Gadag district in North Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric.
Sci., Dharwad, India.
Vijayalakshmi, B., Ravikumar, G., Pattabiraman, S. and Anandraj, D., 2003, Farmers field
school- experiences from Tamil Nadu. LEISA INDIA, 5(1):11-13.
Vinayaka Reddy, K. G., 1991, A study on knowledge and adoption level of registered cotton
seed growers in Chitradurga district. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Bangalore, India.
Wondang, K., 2010, Adoption gap in groundnut production in Northern transition zone of
Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Yamini Verma, C. K. and Rajendran, P., 2007, Farmers field school - A successful approach
for IPM training. Agric. Extn. Rev., 19 (1): 5-7.

Yeshwanth Kumar Naik, L.G., 2008, A study on knowledge and adoption of integrated crop
management practices by the participants of farmers field school in Bellary district.
M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
APPENDIX

Impact of Farmers Field School on Cotton Crop Management
Practices in Dharwad district

Interview Schedule
Respondent No: _________ Date: _________
PART - A
I. General information:
a. Name of the farmer: ______________________ b. Village: _______________
c. Taluk: ______________

II. Personal Information
a. Age: ________years
b. Education: Illiterate / primary / middle school / high school / PUC / graduate / post
graduate

III. Land holding

Kharif Rabi Summer
Land type
Area
(acres)
Crop Area(ac) Crop Area(ac) Crop Area(ac)
Dry land

Irrigated

Plantation
crop

IV Income level

Crops Area (acre) Yield /acre Rate (Rs.) Cost of production

Livestock
Milk
yield/day
Rate/lit
Milk
yield/annum
Labor cost

Goat/sheep
Poultry birds
Any other specify

V Farm Resources

Resource
Type of soil/irrigation
source/livestock
Area /No./Rs.
Land /soil type Black
Red
Water Irrigated
Rainfed
Livestock Drought
Milking(buffalo/cow)
Sheep /goat
Poultry birds
Any other specify
Material
possession
1. plough
2. bullock cart
3. tractor
4.Other equipments

VI. Extension contact: how frequently you/they contact you for agri. Information

Frequency of contact
Sl.
No.
Extension personnel
Once in week
Once in
fortnight
When needed Never
1. AA/AAO
2. AO
3. University scientist
4.
Private company
representative

5. Others specify
a.
b.

VII. Organization Participation: please indicate your membership/participation in the following
organizations

Extent of Participation
Sl.No.

Name

Member/Office
bearer
1 SHG/NGO
2 Village level committee
3
Cotton cooperative
society

4
Village Co-operative
Society

5 Farmers clubs
6 Village level committee
7 Youth clubs
8 Gram panchayat
9 Any other specify

VIII. Innovativeness

Responses
Sl.
No.
Statements

Most
like
Least
like
1.a
I try to keep myself up to date with information on new farm practices, but
that does not mean that I try out all new methods on my farm

b. I feel restless till I try out a new farm practice, that I have heard about
c.
They talk of many new farm practice these days, but who knows if they are
better then old ones

2.a.
From time to time I have heard of several new farm practices and I have
tried out most of them in the last few years

b.
I usually wait to see what results my neighbors obtain before I try out the
new farm practices

c Some how I believe that traditional ways of the farming are the best
3.a I am cautious about trying a new practice
b.
After all our forefathers were wise in their farming practices and I do not
see any reason for changing these old methods

c.
Often new practices are not successful, however, if they are promising I
would surely like to adopt them

IX. Mass media exposure: Please indicate the extent of use of different mass media

Reading/hearing/viewing
behavior
Sl.
No.
Media
Owned/
others
Type of content
you read/listen/
watch Regular occasionally Never
a. General news
1 News paper
b. Agricultural
news

2
Agricultural
magazines/journals

a. General
programmes

3 Radio
b.Agricultural
programmes

a. General
programmes

4 T. V.
b.Agricultural
programmes

X. Participation level in FFS programme

No of session conducted: ____________No of session attended: ___________
Sl
no
Statement
Lead role Participation only

Observation only

1 GD/games
2 Short studies
3 a
Cotton ecosystem
analysis(CESA)

c Presentation of CESA
4 Group assignment
5 Insect zoo
6 Long term experiment
7 Field day

PART B

XI. Knowledge level and practices adopted

Sl.no. Particulars Knowledge Adoption
I Seed management
1
Variety/Hybrid
a Irrigated
b Rainfed

2.1
Required seed germination
%
65% / 75% / ________
2.2 Germination test
Paper / cloth /blotting
paper/_________

3.1 Seed rate / acre ( hybrid) 1kg / 1.5kg / 2kg/_____
4 Spacing
5 Dibbling depth (inch) 0.5 / 1/ 2 / 3 / ______
6 Intercrop
Soybean / chilli / onion /
groundnut

II
Integrated nutrient
management

1 Benefits of soil test
2.1 FYM quantity/acre
2.2 Time of FYM application
3
Source of nutrient
a) organic
Vermicompost/green
manure/_________

b) inorganic DAP/Urea/ MOP/________
4.2
Basal dose a) quantity kg
or bags/acre
i)
ii)
iii)
4.3 b) time of application i)
ii)
4.4 c)method of application
Ring method/row
method/broadcasting

4.5
Top dressing a) quantity
kg , bags/acre
i)
ii)
4.6 b) time of application i)
ii)
4.7 c)method of application
5 Micronutrient required ZnSo4 / MgSo4/others
5.1 ZnSo4 a)quantity
5.2 b)time of application
5.3 c) method
6 Organic preparations
6.1 5% NSKE component
Neem seed-5kg
soap-5gm
water-25lit

6.2 Method of preparation

6.3 Purpose of use
6.4 3% chilli-garlic extract
green chillies-3kg
garlic-500gm
kerosene-250ml
soap-25gm
water-90lit

6.5 Method of preparation

6.6 Purpose of use

Other plant based
insecticide

III
Integrated water
management

1 Critical stages of irrigation
2 Irrigation methods
Drip / sprinkler/furrow /paired
row

3
Scheduling of irrigation
criteria

IV Integrated pest and disease management

Insect pest
name
Identification Management Name Management
1 Thrips
1.1 Whiteflies
1.2 Aphids
1.3 Jassids
1.4 Bollworms
1.5 Other
2
Beneficial
insect
Prey No.
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
Disease
name
Identification Management Name Management
3.1 Leaf spot
3.2 Wilting
3.3 Black arm
3.4 Other

XII. FFS ACTIVITIES/FACTORS

1) Identification of participants
a) Games /sensitization exercise (Sign & symptom):
b) Group discussions
c) Listing by village leader
2) i) selection of plot
a) Location of plot:__________km away from village
b) Representativeness of plot: total / partial /do not
c) Free access to plot : always /some time /restricted
ii) Selection of collaborator
a) Type of collaborator : big /small / medium / margin
b) Resourcefulness of collaborator : high /medium /low

Good Medium Poor
Land
Material
Economic status

c) Cooperativeness of collaborator : highly co-operative /moderate /low
d) Innovativeness of collaborator : highly innovative / medium / less innovative

3) Sessions :
a) Number of sessions : _________
b) Regularity : most regular / regular /not regular
4) Facilitator:
a) Communication skill : high / medium / low
b) Regularity of conducting sessions : high / medium / low
c) Participation /involvement : high / medium / low

5) Activities :

a) CESA i) Duration: _______hours
ii) Methods: Observation:
Drawings:
Short term practices:
Long term practice:
b) Insect zoo: conducted / not conducted
If conducted, i) number of insect cycle studied: ___________
ii) Others:

c) Short studies:

Sl.no Particulars Learnings

d) Long term experiments:


e) Special topics: conducted / not, if yes give details.


XIII. Problems faced and suggestions by the participants in conduct of FFS in cotton crop

Constraints Suggestions
Sl.no. Particulars
Yes No
1 Fixed day of session (other than Monday)
2 Timings of session
3 Short duration of FFS programme
4 Insufficient time of session
5 Insufficient innovative practices
6 Others

IMPACT OF FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL (FFS) ON
COTTON CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
DHARWAD DISTRICT

SHABNAM M. ADHONI 2011 DR. S. S. DOLLI
MAJOR ADVISOR

ABSTRACT
The research study was conducted on impact of Farmers Field School (FFS) on
cotton crop management practices in Dharwad district of Karnataka during the year 2010-11.
The FFS conducted in Dharwad district during 2008-09 by Department of Agriculture were
considered for the study. Three taluks viz., Kalghatagi, Dharwad and Hubli were selected for
the study. Four villages from each taluk, 10 FFS farmers and 5 non FFS farmers from each
village were selected by simple random procedure. Thus constituting a sample of 120 FFS
farmers and 60 non-FFS farmers.
Study revealed that, 65.00 per cent of FFS participants and 25.00 per cent of non
FFS participants had high knowledge about Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices of
cotton. Regarding adoption of overall ICM practices, over thirty per cent of FFS farmers
belonged to high and medium adoption category. Whereas, higher percentage of non FFS
farmers belonged to low adoption category (43.33%). FFS had an impact on participants
knowledge regarding germination test, application of ZnSO
4
, use of botanical preparation and
beneficial insects. These practices were adopted by them. It was observed that, FFS farmers
obtained higher mean yield (7.85 q/acre) of cotton than the non FFS farmers (6.25 q/acre).
Study identified that six important factors viz., participants selection method (sign and
symptom), representativeness of plot, accessibility of plot, insect zoo, short studies and
special topics positively influenced on improving the knowledge level as well adoption level of
participant farmers about ICM practices in cotton. However, no associationship exist between
nature of collaborator, nature of facilitators and long term experiments with respect to
knowledge as well as adoption level of participants. Over twenty per cent of FFS farmers
expressed the problem of fixed day of conducting sessions (other than Monday) and the
same proportion of farmers suggested that FFS sessions should be conducted on monday
only.

Extension Education Dharwad

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Extension Education Dharwad

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IMPACT OF FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL (FFS) ON

COTTON CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen