Effectiveness of Farmers’ Information Sources in Bihar

Aditya Karn1 and Souvik Ghosh2

1Post-GraduateScholar, 2Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural Extension,
Institute of Agriculture, Visva-Bharati University, Sriniketan, West Bengal - 731236

ABSTRACT

Present study was conducted in Muzaffarpur and Madhubani districts of Bihar that included a
random sample of 120 farmers, 60 each from both the districts. The communication profile of the
farmers were assessed under three information sources viz. mass media exposure, personal
cosmopolite and personal localite sources. The frequency of use of these sources was measured
on a four point continuum while the effectiveness of these sources was evaluated on a three point
continuum scale. Farmers of Muzaffarpur district used five sources each under personal
cosmopolite and impersonal cosmopolite (mass media) type of information sources and average
4 personal localite sources of information. While the farmers of Madhubani district have used on
an average 4 sources of personal cosmopolite type, 3 types of personal localite sources and two
types of mass media sources. Personal cosmopolite sources were perceived most effective by the
farmers of both districts. However, farmers in Madhubani district perceived personal localite
channels of information more effective than mass media.

Key words: Communication, mass media sources, personal cosmopolite, personal localite

Introduction

Information is basic component in any development activity and is useful only if it is available
and user has the access to it (CTA, 1999). Utilization of the improved agricultural technology by
the farmers to a large extent depends upon the effective sources of information and channel to
which they are generally exposed directly or indirectly (Wakle et al., 1998 and Singh et al.,
2010). The preference and selectivity of information sources varies among the farmers depending
upon several conditions such as cosmopolitan/local, richness/poverty, liking/disliking, sources of
availability and credibility of source (Balasubramanian and Charles, 1996). In India, during

1
2004, public extension (including the Krishi Vigyan Kendra centres) reached only 6.4% of the
farmers, who instead mostly got their information from other progressive farmers and input
dealers and mass media (Binswanger-McHale and Zhou, 2012). Kapoor and Kumar (2015)
identified that the average number of information sources used by the farmers remained
between two and three for frequently purchased inputs viz. seeds, fertilizers, and
agrochemicals. The majority of the farmers use non-commercial, personal sources for getting
information on different agri-inputs. Sales persons emerged as the next important personal source
for obtaining knowledge about different inputs. The incidence of using impersonal sources was
found to be relatively high for infrequently purchased inputs like a pump set and tractor, which
require a large investment, as compared to that for frequently purchased inputs (seed, fertilizers,
and agrochemicals).

The assessment of effectiveness of different sources to meet the diverse needs of farmers would
help to make policy advocacy in the field of information technology and information
management in agriculture. The present study was undertaken to reveal the scenario of
information and communication sources in meeting the needs of farmers in Bihar.

Methodology

The state of Bihar was purposively selected for present study because of wide and uneven
distribution of information sources across the districts in the state. The Muzaffarpur and
Madhubani districts were intentionally selected. The district Muzaffarpur has high and frequent
access to almost all types of information sources whereas Madhubani being very remotely
located has limited access to the resources. This difference creates the basis of comparison
between these districts in particular and whole of Bihar in general. Based on random sampling
procedure, two blocks from each of two districts, one village from each of the four selected
blocks and 30 farmers from each of the four selected villages were chosen as respondents of
present study that covered a total of 120 farmers as respondents.

The communication profile of the farmers were assessed under three information sources viz.
mass media exposure, personal cosmopolite and personal localite sources. The frequency of use
of these sources were measured on a four point continuum with an allotted score of 1, 2, 3 and 4

2
for never, sometimes, often and most often, respectively. The effectiveness of these sources were
evaluated on a three point continuum scale in the category of low, medium and high by allotting
scores of 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

The Mass Media sources included television (T.V.), Radio, Newspaper, Internet, Email, Mobile
Phone, Krishi Mela/ Exhibition, and Extension Publications. The respondents were questioned
for possession of both personal as well as organizational email.
The Personal Cosmopolite sources comprised of Extension officer, Subject Matter Specialist
(KVK), Sub-divisional/Block Agriculture Officer, any other person in Block/Agriculture
Department, Agricultural university expert, Non-government Organization (NGO), Input
supplier, Co-operative, and District horticulture officer.
The Personal Localite sources included Village leader, Gram Pradhan, Panchayat, Village
teacher, Friends/Relatives/Neighbours, and Experienced/Progressive farmers.

Results and Discussion

Information sources use pattern of the farmers in Muzaffarpur and Madhubani districts of Bihar
is presented in Table 1. Among the mass media sources, farmers of Muzaffarpur district have
most frequently used the krishi mela and exhibition to fulfill their information needs on various
aspects of agriculture followed by newspaper, mobile phone and television with mean frequency
of information source use score>2.5 measured on a 4-point continuum scale. Contrastingly,
farmers of Madhubani district have not used mass media sources of information frequently as
mean frequency of information source use scores are found <2.0. Among the mass media sources
they used to prefer newspaper and mobile phone.

Farmers in Muzaffarpur district have preferred input supplier and co-operative as observed from
mean frequency of information source use score of 3.65 and 2.62, respectively. Other sources are
used less frequently. Similarly the farmers of Madhubani district highly depended on input
supplier (mean frequency of information source use score of 4.0) and co-opeartive (mean
frequency of information source use score of 2.67) to fulfill their information needs on farming.

3
Among the personal localite sources of information, farmers of both Muzaffarpur and
Madhubani districts most frequently availed agricultural information from neighbours/ friends/
relatives followed by experienced/ progressive farmers. Farmers of Madhubani district also
relied on local Panchayat for fulfilling their information needs.

Table 1 Information sources use pattern of the farmers in MuzaffarpurandMadhubani

districts of Bihar

Sl. No. Information sources used by farmers Mean frequency of information source use
score
Muzaffarpur district Madhubani district
(n=60) (n=60)
1. Mass Media Sources:
(i) Television 2.51 (1.01) 1.35 (0.63)
(ii) Radio 1.70 (1.06) 1.68 (0.87)
(iii) News paper 2.70 (1.28) 1.97 (1.06)
(iv) Internet 1.47 (0.77) 1.02 (0.13)
(v) Email – a) personal 1.23 (0.59) 1.00 (0.00)
b) organizational 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
(vi) Mobile phone 2.68 (0.89) 1.93 (0.94)
(vii) Krishi mela/ Exhibition 3.67 (0.73) 1.38 (0.64)
(viii) Extension publications 1.60 (0.59) 1.00 (0.00)
2. Personal Cosmopolite Sources:
(i) Extension officer 1.40 (0.53) 1.00 (0.00)
(ii) Subject Matter Specialist (KVK) 1.68 (0.81) 1.00 (0.00)
(iii) Sub-divisional/Block AO 1.62 (0.85) 2.00 (0.00)
(iv) Any other person in Block/Agri. Deptt. 2.18 (0.79) 2.00 (0.00)
(v) Agricultural university expert 2.15 (0.99) 1.00 (0.00)
(vi) NGO 1.12 (0.32) 1.00 (0.00)
(vii) Input supplier 3.65 (0.55) 4.00 (0.00)
(viii) Co-operative 2.62 (0.49) 2.67 (0.48)
(ix) District horticulture officer 1.35 (0.55) 1.00 (0.00)
3. Personal Localite Sources:
(i) Village leader 1.23 (0.43) 1.00 (0.00)

4
 (ii) Gram Pradhan 1.88 (0.69) 1.50 (0.72)
(iii) Panchayat 1.88 (0.37) 2.13 (0.60)
(iv) Village teacher 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
(v) Friends/Relatives/Neighbours 3.25 (0.77) 3.83 (0.38)
(vi) Experienced/Progressive farmers 2.30 (0.65) 2.30 (0.62)
Note: Figure in the parenthesis indicate standard deviation values; minimum and maximum
possible scores are 1 and 4, respectively

Communication profile of the farmers in Muzaffarpur and Madhubani districts are presented in
Table 2 and 3, respectively. Farmers of Muzaffarpur district are found to be more cosmopolite
as on an average they have used 5 sources each under personal cosmopolite and impersonal
cosmopolite (mass media) type of information sources mean frequency of use score 1.97 and
2.06, respectively. They also availed on an average 4 personal localite sources of information
with mean frequency of use score 1.92. While the farmers of Madhubani district have used on an
average 4 sources of personal cosmopolite type, 3 types of personal localite sources and 2 types
of mass media sources with mean frequency of use score 1.74, 1.96 and 1.37, respectively.
Thus, farmers of Muzaffarpur district and Madhubani district varied in their information and
communication sources use pattern as former preferred the mass media channels of information
while the later opted more personal localite channels of information (Fig. 1).

Table 2. Communication Profile of the farmers in Muzaffarpur district of Bihar

Communication source Mean score (SD)
Number of sources used Frequency of use
Personal localite 4 (1) 1.92 (0.28)
Personal cosmopolite 5 (2) 1.97 (0.21)
Mass media 5 (2) 2.06 (0.37)
Note: SD stands for Standard Deviation value; minimum and maximum possible scores are 1 and
4, respectively

Table 3. Communication Profile of the farmers in Madhubani district of Bihar

Communication source Mean score (SD)
Number of sources used Frequency of use
Personal localite 3 (1) 1.96 (1.07)
Personal cosmopolite 4 (0) 1.74 (0.16)

5
Mass media 2 (2) 1.37 (0.44)
Note: SD stands for Standard Deviation value; minimum and maximum possible scores are 1 and
4, respectively

Muzaffarpur district Madhubani district

2.5
Frequency of use score

1.5

0.5

0
Personal localite Personal cosmopolite Mass media

Fig. 1. Differential perceptions of farmers on information and communication needs with

respect to various aspects of agriculture in Muzaffarpur and Madhubani districts of Bihar

Present study revealed that newspaper and mobile phone are two mass media channels of
information preferred by the farmers of both Muzaffarpur and Madhubani district of Bihar.
Verma et al. (2013) and Sachin et al. (2015) also found use of mobile cell phone has been
increasing among the farming community. They reported that cell phone was utilized by some of
the respondents to receive short message services (SMSs), pre-recorded voice calls for weather
forecasting and early disease and pest warning alerts.

Inputs suppliers happened to be dominant sources of information as personal cosmopolite

channel of information for the selected farmers in present study areas of Bihar. Kapoor and
Kumar (2015) also reported that salespersons emerged as the important personal source for
obtaining knowledge about different inputs next to fellow farmers/friends.

The National Sample Survey (2005) results indicate that the main sources of information on
agricultural practices in India are progressive farmers followed by electronic and print media. In

6
the present study it is also found that progressive farmers are still preferred channels of
information for the farmers after relatives/ friends/ neighbours in Muzaffarpur and Madhubani
district of Bihar. Similarly, Kapoor and Kumar (2015) indicated that the majority of the farmers
use non-commercial, personal sources for getting information on different agri-inputs. Within
this category, the majority of the farmers consult fellow farmers/friends (ranging from 58.2% for
a tractor to 79.5% for seed).

In the present study it is observed that average number of information sources used by farmers
varied between 2 and 5 in selected study region of Bihar. Kapoor and Kumar (2015) identified
that the average number of information sources used by the farmers remained between two
and three for frequently purchased inputs viz. seeds, fertilizers, and agrochemicals. It is
noteworthy that, among all three frequently purchased inputs, farmers used the greatest
number of information sources for agrochemicals and the least for the seed. Hill et al. (2013)
stated that the number of information sources used by farmers depends on perceived
importance (which is the determinant of the level of involvement) of the product, the various
options available to them, and the credibility of the sources.

The different information sources were grouped under mass media sources, personal cosmopolite
sources and personal localite sources, whose effectiveness were measured in a 3-point scale as
low (1), medium (2) and high (3). Table 4 figures out the number of information sources used by
the farmers of the Muzaffarpur district and their effectiveness in meeting the information needs
pertaining to the different aspects of farming.

Table 4. Information sources and their effectiveness to fulfill the agricultural needs as
perceived by the farmers in Muzaffarpur district of Bihar

Sl. Information Mean no. of information Mean effectiveness score

No. needs sourcesused (n=60) (n=60)
Mass Personal Personal Mass Personal Personal
media cosmopolit localite media cosmopolit localite
e e
1 Agricultural 5 8 4 1.64 2.50 1.87
inputs
2 Agricultural 5 2 3 1.68 2.00 2.12
finance

7
 3 Agricultural 3 5 2 1.70 2.75 1.32
production
4 Post-harvest 0 3 3 - 1.30 1.00
management

5 Marketing 2 4 2 2.10 1.80 1.50

6 Livelihood 6 8 3 2.37 2.37 1.64

diversificatio
n
7 Capacity 3 8 2 2.15 2.20 1.50
building/
Training
Note: Minimum and maximum possible scores are 1 and 3, respectively

Farmers mostly used personal cosmopolite sources (8) for meeting the information needs related
to agricultural inputs and rated most effective with mean effectiveness score of 2.50. They have
also used on an average 5 mass media sources and 4 personal localite sources of information
with mean perceived effectiveness score of 1.64 and 1.87, respectively.

For information related to agricultural finance, farmers availed 5 sources of mass media, 2
sources of personal cosmopolite and 3 sources of personal localite channels with the perception
of personal localite channel as most effective (mean effectiveness score 2.12).

Similar to agricultural inputs, farmers used more number (5) of personal cosmopolite sources of
information for agricultural production related aspects with a high effectiveness score
(2.75).However, they have also used mass media sources (3) as well as personal localite sources
(2) with mean effectiveness scores of 1.70 and 1.32, respectively.

Relatively lesser number of information sources was used by the farmers for information on
post-harvest management (3 each personal cosmopolite and personal localite sources) with lower
perceptions on their effectiveness.

Marketing related information needs were mostly fulfilled by personal cosmopolite (4) sources
followed by 2 sources each of mass media and personal localite sources. The mean effectiveness

8
score was higher for mass media (2.10) followed by personal cosmopolite sources (1.80) and
personal localite sources (1.50).

Information needs related to livelihood diversification were fulfilled by using mostly personal
cosmopolite sources (8) followed by mass media (6) and localite (3) sources. Personal
cosmopolite and mass media were perceived highly effective (mean effectiveness score of 2.37
in each) whereas personal localite sources perceived relatively less effective (1.64).

For the information on capacity building, farmers preferred personal cosmopolite sources (8)
followed by mass media (3) and personal localite sources (2) with perceived mean effectiveness
scores of 2.20, 2.15 and 1.50, respectively. .

The information sources used by the farmers of the Madhubani district and their effectiveness in
meeting the agricultural information needs are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Information sources and their effectiveness to fulfill the agricultural needs as
perceived by the farmers in Madhubani district of Bihar

Sl. Information Mean no. of information sources Mean effectiveness score

No. needs used (n=60) (n=60)
Mass Personal Personal Mass Personal Personal
media cosmopolit localite media cosmopolit localite
e e
1 Agricultural 3 4 4 1.60 2.40 2.10
inputs
2 Agricultural 3 2 3 2.17 2.50 2.00
finance
3 Agricultural 2 2 2 1.12 1.90 1.63
production
4 Post-harvest - - - - - -
management

5 Marketing 2 2 2 1.87 1.68 1.91

6 Livelihood 5 4 4 2.00 2.24 2.00

diversificatio
n

9
 7 Capacity - - - - - -
building/
Training
Note: Minimum and maximum possible scores are 1 and 3, respectively

For the information needs on agricultural inputs, the farmers in Madhubani district have used 4
each personal cosmopolite and localite sources and 3 mass media sources with perceived mean
effectiveness score of 2.40, 2.10 and 1.60, respectively.

The information needs related to agricultural finance were fulfilled by the farmers by availing 3
each mass media and personal localite sources and 2 personal cosmopolite sources of
information. They perceived the personal cosmopolite sources as most effective (mean score
2.50) followed by mass media (2.17) and personal localite sources (2.00).

Farmers in Madhubani district have met information needs related to different aspects of
agricultural production by use of 2 each mass media, personal cosmopolite and personal localite
channels of information with perceived effectiveness scores of 1.12, 1.90 and1.63, respectively.

Information needs for livelihood diversification options, farmers used most number of
information sources viz. 5 mass media sources, 4 each personal cosmopolite and localite sources.
They perceived personal cosmopolite as most effective in this regard.

The farmers in Madhubani district did not use any information sources with respect to marketing
and post-harvest management that may be attributed to the remote location, subsistence farming
and poor socio-demography in that region of Bihar.

10
 Muzaffarpur district Madhubani district
3
Mean Perceived Effectiveness Score
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Personal localite Personal cosmopolite Mass media

Fig. 2. Differential perceptions of farmers on effectiveness of information and

communication sources in Muzaffarpur and Madhubani districts of Bihar

A comparison on relative effectiveness of different sources is depicted in Fig. 2. Personal

cosmopolite sources were perceived most effective by the farmers of both districts. However,
farmers in Madhubani district perceived personal localite channels of information more effective
than mass media; while the farmers in Muzaffarpur district perceived the mass media sources
more effective than the localite sources. On an overall average farmers of both districts used 3
each of mass media and localite sources; however, farmers of Muzaffarpur district have used
more personal cosmopolite sources (5) than farmers of Madhubani district (3).

In the context of findings of present study it is worth referring that personal localite sources like
neighbours, friends, progressive and opinion farmers were widely used by majority of the
respondents due high credibility. Kapoor and Kumar (2015) found that information provided by
fellow farmers was considered most reliable and useful in farmers’ purchasing decisions.

Present study showed the preference for mass media sources of information by the farmers in
Muzaffarpur district. Modern ICTs—such as the Internet, mobile phones, television and radio—
have the ability to deliver relevant and timely information that facilitates making informed
decisions to use resources in the most productive and profitable way (Ekbiaand Evans, 2009).

11
In the present study it is found that there is a digital divide in term of mass media sources of
information as Madhubani district is not having required infrastructure to support the use of ICTs
by the farmers. Many development initiatives have clearly revealed the huge potential of ICTs in
improving efficiency, efficacy, effectiveness and reach of rural (as well as urban) service
delivery and shown how these technologies could ensure much-needed transparency in both
government and business. However, as Chapman and Slaymaker (2002) noted, the contradiction
between the potential for ICTs to address the challenges faced by rural development and the
current failure to harness them for this purpose is striking. There is increasing realization that the
digital divide (the gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not) is not
merely technological. There is a social divide between the information rich and poor in societies
and there is also a digital gap between women and men in society (Huyer and Mitter, 2003).
According to Rao (2004), many ICT-based initiatives in India lack a comprehensive plan for
addressing the target population due to insufficient infrastructure and a lack of appropriate
technologies.

Conclusion

The present study made a comparative analysis of various information sources used and their
effectiveness among farmers of Muzaffarpur and Madhubani districts to present the general
communication profile of farmers of Bihar as a whole. The use of communication sources
depends on the availability and accessibility, especially in the context of mass media sources of
information. Thus, it was used better in case of farmers representing from a district with better
infrastructure (Muzaffarpur). This is quite natural because higher socio-economic status of a
farmer is characterized by higher education, larger farm size, higher income, etc., which
determines the source of information preferred by farmers. Further, the supply of electricity was
not very appreciable in both the districts which hampered the respondents to make proper
utilization of mass media sources especially televisions and internet based services. Remote
location used to limit the reach of communication sources to the farmers. The poor farmers have
indeed very limited access to ICTs and they mostly rely on information from informal networks
of personal localite sources, which do not adequately satisfy their information needs. Moreover,
it remains very difficult for people with low levels of education and income to reap the full
benefits of ICTs. Therefore, following the findings of present study, the emphasis is to be given

12
for improving education and income of the farmers leading to improved use of mass media
sources of information to bring about overall improvement in the perception of agricultural
information needs and their fulfillment.

References
Balasubramanian & Charles, E.M. (1996). Mass media and extension programmes. Agricultural
Extension Review 8(15): 25-28.
Binswanger-Mkhize, H.P. & Zhou, Y. (2012) The Roundtable Consultation on Agricultural
Extension for Strengthening Sustainable Agriculture and Farmers’ Participation in Value
Chains in Asia. Beijing: Syngenta Foundation.
Chapman, R. & Slaymaker, T. (2002). ICTs and Rural Development: Review of Literature,
Current Interventions and Opportunities for Action. Working Paper 192, Overseas
Development Institute, London.
CTA. (1999). Reducing poverty through agricultural sector strategies in eastern andsouthern
Africa. Proceedings of a workshop organized by CTA and theEuropean Commission.
Wageningen, The Netherlands, 23-25 November 1998.
Ekbia, H.R., & Evans, T.P. (2009). Regimes of information: Land use, management, and policy.
The Information Society, 25 (5), 328–343.
Hill, M., Kaine, G. & Ashburner, R. (2013).Where farmers seek information when making
purchase decisions: Implications for extension. Extension Farming Systems
Journal, 9 (1), 43–51.
Huyer, S. & Mitter, S. (2003) ICTs, Globalisation and Poverty Reduction: Gender Dimensions of
the Knowledge Society. International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and UN
Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD).
Kapoor, S. & Kumar, N. (2015). Use and Contribution of Information Sources in Buying Process
of Agri-inputs by Farmers in India. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 16:134–
150.
National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). (2005). Situation assessment survey of farmers:
Access to modern technology for farming (Report No. 499[59/33/2]), New Delhi, India:
National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Program
Implementation, Government of India.

13
Rao, S.S. (2004). Role of ICTs in India’s rural community information systems. Info, 6 (4), 261 –
269.
Singh, D.K., Gautam, U.S., Singh, M. & Singh, R.P. (2010), Media Exposure of the Farmers in
Sagar District of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 46 (3 & 40):
26-30.
Verma, S.R., Bairwa, R.K., Sharma, F.L. & Indoriya, D. (2013). Impact of cell phone enabled
information services in the knowledge upgradation of farmer about improved crop
production techniques. Indian Journal of Extension Education & Rural Development, 21:
159-164.
Wakle, P.K; Wattamwar, V.T. & Khalge, M.I. (1998) Utilization of different sources by farmers
for seeking farm information. Maharashtra Journal of Extension Education. 17: 299-301.

14