14.06.2015 Views

Knowledge Level of Farmers on Organic Farming in ... - Seea.org.in

Knowledge Level of Farmers on Organic Farming in ... - Seea.org.in

Knowledge Level of Farmers on Organic Farming in ... - Seea.org.in

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

70 Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 12 (3), September, 2012<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Knowledge</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Level</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Farmers</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Organic</strong> <strong>Farm<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Tamil Nadu<br />

D. Jaganathan 1 , Ram Bahal 2 , R. Roy Burman 3 and V. Len<strong>in</strong> 4<br />

1. Scientist (Agril. Ext.), CPCRI Regi<strong>on</strong>al Stati<strong>on</strong>, Vittal, Karnataka, 2. Former Pr<strong>in</strong>cipal Scientist, 3. Sr. Scientist,<br />

Divisi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agril. Ext., IARI, New Delhi, 4. Scientist (Agril. Ext.), CHES, Vejalpur, Gujarat<br />

Corresp<strong>on</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g author email: djaganathtn@gmail.com<br />

ABSTRACT<br />

<strong>Organic</strong> farm<strong>in</strong>g is a producti<strong>on</strong> system <strong>in</strong> which the envir<strong>on</strong>ment is preserved, farmers and workers have fair access<br />

to the means <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> food producti<strong>on</strong> while receiv<strong>in</strong>g a fair return for their labour and c<strong>on</strong>sumers have their food at fair<br />

prices. The area under <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> India has been <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g steadily s<strong>in</strong>ce 2000 after launch<strong>in</strong>g Nati<strong>on</strong>al<br />

Programme for <strong>Organic</strong> Producti<strong>on</strong>. The study was c<strong>on</strong>ducted to f<strong>in</strong>d out the knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and<br />

<strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers <strong>on</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Tamil Nadu. A total <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 240 farmers compris<strong>in</strong>g 120 <strong>org</strong>anic farmers and<br />

120 <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers drawn randomly from four districts <strong>in</strong> Tamil Nadu c<strong>on</strong>stituted the sample for the study. A test<br />

was developed for assess<strong>in</strong>g the knowledge <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> farmers. <strong>Organic</strong> farmers had better knowledge than <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farmers with the mean score difference <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 3.73. The variables namely, <strong>in</strong>novativeness, market orientati<strong>on</strong>, extensi<strong>on</strong><br />

orientati<strong>on</strong> and mass media exposure had significant relati<strong>on</strong>ship with knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers.<br />

Key words: <strong>Organic</strong> farm<strong>in</strong>g; <str<strong>on</strong>g>Knowledge</str<strong>on</strong>g> level; Innovativeness; Market orientati<strong>on</strong>; Extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong>;<br />

Nati<strong>on</strong>al Programme for <strong>Organic</strong> Producti<strong>on</strong><br />

(NPOP) was launched <strong>in</strong> May 2000 with the objective<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> promot<strong>in</strong>g <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Indialead<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

development <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a movement am<strong>on</strong>g the farmers,<br />

agriculture experts and scientists <strong>in</strong> favour <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Tamil Nadu. State Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

Agriculture, NGOs, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University<br />

and other government and private agencies have started<br />

advocat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> major crops. Hence<br />

accessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowledge level am<strong>on</strong>g farmers <strong>on</strong><br />

<strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g have became an important issue which<br />

needs to be explored. Therefore this study was<br />

c<strong>on</strong>ducted to assess the knowledge <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and<br />

<strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers <strong>on</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

METHODOLOGY<br />

Ex-post facto research design was used <strong>in</strong> this<br />

study. In total 240 farmers compris<strong>in</strong>g 120 <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farmers and 120 <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers were selected<br />

randomly from 8 taluks <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four districts, namely,<br />

Kancheepuram, Erode, D<strong>in</strong>digul and Karur tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to<br />

account c<strong>on</strong>sider<strong>in</strong>g the maximum number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

paddy growers (Kancheepuram and Erode) and <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

banana growers (D<strong>in</strong>digul and Karur). However 15<br />

<strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers were randomly selected<br />

from each taluk with priority to list collected from N<strong>on</strong><br />

Governmental Organizati<strong>on</strong>s, Krishi Vigyan Kendras<br />

and experts <strong>in</strong> order to assess their knowledge level. A<br />

standardized knowledge test was developed to measure<br />

the knowledge <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> farmers about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g tak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>in</strong>to c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> the procedures adopted by Sulaiman<br />

(1989), B<strong>on</strong>ny (1991) and Sushama (1993). However<br />

the knowledge <strong>in</strong>dex was calculated by the formulae -<br />

Resp<strong>on</strong>dent's total score<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Knowledge</str<strong>on</strong>g> Index = ×100<br />

Total possible score<br />

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<br />

Extent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowledge <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farmers about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g: Results presented <strong>in</strong><br />

Table 1 shows that majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic (67.50 %) and<br />

<strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers (74.16 %) had medium level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

knowledge followed by high (11.67 % <strong>org</strong>anic and 10.83<br />

% <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic) and low (18.33 % <strong>org</strong>anic and 9.17 %<br />

<strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic) levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowledge. Few farmers both <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic group had very low and high levels<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowledge as earlier reported by Jeyaraj (1997).<br />

However Elakkia (2007) op<strong>in</strong>ed that majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />

farmers had high level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowledge about <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farm<strong>in</strong>g. However the Z value as presented <strong>in</strong> Table 2<br />

reveals that knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farmers was found to be significantly different at


Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 12 (3), September, 2012 71<br />

Category<br />

Table 1. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Knowledge</str<strong>on</strong>g> level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>Organic</strong> (n=120)<br />

In<strong>org</strong>anic (n=120)<br />

Index range f % Index range f %<br />

Very low (Mean-2SD) 89.23 2 1.67<br />

Total 120 100 120 100<br />

Table 2. Significant difference <strong>in</strong> knowledge level between<br />

<strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers<br />

Table 3. Relati<strong>on</strong>ship between the <strong>in</strong>dependent variables<br />

and knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers (N=120)<br />

Pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ile characteristics<br />

Mean values Mean score Z<br />

Variable <strong>Organic</strong> In<strong>org</strong>anic difference value<br />

(n=120) (n=120)<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Knowledge</str<strong>on</strong>g> 16.27 12.54 3.73 12.461**<br />

**- Significant at 1 per cent level<br />

Mean: 81.37, SD: 9.68 Mean: 62.71, SD: 13.26<br />

Correlati<strong>on</strong> coefficient<br />

Age - 0.164<br />

Educati<strong>on</strong> 0.576**<br />

<strong>Farm<strong>in</strong>g</strong> experience 0.114<br />

Experience <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g 0.288**<br />

Farm size 0.167<br />

Area under <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g 0.151<br />

Livestock possessi<strong>on</strong> 0.349**<br />

Social participati<strong>on</strong> 0.339**<br />

Extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong> 0.494**<br />

Mass media exposure 0.539**<br />

Innovativeness 0.580**<br />

Ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong> 0.506**<br />

Risk orientati<strong>on</strong> 0.507**<br />

Market orientati<strong>on</strong> 0.502**<br />

Decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g behaviour 0.337**<br />

Envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong> 0.182*<br />

Self c<strong>on</strong>fidence 0.298**<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Level</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspirati<strong>on</strong> 0.342**<br />

Belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g 0.113<br />

**- Significant at 1 per cent level<br />

*- Significant at 5 per cent level<br />

1 per cent level, which may be due to fact that <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farmers had better educati<strong>on</strong>, extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong>,<br />

mass media exposure, envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong> and<br />

belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Relati<strong>on</strong>ship between the <strong>in</strong>dependent variables and<br />

knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers: The variables<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers played a vital role <strong>in</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

their knowledge level about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g. Correlati<strong>on</strong><br />

analysis at 1 per cent and 5 per cent level is presented<br />

<strong>in</strong> Table 3 to assess the relati<strong>on</strong>ship between the<br />

<strong>in</strong>dependent variables and knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farmers.<br />

The results <strong>in</strong> Table 3 reveals that <strong>in</strong>novativeness,<br />

educati<strong>on</strong>, mass media exposure, risk orientati<strong>on</strong>,<br />

ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong>, market orientati<strong>on</strong>, extensi<strong>on</strong><br />

orientati<strong>on</strong>, livestock possessi<strong>on</strong>, level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspirati<strong>on</strong>,<br />

social participati<strong>on</strong>, decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g behaviour, self<br />

c<strong>on</strong>fidence and experience <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g had a<br />

significant and positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship with knowledge level<br />

at 1 per cent level, but envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong> showed<br />

a significant and positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship with knowledge<br />

at 5 per cent level.<br />

The significant and positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship between<br />

<strong>in</strong>novativeness and knowledge was also reported by<br />

Manoj (2000) Venkatesan (2000) and Jaganathan<br />

(2004). S<strong>in</strong>ce a <strong>in</strong>novative farmer would be more<br />

curious enough to use all <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g practices<br />

relatively earlier than others and look forward for latest<br />

<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

However, educati<strong>on</strong> too had a significant and<br />

positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship with knowledge level reveals that<br />

educated farmers know many th<strong>in</strong>gs than less educated/<br />

illiterates. S<strong>in</strong>ce highly educated farmers collect<br />

<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong>s from various sources like mass media as<br />

well as through <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong> with experts. Similar result<br />

were also reported by Majjusha (2000), Manoj<br />

(2000), Jaganathan (2004) and Elakkia (2007).<br />

The results further reveals that there was a<br />

significant and positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship between risk<br />

orientati<strong>on</strong> and knowledge level shows that farmers face<br />

certa<strong>in</strong> difficulties <strong>in</strong> practic<strong>in</strong>g <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g, but<br />

proper knowledge enable them to tackle risks as earlier<br />

reported by Majjusha (2000), Manoj (2000) and<br />

Jaganathan (2004). However, ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong>


72 Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 12 (3), September, 2012<br />

am<strong>on</strong>g farmers was due to reducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> cost <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

producti<strong>on</strong> which may <strong>in</strong>crease their pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>its.<br />

Market orientati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g farmers <strong>in</strong>dicate <strong>in</strong>crease<br />

<strong>in</strong> their pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it. Similarly extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong> enables<br />

farmers to attend a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g programmes<br />

c<strong>on</strong>ducted by a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anizati<strong>on</strong>s al<strong>on</strong>g with their<br />

discussi<strong>on</strong> with <strong>org</strong>anic experts, who besides provides<br />

tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g also visit successful farmers’ fields, c<strong>on</strong>duct<br />

group discussi<strong>on</strong>, c<strong>on</strong>duct study tour to other states, etc.<br />

The most important extensi<strong>on</strong> activities were weekly<br />

farmers’ meet<strong>in</strong>g at village level to exchange ideas,<br />

problems and soluti<strong>on</strong>s related to <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g am<strong>on</strong>g<br />

each other.<br />

Social participati<strong>on</strong> too had a significant and positive<br />

relati<strong>on</strong>ship with knowledge level reveals that frequent<br />

discussi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>in</strong>teracti<strong>on</strong>, meet<strong>in</strong>gs etc. with scientists,<br />

experts and extensi<strong>on</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>nel enhance their<br />

knowledge level as earlier reported by Elakkia (2007).<br />

Similarly decisi<strong>on</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g pattern, i.e., tak<strong>in</strong>g right<br />

decisi<strong>on</strong>s at right time and place not <strong>on</strong>ly saves a lot <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

resources but motivates farmers to switch over to<br />

<strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

However high self c<strong>on</strong>fidence am<strong>on</strong>g farmers<br />

develop faith with<strong>in</strong> themselves and develops high<br />

esteem to face challenges, as also reported by<br />

Jaganathan (2004).<br />

The results further reveals that there was a<br />

significant and positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship between<br />

envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong> and knowledge level. S<strong>in</strong>ce<br />

farmers felt that highly polluted envir<strong>on</strong>ment through<br />

<strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g may protect the envir<strong>on</strong>ment for future<br />

generati<strong>on</strong>s while opt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g practices as<br />

reported by Jaganathan (2004).<br />

Stepwise l<strong>in</strong>ear regressi<strong>on</strong> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>dependent<br />

variables <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers with knowledge level:<br />

Stepwise l<strong>in</strong>ear regressi<strong>on</strong> analysis was carried out to<br />

identify the most important variables that affect the<br />

knowledge level about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g. The results <strong>in</strong><br />

Table 4 reveals that variables, viz., <strong>in</strong>novativeness,<br />

market orientati<strong>on</strong>, extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong> and mass media<br />

exposure have significant relati<strong>on</strong>ship with knowledge<br />

level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers. However the strength <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

<strong>in</strong>fluence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these variables can be expla<strong>in</strong>ed as <strong>on</strong>e<br />

unit <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>novativeness, market orientati<strong>on</strong>,<br />

extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong> and mass media would result <strong>in</strong><br />

0.087, 0.207, 0.118 and 0.167 units <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> knowledge<br />

respectively. S<strong>in</strong>ce R 2 value was 48.20 per cent, hence<br />

variati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> knowledge level was exhibited by these four<br />

variables.<br />

Table 4. Stepwise l<strong>in</strong>ear regressi<strong>on</strong> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

<strong>in</strong>dependent variables <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers with knowledge<br />

level (N=120)<br />

Independent<br />

variables<br />

Regressi<strong>on</strong> S.E <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> partial t-<br />

coefficient regressi<strong>on</strong> value<br />

coefficient<br />

Innovativeness 0.087** 0.032 2.758<br />

Market orientati<strong>on</strong> 0.207** 0.053 3.869<br />

Extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong> 0.118* 0.056 2.103<br />

Mass media exposure 0.167* 0.080 2.076<br />

** - Significant at 1 per cent level<br />

*- Significant at 5 per cent level<br />

R 2 =0.482<br />

Table 5. Stepwise logistic regressi<strong>on</strong> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

<strong>in</strong>dependent variables with knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and<br />

<strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers (N=120)<br />

Independent Regressi<strong>on</strong> Wald Exp(B)<br />

variables coefficient SEP value /Odds<br />

ratio<br />

Age 0.046** 0.023 3.880 1.047<br />

Social participati<strong>on</strong> 0.324** 0.132 6.046 1.383<br />

Eco. motivati<strong>on</strong> - 0.281** 0.098 8.125 0.755<br />

Market orientati<strong>on</strong> 0.176** 0.087 4.062 1.192<br />

Envir<strong>on</strong>mental 1.948** 0.392 24.691 7.016<br />

orientati<strong>on</strong><br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Level</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspirati<strong>on</strong> 1.315** 0.261 25.376 3.723<br />

Belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>. farm<strong>in</strong>g 0.761** 0.241 9.981 2.140<br />

SEP = S.E <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> partial regressi<strong>on</strong> oefficient<br />

** = Significant at 1 per cent level<br />

Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.752<br />

Stepwise logistic regressi<strong>on</strong> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>dependent<br />

variables <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers with<br />

knowledge about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g: To determ<strong>in</strong>e the<br />

<strong>in</strong>fluence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>dependent variables <strong>on</strong> knowledge level<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers, stepwise logistic<br />

regressi<strong>on</strong> analysis was performed with the help <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

regressi<strong>on</strong> coefficients, standard error, wald values and<br />

odds ratios as presented <strong>in</strong> Table 5. It was observed<br />

that out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> seventeen variables studied, seven variables,<br />

namely, age, social participati<strong>on</strong>, market orientati<strong>on</strong>,<br />

envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong>, level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspirati<strong>on</strong> and belief<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g had significant and positive effect <strong>on</strong><br />

knowledge level, whereas ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong> had<br />

negative <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> knowledge level at 1 per cent level.<br />

Hence the strength <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these variables can be expla<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

as <strong>on</strong>e unit <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> age, social participati<strong>on</strong>, market<br />

orientati<strong>on</strong>, envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong>, level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspirati<strong>on</strong><br />

and belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g would br<strong>in</strong>g about 0.046,


Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 12 (3), September, 2012 73<br />

0.324, 0.176, 1.948, 1.315 and 0.761 units <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong><br />

knowledge level respectively. Similarly <strong>on</strong>e unit <strong>in</strong>crease<br />

<strong>in</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong> would decrease the knowledge<br />

level by 0.281 units. The results further reveals that<br />

farmers with high envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong> shall have<br />

7.016 times more knowledge level about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g<br />

than others. Similarly, pers<strong>on</strong> with high level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspirati<strong>on</strong>,<br />

belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g, social participati<strong>on</strong>, market<br />

orientati<strong>on</strong>, age and ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong> might have<br />

3.723, 2.140, 1.383, 1.192, 1.047 and 0.755 times more<br />

knowledge level respectively than other farmers.<br />

CONCLUSION<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Knowledge</str<strong>on</strong>g> level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the farmers about <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farm<strong>in</strong>g was found to be medium. A strategy for<br />

knowledge development <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g for the<br />

farmers/ producers, c<strong>on</strong>sumers and related government<br />

departments, agricultural research <strong>in</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s and such<br />

regulatory bodies would help <strong>in</strong> spread<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farm<strong>in</strong>g practices. The characteristics like<br />

<strong>in</strong>novativeness, market orientati<strong>on</strong>, extensi<strong>on</strong> orientati<strong>on</strong><br />

and mass media exposure were significant with<br />

knowledge level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farmers. Pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ile<br />

characteristics <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic and <strong>in</strong><strong>org</strong>anic farmers, namely,<br />

age, social participati<strong>on</strong>, ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong>, market<br />

orientati<strong>on</strong>, envir<strong>on</strong>mental orientati<strong>on</strong>, level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aspirati<strong>on</strong><br />

and belief <strong>in</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g had significant and positive<br />

effect <strong>on</strong> knowledge except ec<strong>on</strong>omic motivati<strong>on</strong> which<br />

had negative <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>on</strong> knowledge about <strong>org</strong>anic<br />

farm<strong>in</strong>g. Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s, NGOs and extensi<strong>on</strong><br />

functi<strong>on</strong>aries who are <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>stant c<strong>on</strong>tact with farm<strong>in</strong>g<br />

community need to take <strong>in</strong>to account the pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ile<br />

characteristics while plann<strong>in</strong>g and execut<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

agricultural development programmes as these<br />

characteristics were found to <strong>in</strong>fluence their knowledge<br />

about <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Paper received <strong>on</strong> : October 10, 2010<br />

Accepted <strong>on</strong> : December 23, 2011<br />

REFERENCES<br />

B<strong>on</strong>ny, B. P. (1991). Adopti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> improved agricultural practices by commercial vegetable growers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Ollukkara blocks <strong>in</strong><br />

Thrissur district. M. Sc., (Ag.) thesis (unpub.), Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agricultural Extensi<strong>on</strong>, Kerala Agricultural University,<br />

Thrissur.<br />

Elakkia, N. (2007). Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g needs <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> vegetable growers <strong>on</strong> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g practices <strong>in</strong> Western Z<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Tamil Nadu. M.Sc.,<br />

(Ag.) thesis (unpub.), Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agricultural Extensi<strong>on</strong> and Rural Sociology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,<br />

Coimbatore.<br />

Jaganathan, D. (2004). Analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>org</strong>anic farm<strong>in</strong>g practices <strong>in</strong> vegetable cultivati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Thiruvananthapuram district. Department<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agricultural Extensi<strong>on</strong>, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur.<br />

Jeyaraj, N. (1997). Adopti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> bio-pesticides am<strong>on</strong>g cott<strong>on</strong> growers. M.Sc.,(Ag.) thesis (unpub.), Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agricultural<br />

Extensi<strong>on</strong> and Rural Sociology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.<br />

Majjusha, A.R. (2000). Techno-socio-ec<strong>on</strong>omic assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> farmers’ practices <strong>in</strong> the cultivati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata<br />

L.) <strong>in</strong> Thiruvananthapuram district. M.Sc., (Ag.) thesis (unpub.), Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agricultural Extensi<strong>on</strong>, Kerala Agricultural<br />

University, Thrissur.<br />

Manoj, S. (2000). Techno-socio-ec<strong>on</strong>omic assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> farmers’ practices <strong>in</strong> rice cultivati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Thiruvananthapuram district.<br />

M.Sc.,(Ag.) thesis (unpub.), Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur.<br />

Sulaiman, R. V. (1989). Evaluative percepti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> appropriateness <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the recommended fertilizer management practices. M.Sc.,<br />

(Ag.) thesis (unpub.), Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agricultural Extensi<strong>on</strong>, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur.<br />

Sushama, N. P. K. (1993). Vocati<strong>on</strong>al higher sec<strong>on</strong>dary educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> agriculture <strong>in</strong> Kerala – A multidimensi<strong>on</strong>al analysis. Ph.D.<br />

thesis (unpub.), Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agricultural Extensi<strong>on</strong>, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur.<br />

Venkatesan, S. (2000). Awareness, knowledge and adopti<strong>on</strong> level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> recommended tomato cultivati<strong>on</strong> practices. M.Sc.,(Ag.)<br />

thesis (unpub.), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!