The Journal of Research ANGRAU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUGARCANE FARMERS Table 1. Profile characteristics of sugarcane farmers N=120 S.No AGE Category Frequency Percentage MEAN S.D. 1. Young (56 years) 13 10.83 - - Total 120 100.00 EDUCATION 1 Illiterate 6 5.00 2. Can read and write only 5 4.17 3. Primary school 9 7.50 4. Middle school 26 21.67 5. High school 49 40.83 - - 6. Intermediate 15 12.50 7. College level 10 8.33 Total 120 100.00 FARM SIZE 1. Marginal farmer 4 3.33 2. Small farmer 65 54.17 3. Big farmer 51 42.50 Total 120 100.00 FARMING EXPERIENCE - - 1. Low 19 15.83 2. Medium 83 69.17 3. High 18 15.00 Total 120 100.00 EXTENSION CONTACT 1. Low 17 14.17 2. Medium 76 63.33 3. High 27 22.50 Total 120 100.00 TRAININGS UNDERGONE 1 Low 37 30.83 2 Medium 60 50.00 3 High 23 19.17 Total 120 100.00 SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 1 Low 14 11.67 2 Medium 81 67.50 3 High 25 20.83 Total 120 100.00 MASS MEDIA EXPOSURE 1. Low 13 10.83 2. Medium 83 69.17 3. High 24 20.00 Total 120 100.00 ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 102 25.35 11.12 9.99 2.20 1.825 1.0262 10.75 3.3487 8.65 2.17
DEVI et al S.No Category Frequency Percentage MEAN S.D. 2. Medium 71 59.17 3. High 23 19.16 Total 120 100.00 SCIENTIFIC ORIENTATION 1. Low 22 18.33 2. Medium 74 61.67 11.88 2.73 3. High 24 20.00 Total 120 100.00 MANAGEMENT ORIENTATION 1. Low 15 12.50 35.72. 6.39 2. Medium 86 71.67 3. High 19 15.83 Total 120 100.00 INNOVATIVENESS 1. Low 20 16.67 17.64 4.52 2. Medium 79 65.83 3. High 21 17.50 Total 120 100.00 Farm size It is evident from the Table 1 that 54.17 per cent of the sugarcane farmers were small followed by big farmers (42.50%) and marginal farmers (3.33%). The probable reason might be that, sugarcane as a commercial crop need to be grown in large farms so as to take up required farm management practices and also to cope up with the post harvest management such as transporting to the sugar factories or taking up jaggery preparation. It might be very difficult to take up all such activities under small holding conditions with half to one acre of land which involve high investment leading to less profitability. It is in conformity with findings of Pandya (1995). Farming experience From Table 1 it is evident that 69.17 per cent of the sugarcane farmers had medium farming experience followed by low (15.83%) and high farming experience (15.00%).The probable reason might be that as majority of the farmers belong to middle age group and also there was awareness among the farming community about the education which made them to enter into farming after completing their education. It is in conformity with Roy (2005) and Reddy (1997). Extension contact From Table 1 it could be seen that 63.33 percent of the respondents were having medium extension contact followed by low (22.50%) and high (14.17%) extension contact. The probable reason f might be that as the sugarcane crop is mainly grown under the supervision of sugar factories and also the majority of sugarcane farmers were educated, the farmers always seek for timely extension support from factory officials, agricultural officers and the scientists for their day to day farm operations for better productivity. It is in conformity with Gattu (2001) and Roy (2005). Trainings undergone From Table 1 it could be seen that majority of the respondents have undergone no. of medium trainings undergone (50.00%) followed by low (30.83%) and high (19.17%) number of trainings. This might be due to the fact that trainings are the tools for upgrading the knowledge and skills in a particular area of operation. As sugarcane is the major 103
Page 1 and 2:
1
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS PART I : PLANT SCIENCE Eff
Page 5 and 6:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 1-4, 2013 EFFEC
Page 7 and 8:
EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF NPK
Page 9 and 10:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 5-13, 2013 NUTR
Page 11 and 12:
NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY RICE CROP UNDER
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
LAKSHMI et al Fig 1. Changes in C/N
Page 21 and 22:
LAKSHMI et al Changes in C/N ratio
Page 23 and 24:
LAKSHMI et al Table 3. Changes in h
Page 25 and 26:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 20-29, 2013 INF
Page 27 and 28:
PRASAD and PRASADINI of bulk densit
Page 29 and 30:
PRASAD and PRASADINI to as high as
Page 31 and 32:
PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 4 . Infl
Page 33 and 34:
PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 8. Influ
Page 35 and 36:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 30-38, 2013 GEN
Page 37 and 38:
VEMANNA et al The range in mean val
Page 39 and 40:
VEMANNA et al grain yield per plant
Page 41 and 42:
VEMANNA et al 41
Page 43 and 44:
VEMANNA et al Singh, S. P and Khan,
Page 45 and 46:
RAMANA et al RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Page 47 and 48:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 42-46, 2013 A S
Page 49 and 50:
RAJANNA et. al. Table 2. Reasons fo
Page 51 and 52: RAJANNA et al the present findings
Page 53 and 54: NARASIMHA et al Table 1. Proximate
Page 55 and 56: NARASIMHA et al Maynard, L., Lossli
Page 57 and 58: RAMANA et al with small follicles m
Page 59 and 60: RAMANA et al Characteristics of fol
Page 61 and 62: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
Page 63 and 64: KIRTHY et al Akhtar et al., 2008; S
Page 65 and 66: KIRTHY et al El Gharras H. 2009. Po
Page 67 and 68: SANDYARANI et al Weed parameters li
Page 69 and 70: SANDYARANI et al Table 2. Influence
Page 73 and 74: KUMAR et al Table 2. Effect of seed
Page 77 and 78: DEEPAK et al Table 2 Price spread a
Page 81 and 82: YAMINI et al Table 3. Estimates of
Page 83 and 84: YAMINI et al coupled with high per
Page 85 and 86: LOKESH et al Table 1. Clustering pa
Page 87 and 88: LOKESH et al Table 4. Mean values o
Page 89 and 90: ABIRAMI et al Socio-economic Impact
Page 91 and 92: ABIRAMI et al socio-economic impact
Page 95 and 96: VEMANNA et al Table 1. Discriminant
Page 97 and 98: VEMANNA et al total biomass, fresh
Page 99 and 100: RAO et al Table 1. Plant height, nu
Page 101: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
Page 105 and 106: DEVI et al extension contact and ma
Page 107 and 108: NIRMALA and VASANTHA earliness in a
Page 109 and 110: NIRMALA and VASANTHA adopted this t
Page 111 and 112: SUDHARANI et al Table 1. Genotypic
Page 113 and 114: SUDHARANI et al At genotypic level,
Page 115 and 116: NIRMALA et al weight of pods per pl
Page 117 and 118: NIRMALA et al Table 3. Cluster mean
Page 123 and 124: PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI 6.5 6.
Page 125 and 126: PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI REFERE
Page 127 and 128: KATTEL et al Table 1. Item Analysis
Page 131 and 132: RADHIKA et al Thus, the results of
Page 133 and 134: RAJU et al estimated daily dietary
Page 135 and 136: RAJU et al Table 3. Physico-chemica
Page 139 and 140: MINNIE et al Table 2. Estimates of
Page 141 and 142: Statement about ownership and other
Page 143 and 144: GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF M
Page 145: ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDER
show all

The Journal of Research ANGRAU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?