The Journal of Research ANGRAU

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