The Journal of Research ANGRAU
Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university
A STUDY ON DIFFUSION STATUS OF SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI) The number of farmers cultivating SRI and acreage under SRI is compared with total number of rice farmers and rice acreage in the selected villages. Percentages were calculated. The percentage of SRI acreage over total Rice acreage is 0.30 per cent in 2006 -07, 2.80 per cent in 2007-08, 8.82 per cent in 2008-09, 4.82 per cent in 2009-10 and 4.76 per cent in 2010-11.Whereas percentage of farmers adopting SRI over total Rice farmers is 1.52 per cent in 2006 -07, 13.50 per cent in 2007-08, 25.71 per cent in 2008-09 , 11.05 per cent in 2009-10 and 10.99 per cent in 2010-11. Results are depicted graphically in figure 1 and 2. The secondary sources reported an increasing trend both in area and number of farmers from the year 2006 (year of inception of SRI) to 2009, afterwards a gradual decline is clearly evident in the acreage and number of farmers adopting SRI in selected villages. The present study showed similar trend with respect to cumulative frequency reported by Karthik and Manjunatha (2010). Percentage adoption of SRI 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Early majority Late majority Laggards Early adopters Innovators 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Years Fig.2. Categorisation of adopter on the basis of earliness in adoption (innovativeness) Table 3. Distribution of the respondents based on their earliness in adoption (innovativeness) of SRI technology S.No Year Adopter category N % 1 2006-2007 Innovators 2 1.66 2 2007-2008 Early adopters 11 9.17 3 2008-2009 Early majority 44 36.67 4 2009-2010 Late majority 40 33.33 5 2010-2011 Laggards 23 19.17 Total 120 100.00 Table 3 indicates that during 2006-07, (year of SRI inception in the Mahaboobnagar district) SRI was adopted by only a few members i.e only 1.66 percent, who are termed as innovators. As SRI is a new technology it was adopted only by a small percent of respondents. During the first year, the respondents (innovators) who are having high extension contacts and sources of information 108
NIRMALA and VASANTHA adopted this technology. In 2007- 08 there was a little increase in number of respondents adopting SRI i.e. from1.66 to 9.17 percent, the probable reasons could be they might have got convinced by seeing SRI performance in innovators fields or there may be increase in availability of implements or organisation of good number of demonstrations and improved extension contacts with concerned scientists etc. must have motivated the respondents to adopt SRI. During 2008- 09, there was a rapid increase in number of farmers adopting SRI i.e. from 9.17 to 36.67 percent, the probable reason could be in order to prevent depletion of ground water resources, which generally happens with conventional rice cultivation, Government has announced incentives to promote SRI in the form of providing machinery and inputs at subsidised prices which has shot up area under SRI. In 2009- 10, there was a little decrease in adoption of SRI i.e from 36.67 to 33.33 percent, the probable reason may be problems with labour In 2010- 11 there was a drastic decrease in adoption of SRI due to intensified problems with labour, non availability of inputs, difficulties in water management, non availability of organic inputs, land levelling, weeding operations which has reduced SRI cultivation. Study reported a large majority of respondents under early and late majority (70%). Similar findings were reported by Prasad (1997). The curve (Fig.2 ) obtained on Adopter categories is an incomplete bell shaped curve. According to Rogers (2003) adoption of an innovation usually follows a normal bell shaped curve when plotted over a time. Since the time tested period is short in the present study, the curve could not be a complete bell shaped curve. If the study was carried out for longer period of time as done by Rogers then there is a possibility to obtain a complete bell shaped curve for SRI cultivation also. Similar results were reported by Ryan and Gross (1943) in hybrid seed corn in Iowa. The status of diffusion of SRI is medium to low in spite of multifarous efforts of government the aggregate area under SRI is not to the expectations. Though some farmers are able to continue this method and reap benefits, some others have adopted SRI for one season or two seasons and have discontinued it, some others appreciated the method but did not adopt it. Lack of perception accuracy and operational difficulties might have discouraged farmers to continue SRI. Keeping in view of benefits of SRI, the government has to take measures to increase its diffusion by popularising the benefits of SRI through interpersonal and mass communication media, announcing incentives in the form of supply of organic manures, subsidised markers and conoweeders. Funds should be earmarked to innovative farmers and NGO’s who were interested in developing modified implements, varieties or methods in SRI that definitely helps in increasing area under SRI. REFERENCES Karthik, K. B and Manjunatha, B. N. 2010. Adoption of hybrid paddy seed production technologies in Mandya District. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 44 (4): 863-865. Prasad, S.C. 2006. System of Rice intensification in India: Innovation History and Institutional Challenges. WWF- ICRISAT Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment, Patancheru, Hyderabad. http:// wassan.org/Sri/documents/ Shambu-SRI. pdf (21 July 2011) Prasad, S.V. 1997 A critical analysis of diffusion and adoption of production recommendations of rainfed castor in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh. Ph.D Thesis Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad. Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5 th ed. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney. Singapore: Free Press. Ryan, Bryce and Neal C. Gross 1943. “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities”, Rural Sociology, 8:15-24. RS(E) Website: www. Sri-india.net, 2009. 109
- 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 71 and 72: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 73 and 74: KUMAR et al Table 2. Effect of seed
- Page 75 and 76: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 77 and 78: DEEPAK et al Table 2 Price spread a
- Page 79 and 80: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- 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 93 and 94: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- 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 and 102: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 103 and 104: DEVI et al S.No Category Frequency
- Page 105 and 106: DEVI et al extension contact and ma
- Page 107: NIRMALA and VASANTHA earliness in a
- 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 119 and 120: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 121 and 122: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- 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 129 and 130: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- 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 137 and 138: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- 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
A STUDY ON DIFFUSION STATUS OF SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)<br />
<strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> farmers cultivating SRI and<br />
acreage under SRI is compared with total number <strong>of</strong><br />
rice farmers and rice acreage in the selected villages.<br />
Percentages were calculated.<br />
<strong>The</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> SRI acreage over total<br />
Rice acreage is 0.30 per cent in 2006 -07, 2.80 per<br />
cent in 2007-08, 8.82 per cent in 2008-09, 4.82 per<br />
cent in 2009-10 and 4.76 per cent in 2010-11.Whereas<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> farmers adopting SRI over total Rice<br />
farmers is 1.52 per cent in 2006 -07, 13.50 per cent<br />
in 2007-08, 25.71 per cent in 2008-09 , 11.05 per<br />
cent in 2009-10 and 10.99 per cent in 2010-11.<br />
Results are depicted graphically in figure 1 and 2.<br />
<strong>The</strong> secondary sources reported an<br />
increasing trend both in area and number <strong>of</strong> farmers<br />
from the year 2006 (year <strong>of</strong> inception <strong>of</strong> SRI) to 2009,<br />
afterwards a gradual decline is clearly evident in the<br />
acreage and number <strong>of</strong> farmers adopting SRI in<br />
selected villages. <strong>The</strong> present study showed similar<br />
trend with respect to cumulative frequency reported<br />
by Karthik and Manjunatha (2010).<br />
Percentage adoption <strong>of</strong> SRI<br />
50<br />
45<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
Early majority<br />
Late majority<br />
Laggards<br />
Early adopters<br />
Innovators<br />
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011<br />
Years<br />
Fig.2. Categorisation <strong>of</strong> adopter on the basis <strong>of</strong> earliness in adoption (innovativeness)<br />
Table 3. Distribution <strong>of</strong> the respondents based on their earliness in adoption (innovativeness) <strong>of</strong> SRI<br />
technology<br />
S.No Year Adopter category N %<br />
1 2006-2007 Innovators 2 1.66<br />
2 2007-2008 Early adopters 11 9.17<br />
3 2008-2009 Early majority 44 36.67<br />
4 2009-2010 Late majority 40 33.33<br />
5 2010-2011 Laggards 23 19.17<br />
Total 120 100.00<br />
Table 3 indicates that during 2006-07, (year<br />
<strong>of</strong> SRI inception in the Mahaboobnagar district) SRI<br />
was adopted by only a few members i.e only 1.66<br />
percent, who are termed as innovators. As SRI is a<br />
new technology it was adopted only by a small<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> respondents. During the first year, the<br />
respondents (innovators) who are having high<br />
extension contacts and sources <strong>of</strong> information<br />
108
Change language