An analysis of technological gap in fig cultivation in Ballari district of Karnataka

Introduction

Fig (Ficus carica

L.,) plant of the mulberry family (Moraceae) is indigenous to an area extending from Asiatic Turkey to northern India, but natural seedlings grow in most Mediterranean countries; it is cultivated in warm climates. In the Mediterranean region, the fig is so widely used, both fresh and dried, that it is called "the poor man's food" as the fruit contains significant amounts of calcium, potassium, phosphorus and iron. (Anon. 2024) [2] . In India, fig cultivation is mainly grown in the western regions of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Maharashtra is the leading fig producer in the country, followed by Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. India ranks twelfth globally, producing approximately 14, 695.56 tonnes of figs annually. Karnataka is notable for its fig cultivation, with Ballari district having the highest area under fig cultivation in the state. Karnataka has an area of 1,355 hectares out of which 1, 100 hectares is in Ballari and the production is about 19, 313 metric tons with a yield of 15.56 metric tons/hectare. The fig industry generates significant economic benefits, with an annual income of 32 million rupees and 0.8 million man-days of employment at the national level. In Karnataka, the income is 8.6 million rupees, and the employment generated is approximately 0.1 million man-days. (Anon, 2023) 1 [1] The Technological gap represents the disparity between recommended agricultural technologies and those adopted by farmers in the field. This gap often arises due to factors such as limited awareness or understanding of new technologies, financial constraints that prevent investment in advanced tools, inadequate infrastructure or resources, resistance to change due to traditional practices or cultural beliefs and perceived risks or uncertainties about the effectiveness of innovations. Additionally, the effectiveness of agricultural extension services, which are crucial for disseminating information and providing support, plays a significant role. Addressing these barriers is essential for bridging the gap and ensuring that farmers can effectively utilize recommended technologies.

Methodology

The study was carried out in the Ballari district of Karnataka. The Ballari district comprises five taluks, out of which two taluks namely Kurugodu and Siruguppa taluks were selected for the study as these talukas have the highest area under fig cultivation in Ballari district. The village-wise information relating to the area under fig cultivation was obtained from the office of the Joint Director of Horticulture, Ballari district and KVK, Hagari. The top five www.extensionjournal.com villages having the highest area under fig cultivation in Kurugodu taluk and the top five villages having the highest area under fig cultivation in Siruguppa taluk were selected from the district for the study. From each village, twelve fig growers were selected. Thus, from each selected taluk, sixty fig growers were selected by using a simple random sampling method. The total sample constituted from two taluks was 120. Data was collected by using a pre-tested interview schedule. The responses were scored, quantified, categorized and tabulated using statistical tools like percentage, mean, standard deviation and frequencies.

Results and Discussion

Overall technological gap of the fig growers in fig cultivation

The data presented in [8] .

Practice-wise technological gap of the fig growers in fig cultivation

The data in Table 2. Reveals that, the adoption levels among fig growers. More than half (52.50%) of the fig growers fully adopted the recommended spacing of 5m × 3m (15 × 9 ft), underscoring the practice's direct impact on yield and plant health. Notably, Cent per cent of the fig growers adopted the 'Ballari fig' variety, valued for its high yield, nutritional benefits and economic potential, particularly given its versatility in processing and the growing demand for fig-based products. Drip irrigation was adopted by Cent per cent of fig growers because it delivers water directly to the roots in a controlled manner, reducing the risk of overwatering and fulfilling the need of regular water requirements for fig trees. Additionally, Cent per cent of the fig growers practiced pruning and 75.00 per cent practiced training, with training focused on maintaining a low height with 6 to 8 branches for better management, increased fruit production and easier maintenance. Pruning was recognized as essential for enhancing fruit yield and tree health by removing dead or diseased wood, improving sunlight penetration and enhancing air circulation. In pest and disease management, adoption rates were 64.67 per cent for spider mite control, 58.33 per cent for leaf-eating caterpillar control and 63.33 and 64.17 per cent for rust disease and leaf spot control, respectively. These adoption rates highlight the fig growers' awareness of the importance of these practices in preventing foliage damage, minimizing crop losses and ensuring a productive orchard. More than half (55.83%) of the fig growers were in the 'partial adoption' category for the recommended plant population of 266 plants per acre, the reason might be some growers planting up to 300 plants per acre. This overcrowding can lead to competition for resources such as nutrients, water and sunlight, potentially compromising plant health and yield quality, although fig growers may expect higher yields from a higher plant population. The majority (58.33%) of the fig growers adopted the recommended pit size (2 ft length × 2 ft breadth × 2 ft depth) due to its significant benefits for tree establishment and growth. This pit size ensures adequate space for root expansion, promotes better soil aeration and facilitates effective drainage. More than 61.67 per cent of the respondents sourced their planting material from nurseries, which provide certified and healthy plants, ensuring better survival rates and early tree establishment. Nurseries also offer seedlings or cuttings at affordable prices, which is particularly beneficial for growers with smaller operations or limited resources. Cent per cent of fig growers were harvesting more than twice a year followed by pruning. More than (56.67%) of the fig growers have not adopted the recommended pit treatment, due to limited awareness or neglect. Additionally, none of the fig growers adopted the ring method of irrigation, intercropping or bahar treatment practices. The reason for this non-adoption is that fig trees, for their deep root systems, benefit more from drip irrigation than the ring method. Intercropping is impractical because the fig tree's dense canopy and bahar treatment may be unnecessary where figs naturally undergo dormancy. Consequently, growers focus on practices that directly enhance fig tree health and productivity. The data in Table 2 shows that high adoption rates are observed in essential production practices such as the selection of varieties (100.00%), followed by the use of cuttings from 3-year-old wood (90.55%), proper spacing (84.17%) and maintaining the recommended plant population (81.38%). For instance, the adoption rate for nematode control measures is (66.38%), while managing stem borer is adopted by 53.88 per cent of the fig growers and biofertilizer application at the planting stage is notably low at 34.44 per cent and none of the growers use the ring method of irrigation, intercropping and Bahar treatment. www.extensionjournal.com Additionally, there are moderate to significant gaps in the adoption of integrated nutrient management and pest control practices. These gaps highlight the need for targeted extension efforts and support in specific areas. Low adoption rates in the use of biofertilizers, intercultural practices and specific pest and disease management techniques. The reason might be that, a lack of adequate knowledge, resources, or incentives to implement these technologies. Addressing these gaps through improved access to information, training and financial support can lead to better yields, enhanced pest and disease control and more efficient resource use, ultimately improving productivity and sustainability in fig farming. The results are in line with Lekhnath, (2016) [6] . Bahar treatment 00 00.00 00 00.00 120 100.00 00.00 18. Micro-nutrients (Apply ZnSO4 (0.5%) and H2BO3(0.1%) as foliar spray.) 70 58.33 50 41.67 00 00.00 86.11 IX Harvesting stage 19.

Time of harvest (April to May and August to September) 00 00.00 120 100.00 00 00.00 66.66 F: Frequency,%: Percentage

Relationship between selected independent variables with technological gap of the fig growers

The data from Table 3 shows the association between independent variables and the technological gap in fig cultivation. Here's an overall analysis with specific reasons for significant and non-significant variables at the 1% or 5% level, along with negative and positive correlations. Training programs provide stakeholders with the necessary knowledge and skills, method demonstrations show practical applications of new techniques, result demonstrations offer tangible proof of benefits and effectiveness and field days provide hands-on experiences and direct interaction with experts. These strategies collectively build credibility and desirability for innovations, cultivating a receptive and committed audience. This ultimately leads to the successful adoption of recommended technologies.

Future scope

This study helps us to understand the technological gap in fig cultivation among farmers of the Ballari district of Karnataka. This data helps the agricultural extension officers in demonstrating the new technology that is needed for the fig growers.

Acknowledgment

The data was collected under the guidance of my guide Dr. Sidram B Y and other authors helped in collecting the data on fig cultivation practices and analysis of results.

References

1. Anonymous. Fig [Internet]. Britannica; c2024 [cited 2024 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/plant/fig
2. Dodiya HD, Patel DB, Patel SM. Technological gap in adoption of pomegranate cultivation practices by the pomegranate growers. Guj J Ext Edu. 2023;36(1):2028.
3. Janaki Rani. Technological gaps in major vegetable crops and suggestions to sustain vegetable production. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2020;15(12):45-49.
4. Hassan SN. A study on technological gap in banana cultivation technologies in Southern District of Tamil Nadu. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2016;6(7):388-394.
5. Rathod MK, Rathod V. Technology adoption, its gap, and constraints in orange cultivation in Nagpur District. Indian Res J Ext Edu. 2016;16(3):60-66.
6. Thorat KS, Suryawanshi DB, Ban SH. Technological gap in adoption of recommended cultivation practices of mango growers and constraints faced by them. Mysore J Agri Sci. 2013;46(1):160-163.
7. Hada V, Bansal V. Technological gap in processing and preservation of fruits perceived by farm women. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(9):191-194.