Socio-economic analysis of mustard growers in Samba district of Jammu and Kashmir (UT)

Introduction

Oilseeds and edible oils are vital commodities in India, widely used across various industries and making a significant contribution to the country's agricultural sector and export markets (Pundlikrao, 2012) [11] . India is a major global producer of oilseeds, with an estimated annual production of 36.56 million tonnes (Anonymous, 2021) [3] . Mustard is a key crop, accounting for 27.8% of India's oilseed production, second only to groundnut, and is predominantly grown during the rabi season (Anonymous, 2004) [2] . In Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), mustard is cultivated across 55,236 hectares, with around 27,000 hectares in the Jammu region, which experiences both temperate and subtropical climates. To improve mustard and other oilseed yields, farmers need to adopt effective agricultural practices, such as choosing high-yielding, disease-resistant varieties, using appropriate crop rotation, ensuring timely planting, maintaining balanced nutrition, and applying effective pest and weed control. Despite the potential of advanced agricultural technologies to enhance crop yields and farmers' livelihoods, many farmers remain unaware of these innovations due to their high costs and limited access. To address this issue, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) established Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) to provide vocational training and promote modern farming techniques. In Jammu and Kashmir, 17 KVKs have been set up, with seven managed by the Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu (SKUAST-J). These centres focus on offering training and awareness programs to demonstrate new agricultural technologies. A key initiative of KVKs is the Frontline Demonstration (FLD) program, designed to promote the adoption of proven technologies by farmers. FLDs are implemented directly on farmers' fields with guidance from agricultural experts to show the effectiveness of modern practices. The ongoing research on cluster frontline demonstrations conducted by KVK Samba on mustard production during the rabi season aims to assess their impact on yields and the livelihoods of local farmers. Therefore, the study titled "Impact assessment of the KVK cluster frontline demonstrations on Mustard Crop" will evaluate the influence of KVK activities on mustard production.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in Samba district of Jammu region, Jammu and Kashmir in 2020-2021. The study employed a ex-post facto design and a multistage sampling method. Firstly, Samba district was selected purposively for the study because KVK Samba has laid maximum number of FLD's on mustard under its Cluster FLD's programme for the year 2019-20 as compared to other KVK's of Jammu division. A list of 166 mustard growing beneficiaries was procured from KVK Samba. Out of the available list, 60 number of mustard growing beneficiary were selected by using random sampling technique. Equal number of nonwww.extensionjournal.com beneficiary mustard growing farmers were also selected from the representative/adjoining villages. By this way total sample size was comprised of 60 beneficiary and 60 nonbeneficiary mustard growing farmers of KVK Samba. A questionnaire with both open and closed-ended questions was developed and pre-tested to ensure clarity and eliminate testing biases in a non-sampled area.

Percentage

The frequency of a specific cell was determined by dividing it by the total number of respondents in that category and then multiplying the result by 100.

Frequency

The calculation involved summing up the total number of respondents within each specific category.

Mean

It was calculated to the average value of particular score. The formula is given below-

Categorization

The categorization of respondents into different groups based on age and education utilized the cube root method, as outlined by Singh (1975) [12] .

Results and Discussion

Analyzing the socio-economic attributes of the sampled households provides insights into the foundational information of farmers. The data reveals a nearly 52 per cent of beneficiaries and 32 per cent of non-beneficiaries falling within the age range of 47 to 62 years, 20 per cent beneficiaries and 40 per cent non-beneficiaries below 47 years, and 28 per cent benreficiaries and 28 per cent nonbeneficiaries above 62 years, aligning with the study of Indumathy et al. (2013) [4] and Mohan et al. (2012) [8] . A significant majority of farmers (90% beneficiaries and 92 per cent non-beneficiaries) were literate, contrasting with a mere 10% beneficiaries and 8 per cent non-beneficiaries classified as illiterate. Educational backgrounds exhibited diversity with 63 per cent beneficiaries and 54 per cent nonbeneficiaries having matriculation-level education, 12 per cent beneficiaries and 13 per cent non-beneficiaries completing 10+2, 13 per cent beneficiaries and 20 per cent non-beneficiaries at the middle level and zero per cent for both at the primary level, only a small proportion (2% beneficiaries and 5% non-beneficiaries) pursued education beyond graduation, aligning with existing findings of Natraju et al. (2013) [9] , Sulaja et al.(2013) [13] . In terms of phone connectivity, 98 per cent of beneficiaries and 95 per cent of non-beneficiaries possessed mobile phones with 35 per cent beneficiaries and 49 per cent non-beneficiaries owning smartphones and 65 per cent beneficiaries and 51 per cent non-beneficiaries using feature phones, consistent with previous research of Kumar (2019) [6] . Regarding family structure, 17 per cent of sampled beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries households were joint families , while 83 per cent of both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were nuclear families (Nataraju et al. (2013) [9] . Family size predominantly comprised medium households (50% of beneficiaries and 55% of non-beneficiaries with 5-8 members), followed by small-sized families (33% beneficiaries and 38% non-beneficiaries with 3-5 members) and larger families (17% beneficiaries and 7% nonbeneficiaries with 8-14 members), echoing findings reported by Kumar (2012) [5] . A proportion of (59% beneficiaries and 68% non-beneficiaries) were engaged solely in agriculture as their primary occupation (Mandloi (2007) [7] and Kumar et al. (2019) [6] . Additionally, 30 per cent of beneficiaries and 17 per cent of non-beneficiaries were involved in both agriculture and govt. retd, 5 per cent each for both in agriculture and service, 3 per cent beneficiaries and 7 per cent non-beneficiaries in agriculture and private job and 3 per cent beneficiaries in agriculture and business alignied with the study of Pathania (2017) [10] . Landholding sizes varied with majority of farmers (58% for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) categorized as marginal (less than one hectare), 34 per cent beneficiaries and 30 per cent nonbeneficiaries as small (1-2 ha), 8 per cent beneficiaries and 12 per cent non-beneficiaries as semi-medium (2-4 ha) alignied with the study of Ahmed (2015) [1] . Canal water emerged as the predominant irrigation source, www.extensionjournal.com utilized by 64 per cent of beneficiaries and 50 per cent of non-beneficiaries as shown in Table 2, while 17 percent of beneficiaries and 25 per cent non-beneficiaries exclusively used bore wells and 17 percent beneficiaries and 25 per cent non-beneficiaries solely employed electric pump set for irrigation. aligning with findings of Pathania (2017) [10] . The findings presented in Table 3 illustrate the mean distances between respondent villages and various agriculturally significant locations. The maximum average distance from the respondents' villages to the market was 4.06 (±2.34) km for beneficiaries and 5.09 (±2.39) km for non-beneficiaries, followed by 5.37 (±2.82) km to the input dealer store for both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. And lastly, 8.13 (±6.47) km for beneficiaries and 8.58(±6.90) km for non-beneficiaries to the Agriculture office. The reason for the distance of agriculture office, agriinput dealer and market were not that far located, it is because of their wide connection in the study area. Table 4 presents the awareness and extent of contact of various information sources among respondents. While 43 per cent of beneficiaries were aware of SAUs and 94 per cent of non-beneficiaries were aware of SAUs, and 67 per cent of beneficiaries and 8 per cent non-beneficiaries utilized this source for information. Both the beneficiaries and non=beneficiaries farmers showed higher awareness of the Department of Agriculture (100%), State Agricultural Universities (72% by beneficiaries and 94% by nonbeneficiaries), and private agencies (97% by beneficiaries and 100 per cent by non-breneficiaries) and to Krishi Vigyan Kendras (100% by beneficiaries and 87% by nonbeneficiaries). However, the majority of beneficiaries only frequently visited DoA (61%) and private agencies (53%) and for non-beneficiaries they visited DoA frequently (48% and private agencies (67%) and (63%) of beneficiaries were frequently visiting KVK, while in case of non-beneficiaries (80%) frequently visitng KVK. Surprisingly, despite awareness of SAUs, the majority (67%) of beneficiaries occasionally visited SAUs and (90%) of non-beneficiaries never contacted them. Although most were aware of exhibitions (63%) of beneficiaries occasionally utilized it and (45%) of non-beneficiaries never utilized it. However, the majority of respondents (55%) beneficiaries and (43%) non-beneficiaries frequently utilized information from friends and for relatives it was (38%) for beneficiaries and (33%) for non-beneficiaries. Awareness of progressive farmers was at 88 per cent, for beneficiaries but (49%) ocassionally contacted them and 66 per cent of nonbeneficiaries were also aware of progressive farmers, yet 33 per cent never contacted them. TV had high awareness rates (100% for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries), with most (77% beneficiaries and 62% non-beneficiaries for TV) always and frequently seeking information from TV. Further, radio had lowest awareness (98% for beneficiaries and 100% of non-beneficiaries never used raido as their source for gaining information. Despite awareness of newspapers, most of the beneficiaries (33%) and nonbeneficiaries (37%) only occasionally sought information from them.

Conclusion

Mustard is a vital oilseed crop in India, playing a key role in both nutrition and the economy, providing significant returns for farmers. India ranks as the third-largest producer of rapeseed-mustard globally, after China and Canada. In the study area, a clear trend is observed, with mustard www.extensionjournal.com growers mainly falling into the middle age group (among beneficiaries) and the younger age group (among nonbeneficiaries). These farmers typically have at least a matriculation-level education and live in nuclear families with an average size of five to eight members, both for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Agriculture is the primary occupation for most respondents in this rural area, where small farm sizes are common. Canal water is the main irrigation source for mustard cultivation. Although the study area is far from the agricultural office, it is closer to markets and input stores. Farmers in the area regularly access information from various sources, which helps them stay informed about agricultural practices, market conditions, weather forecasts, and technological developments, enabling them to make better decisions and improve productivity.

References

1. Ahmed S. Adoption of farm mechanization in Jammu district of the Jammu and Kashmir state. M.Sc. thesis, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, J&K, India; 2015.
2. Anonymous. Oilseeds in India. 2004:67.
3. Anonymous. Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. Available from: https://dfpd.gov.in?oil-division.htm. Accessed October 2021.
4. Indumathy K, Manoharan PM, Sangeetha S, Mary MVKJ. Relationship between socio-psychological characteristics and attitude of Jawadhu tribes towards tribal development programmes. J Ext Educ. 2013;25(4):5154-5159.
5. Kumar N, Singh SP, Kachroo J, Singh H, Kumar C, Ahmed N. Economic analysis of cost and return for basmati rice cultivation in Jammu district of J&K state. Int J Agric Sci. 2012;9(2):674-677.
6. Kumar R, Slathia PS, Rajinder P, Gupta SK, Gupta SK. Analysis of personal, socio-economic characteristics and information seeking pattern of rapeseed mustard growers on Jammu division of J&K. Int J Ext Educ. 2019;55(2):90-94.
7. Mandloi RS. A comparative study on adoption of soybean production technology in high and low productivity blocks of Dhar district (M.P.). M.Sc. Dissertation, JNKVV, Jabalpur; 2007.
8. Mohan B, Sagar RL, Singh K. Socio-economic characteristics of goat farmers and awareness of goat production practices. J Ext Educ. 2012;24(3):51195125.
9. Nataraju MS, Raghavendra SM, Shashidhar R. Women empowerment through national afforestation programme in Karnataka. J Ext Educ. 2013;25(3):50695077.
10. Singh R. An optimum stratification for proportional allocation. Sankhya. 1975;3(7):109-115.
11. Sulaja OR, Bhaskaran S, Minimol JS. Training impact on entrepreneurs' characteristics. J Ext Educ. 2013;25(4):4905-4906.