Demographic and economic profiling of farm women in relation to crop production technology in mauranipur block of Jhansi district (U.P.)

Introduction

Women play a vital role in agriculture and related industries, performing a wide range of tasks within different farming systems. In rural areas, they are involved in both leadership roles and physically demanding work. Their participation is essential as they are engaged in farming activities while also managing household duties. In India's rural areas, approximately four out of every five women rely on agriculture for a living and contribute significantly to its expansion and development. Women make up about one-third of the agricultural workforce and nearly half of the self-employed farmers. According to research, women carry out more than 70% of tasks on farms and constitute around 60% of the total farming population (Choudhary and Singh, 2003) [6] . In rural India, up to 84% of women rely on agriculture for their living. They represent approximately one-third of the landowners and nearly 47% of the agricultural workers. Women are especially active in specialized farming areas, such as tea plantations (47%), cotton production (46.84%), oilseed cultivation (45.43%), and vegetable farming (39.13%). Despite their important contributions to the agricultural sector, women often face several challenges that restrict their productivity and limit their ability to fully participate in agricultural development. These challenges include gender-based violence, limited access to education and training, lack of land ownership rights, and insufficient access to credit, technology, and market opportunities. Addressing these issues and supporting women's roles in agriculture is essential for achieving sustainable development goals and fostering economic growth (Lozano, 2023) [21] .

Research methodology

This research was carried out in the Mauranipur Block of Jhansi district, Uttar Pradesh, from 2022 to 2023. Jhansi district consists of eight blocks, among which Mauranipur was purposively selected, as it hosts the College of Agriculture, a major extension center that provides training and capacity-building support to both male and female farmers. 6 villages were selected randomly in Mauranipur block. A total representative sample of 120 respondents was obtained by randomly selecting 20 farm women from the list of trainees in each village. The researcher obtained the data directly through a rigorous, www.extensionjournal.com pre-tested interview plan. Each respondent was approached individually, and the study's goal was communicated before to the interview. After establishing the report, interviews were conducted, and responses were documented appropriately. The data were evaluated with a variety of statistical methods, including frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and Mean Percent Score (MPS). (2000) [10] , Gangaiah et al. (2006) [12] , Dabar (2009) [7] , and Nimoda (2013) [24] . Unlettered and formal education 37 30.83 2.

Results and Discussion

Education

Elementary and upper primary education 47 39.17 3.

Higher education 36 30.00 Total 120 100.00

The coefficient of variation (C.V.) for the educational profile of farm women was recorded as 57.79 percent, indicating a wide variation across different levels of education. Table 1.2 reveals that the largest proportion of respondents (39.17%) had attained primary or middle-level education, followed by 30.83% who were illiterate or had only basic formal education, and 30.00% who had pursued higher education.

As a result, it can be said that most farm women in the study region had only primary or upper-primary (intermediate) education, followed by those who were illiterate or had only a low level of formal education, and that very few had higher (tertiary) education.(Figure 1.1). Similar outcomes have been documented by Mahale (1991), Nagabhushanam and Nanjaiyan (1998), Squire and Ntshaliki (2001), and Nimoda (2013) [24] . Therefore, it can be said that the majority of farm women in the research region owned medium-sized landholdings, with large and small landholdings coming in second and third, respectively. These results concur with the observations made by Nimoda (2013) [24] , Kempaiah (1974), and Puhazhendi (2000) [26] . The coefficient of variation (C.V.) for the socio-economic status of farm women was 13.04 percent, indicating low variability among the different socio-economic categories. Table 1.4 illustrates that the majority of respondents (35.00%) were in the medium socioeconomic group, while an identical proportion (35.00%) fell into the high group, and the remaining 30.00% belonged to the low socioeconomic category.

Size of land holdings

Socio economic status

As a result, it can be concluded that the majority of farm women in the area under investigation had a medium level of socioeconomic status, followed by those in the high and low categories. This observation is consistent with the results published by Manjula (1995) and Dabar (2009) [7] . The coefficient of variation (CV) for farm women's social participation was 31.06 percent, indicating significant variation across levels of participation. As shown in Table 1.5, the majority of respondents (40.00%) classified into the low social participation category, followed by 31.67 percent www.extensionjournal.com in the medium category and 28.33 percent in the high.

Social participation

As a consequence, it is possible to determine that in the research area, the majority of farm women had low levels of social participation, with fewer respondents having medium or high levels of involvement. These findings are in agreement with the observations of Singh (1997), Singh (2001) [30] , Bharathamma (2005) [3] , and Nimoda (2013) [24] . The coefficient of variation (C.V.) for farm women's innovativeness profiles was 13.16 percent, demonstrating relatively little variation among different innovativeness groups. As shown in Table 1.6, the majority of respondents (40.83%) demonstrated medium innovativeness, followed by 30.00% in the low innovativeness category and 29.17% in the high innovativeness category. As a result, it could be justified to conclude that the majority of farm women in the study region were classified as medium inventive, followed by low and high. These results are congruent with those of Devalatha (2005) [8] and Nimoda (2013) [24] . The coefficient of variation (C.V.) for farm women's profiles revealed a 19.22 percent difference in exposure to various mass media sources. As indicated in Table 1.7, the majority of respondents (44.17%) fell into the medium mass media exposure category, followed by 28.33 percent in the low and 27.50 percent in the high exposure categories. This suggests that the majority of farm women in the research area had moderate exposure to mainstream media, with relatively few women reporting low or high levels of exposure. These findings are consistent with those published by Nimoda (2013) [24] and Narmatha et al. (2002) [23] . The variation in the scientific orientation of farm women, as measured by the coefficient of variation (C.V.), was 14.36 percent, showing a moderate level of diversity. Table 1.8 shows that most respondents (35.83%) had a medium scientific orientation, with 34.17% in the high orientation group and 30.00% in the low orientation group. Therefore, it can be concluded that in the research area, the majority of farm women had a medium level of scientific orientation, followed by those with high and low orientations. These results align with those reported by Nimoda (2013) [24] . The coefficient of variation (C.V.) for farm women's attitudes toward improved practices was 10.02 percent, showing relatively little difference amongst groups.

Innovativeness

Mass media exposure

Scientific orientation

Attitude towards improved practices

According to Table 1.9, the majority of respondents (39.17%) were in the medium attitude category, followed by 30.83 percent in the category of extreme and 30.00 percent in the moderate attitude categories. Thus, it can be speculated that in the study region, the majority of farm women had a medium degree of attitude toward improved practices, followed by those with high and low attitudes. This discovery is congruent with those published by Nimoda (2013) [24] . The coefficient of variation (C.V.) for farm women's extension participation was 12.31 percent, indicating modest variation across different participation levels. Table 1.10 illustrates that the medium extension involvement group had the highest percentage of responders (42.50%), followed by the high group (30.83%) and the low group (26.67%).

Extension participation

As a result, it is possible to conclude that the majority of farm women in the research region participated in extension at medium levels, with only a few demonstrating high or low levels. These findings agree with those published by Devalatha (2005) [8] , Dabar (2009) [7] , and Nimoda (2013) [24] . www.extensionjournal.com Finally, the majority of farm women in the research region reported medium levels of information-seeking activity, followed by high and low levels. These results are similar with those published by Dabar (2009) [7] and Nimoda (2013) [24] . The coefficient of variation (C.V.) for farm women's perception of training duration was 40.72 percent, reflecting considerable differences among the groups. Table 1.12 shows that the majority of respondents (37.50%) perceived the training as medium in duration, followed by 34.17% who considered it short and 28.33% who viewed it as long. Thus, it may be predicted that most farm women in the research region perceived the training time as medium, with fewer seeing it as short or long. These findings are consistent with those of Rahman et al. (2004) [27] and Nimoda (2013) [24] .

Information seeking behaviour

Information Exposure of Respondents

Conclusion

The study reveals key insights into the demographics, challenges and needs of farm women. The overwhelming majority of the women were intermediate-aged and had an elementary or middle school education. The majority have medium-sized land holdings and belong to the medium socio-economic status category. They also exhibit moderate levels of social participation, innovativeness, and exposure to mass media. However, the farm women face several challenges, with the most significant being the scheduling conflicts restricting training attendance programs during peak agricultural seasons (50%), subsequently family-related concerns about long-duration training (48.33%) and the absence of womencentered teaching environments (46.67%). Frustration due to illiteracy and lack of knowledge (45.89%) also emerged as a critical barrier.

References

1. Anilkumar. Women entrepreneurs: a profile of the ground realities. Small Enter Dev Manag Extn. 2003;30(4):1-8.
2. Anita B. A study on entrepreneurial behaviour and market participation of farm women in Bangalore rural district of Karnataka [MSc thesis]. Bangalore: Univ. Agric. Sci.; 2004.
3. Bharathamma GU. Empowerment of rural women through income generating activities in Gadag district on Northern Karnataka [MSc thesis]. Dharwad: Univ. Agric. Sci.; 2005.
4. Bharathi RA. Assessment of self-help groups promoted under NATP on empowerment of women in agriculture [MSc thesis]. Dharwad: Univ. Agric. Sci.; 2005.
5. Chandargi AM. An experimental study on the impact of training on knowledge and adoption behaviour of farmwomen in Dharwad, Belgaum and Karwar districts of Karnataka state [MSc thesis]. Bangalore: Univ. Agric. Sci.; 1980.
6. Choudhary H, Singh S. Farm women in agriculture operations. Agriculture Extension Review. 2003;15(1):21-23.
7. Dabar S, Soni SN. A study on training needs of farm women in respect of wheat production in Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh (India). J Soils and Crops. 2009;22(1):72-79.
8. Devalatha CM. Profile study of women self-help groups in Gadag district of Northern Karnataka [MSc thesis]. Dharwad: Univ. Agric. Sci.; 2005.
9. Dhameja SK, Bhatia BS, Saini JS. Women entrepreneurs -their perceptions about business opportunities and attitudes towards entrepreneurial support agencies (A study of Haryana state). Small Enter Dev Manage Extn. 2000;27(4):38-50.
10. Dubey VK, Singh SB, Bhaneja SK. In service training needs of stockmen as prescribed by them and their supervisors. Research in Extension Education. NDRI, Karnal (Haryana); 1976.
11. Gangaiah G, Nagaraja B, Naidu CV. Impact of selfhelp groups on income and employment: a case study. Kurukshetra. 2006;18-23.
12. Gavimath U, Rao MS. A study on knowledge level and adoption behaviour of improved practices of nutrition among Mahila Mandal members. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 1989;2(3):239-241.
13. Ghafoor MI, Ashraf S, Arshad S. Training need assessment of rural women regarding crop production practices. Global Journal of Agricultural Research. 2017;5(3):34-41.
14. Jain R, Kushwaha RK, Srivastav AK. Socio-economic impact through self-help groups. Yojana. 2003;47(7):11-12.
15. Kalyani U, Chandralekha K. Association between socio-economic demographic profile and involvement of women entrepreneurs in their enterprise management. J Entrepreneurship. 2005;11(2):219-248.
16. Khandai R. A study on decision making pattern of urban working and non-working women in home activities in Dharwad district of Karnataka state [MSc www.extensionjournal.com thesis]. Dharwad: Univ. Agric. Sci.; 2006.
17. Kumar M, Khan IM. Constraints faced by the farmers trainees and trainers of the KVKs run by different agencies. 3rd National Ext Edu Congress. 2005;125.
18. Kushagra J. Assessment of training needs of farmwomen: a case of Western Uttar Pradesh. 2018;7(1):106-109.
19. Lalitha KC. A study on the impact of training under WYTEP on knowledge and adoption level of farm women in Bangalore district of Karnataka state [MSc thesis]. Bangalore: Univ. Agric. Sci.; 1985.
20. Lozano GC. The role of women in agriculture: challenges and opportunities [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Sep 20]. Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/role-womenagriculture-challenges-opportunities-gabriela-lozano/
21. Masur SB, Ashalata KV. KVK training for farm women: an analytical study. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2001;14(3):839-842.
22. Narmatha K, Krishnaraj R, Mohamed AS. Entrepreneurial behaviour of livestock farmwomen. Indian J Extn Edu. 2002;13(4):3431-3436.
23. Gwalior: Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya; 2013.
24. Patel RB. A study on the impact of institutional farmers training programme at Navsari farmers training center of Valsad district (Gujarat) [MSc thesis]. Ahmedabad: Gujarat Agriculture University; 1972.
25. Puhazhendi V. Evaluation study of SHGs in Tamil Nadu. Report. NABARD, Mumbai; 2000.
26. Rahman S, Kalita G, Sarma K. Training needs of Mizoram farm women in pig husbandry. Agriculture Extension Review. 2004;16:11-12.
27. Sailaja A, Reddy MN. Preferences of farm women towards training methodology. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2002;36(2):180-182.
28. Sehgal Foundation. Contribution of women in agricultural development. 2023 [cited 2025 Sep 20]. Available from: https://www.smsfoundation.org/contribution-ofwomen-in-agricultural-development
29. Singh OR. Education and women empowerment. Social Welfare. 2001;48(1):35-36.
30. Sinha SK, Sinha K. Training need perception of farm women vs. extension personnel in rice technology. Journal of Applied Biology. 2002;12(1&2):113-116.
31. Squire PJ, Ntshaliki CM. A survey of agricultural enterprises owned by women farmers in Botswana. J Extn Edu. 1998;9(1):52-62.
32. Tiwari M, Vashishth P, Prajapati BH. Impact of innovative technologies of agriculture among farm women. JNKVV Research Journal. 2005;39(2):57-59.
33. Vasudevarao D. SHGs and change. Social Welfare. 2003;50(2):33-34.
34. Wikipedia. Women in agriculture in India. [cited 2025 Sep 20]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_agriculture_in _India