A comparative analysis of regional variations in profile characteristics of FPO member farmers in Telangana and Chhattisgarh

Introduction

Agricultural development in India increasingly hinges on the ability of institutions to address the complex and multidimensional constraints faced by farmers. Beyond physical resources, farmers' socio-economic conditions, psychological dispositions, behavioural patterns, and institutional linkages play a decisive role in shaping agricultural performance, technology adoption, and market participation. In recent years, policy and development discourse has shifted from viewing farmers merely as producers to recognizing them as decision-makers whose attitudes, orientations, and capacities significantly influence the success of collective and market-oriented interventions. Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) represent one such institutional intervention designed to enhance farmers' collective strength and improve their engagement with input, output, and service markets (Adhikari et al., 2021) [1] . As member-owned and farmer-governed entities, FPOs function as platforms for collective procurement, aggregation, processing, and marketing, while also facilitating access to extension services, institutional credit, training, and technological support. Their effectiveness, however, is not determined solely by legal structure or external support but is strongly influenced by the characteristics and participation of their member farmers. Despite the rapid expansion of FPOs across India, regional variations in institutional support, socio-cultural context, and farmer profiles result in differential outcomes. Telangana and Chhattisgarh, though both agrarian states, differ markedly in terms of resource endowments, extension intensity, market exposure, and organizational maturity of farmer collectives. Understanding how farmers' sociowww.extensionjournal.com economic, psychological, behavioural, and institutional characteristics vary across these two states is essential for identifying strengths, gaps, and context-specific interventions required to strengthen FPO functioning. In this backdrop, the present study undertakes a comparative analysis of selected socio-economic, psychological, behavioural, and institutional variables among FPO farmers in Telangana and Chhattisgarh. By examining state-wise differences and similarities across these dimensions, the study seeks to generate empirical insights that can inform policy, extension strategies, and institutional design aimed at enhancing farmer participation, strengthening FPO sustainability, and promoting inclusive agricultural development.

Methodology

The research was conducted in Telangana and Chhattisgarh between 2022 and 2024 using exploratory research design. These states were purposively selected to represent contrasting agricultural and socio-economic contexts. Telangana exemplifies strong digital adoption, institutional support, and market connectivity, while Chhattisgarh represents a region where agricultural modernization is still evolving. Studying both states provided insights that are both region-specific and broadly applicable. An initial database of active FPOs was compiled using information from SFAC, NABARD, State Agriculture Departments, and NGOs. From this, ten FPOs, five from each state, were purposively selected based on specific criteria: at least four years of operation, a minimum membership of 350 farmers, active involvement in key business activities such as aggregation, input supply, marketing, value addition, or processing, use of at least one digital or Agri-Tech tool, and established linkages with startups, KVKs, NGOs, or government agencies. From each FPO, 30 member farmers were randomly chosen, resulting in a total sample of 300 respondents, with 150 from each state. The study included 21 independent variables i.e., age, education, farming experience, landholding, annual income, extension contact, innovativeness, risk orientation, economic orientation, information-seeking behavior, mobile inclination, management orientation, FPO membership, attitude towards FPO, credit acquisition, cosmopoliteness, training received, social participation, participation in FPO activities, level of satisfaction, and farmer empowerment. The study considered one dependent variable i.e., farmers' perception of Agri-Tech startup-FPO integration in enhancing extension advisory services. The data was collected using interview schedule. Statistical tools like mean, frequency, percentage where used. To understand the regional variations in the profile characteristics of farmers associated with Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs), a comparative statistical analysis was conducted between two agriculturally diverse states i.e., Telangana and Chhattisgarh. The Z-test for independent samples was employed to determine whether any statistically significant differences existed between the means of the two groups across each variable. The mathematical formula for conducting a z test is Z= Where:

1, 2 = means of the two groups s1, s2 = standard deviations of two groups n1, n2 = sample size of two groups

Results and Discussion

Profile characteristics of farmers (Independent variables)

The data presented in the table 1 outlines the profile characteristics of farmer members from Telangana and Chhattisgarh, highlighting both overall and state-wise patterns. Across both states, a majority of respondents (37%) belonged to the 46-57 years age group. Telangana showed a higher concentration in this category (39.33%), whereas in Chhattisgarh, the largest proportion (35.33%) was observed in the 35-45 years age group. Similar trends were reported by Akhil (2018) [4] . With respect to educational status, high school education (9th-10th class) predominated at the overall level (25.67%). However, state-wise variations were evident, as Telangana farmers were largely educated up to the primary level (24%), while Chhattisgarh had a higher proportion of high school-educated respondents (28.67%). These findings align with those of Mahesh Babu et al. (2021) [18] and Velanganni (2014) [29] . Regarding farming experience, 30.67% of respondents overall possessed more than 18 years of experience, a pattern more pronounced in Telangana (36.01%). In contrast, the majority of Chhattisgarh farmers (26.01%) fell within the 8-12 years' experience category, indicating relatively shorter farming exposure. Similar findings were reported by Mahesh Babu et al. (2021) [18] and Dechamma et al. (2020) [9] . In terms of annual income, a large majority of respondents (83%) earned between ₹50,000 and ₹1.50 lakh. State-wise, most farmers in Telangana (47.34%) and Chhattisgarh (45.33%) belonged to the ₹1.00-1.50 lakh income group. These results are in conformity with the findings of Jose et al. (2023) [12] and Leelavathi (2017) [17] . Landholding patterns revealed that marginal farmers constituted the largest group overall (41%), particularly in Chhattisgarh (50.67%). Telangana, however, showed relatively higher proportions of marginal (31.33%) and medium landholders (26.00%). The observed trends are broadly supported by Kumud et al. (2016) [15] , Ninama (2015) [21] , and Jadhav (2018) [11] . With regard to extension contact, most respondents overall (70.33%) exhibited a medium level, with higher interaction reported in Telangana (75.33%) compared to Chhattisgarh (65.33%). Similar observations were made by Parmar (2014) [22] and Ramappa Patil (2014) [24] . Likewise, a medium level of information-seeking behaviour was predominant overall (57.00%), with comparable proportions in Telangana (58.00%) and Chhattisgarh (56.00%), www.extensionjournal.com corroborating the findings of Adsul (2016) [2] , Kale (2020) [13] , and Nigade (2022) [20] . Social participation among respondents was moderate, as a majority (53.00%) held membership in more than one organization. This pattern was consistent across Telangana (54.00%) and Chhattisgarh (52.00%), with around one-fifth of the respondents holding leadership positions, in line with Ninama (2015) [21] . A medium level of cosmopoliteness was observed among 62.67% of respondents overall, slightly higher in Telangana (64.67%) than Chhattisgarh (60.66%). These results are supported by Patil et al. (2018) [23] and Chopade et al. (2019) [8] . Innovativeness was also predominantly at a medium level (49.00%). Risk orientation, however, was largely high overall (53.00%), particularly in Telangana (78.00%), whereas Chhattisgarh farmers mainly exhibited a medium level of risk orientation (53.33%). These findings are consistent with those of Akkamahadevi (2016), Naik (2018) [19] , Aitawade (2017) [3] , and Mahesh Babu et al. (2021) [18] . Economic orientation was high among a majority of respondents (52.00%), with a stronger dominance observed in Telangana (62.67%), while farmers in Chhattisgarh were mostly categorized under the medium level (50.67%). Similar findings were reported by Raut (2018) [25] and Chavhan (2019) [7] . Management orientation remained predominantly at a medium level among 43.33% of respondents, with comparable proportions in Telangana (42.00%) and Chhattisgarh (44.67%), aligning with the findings of Asha (2015) [6] . In terms of mobile inclination, the majority of respondents (56.67%) exhibited a medium level, with Telangana (59.33%) and Chhattisgarh (54.00%) following similar patterns. A substantial proportion of respondents (77%) had received some form of training, with higher exposure reported in Telangana (83.33%) compared to Chhattisgarh (70.67%), supporting the findings of Singh et al. (2016) [27] and Kasu Divya (2017) [14] . Credit acquisition was reported by 74.33% of respondents, with relatively higher access in Chhattisgarh (78.67%) than Telangana (70%). These findings are in agreement with Lakra (2011) [16] and Singh et al. (2014) [28] . With respect to the duration of FPO membership, more than half of the respondents (57.33%) had been members for over four years, with a higher proportion in Telangana (60.00%) compared to Chhattisgarh (54.67%). Participation in FPO activities was highest in trainingoriented activities overall (69.50%), followed by marketoriented activities (67.33%), with Telangana consistently showing higher participation levels than Chhattisgarh. Attitudinal analysis revealed that most respondents (59.34%) exhibited a moderately favourable attitude towards FPOs, with Telangana (62.00%) slightly higher than Chhattisgarh (56.67%), corroborating the findings of Singh et al. (2023) [26] and Ghosh et al. (2025) [10] . A majority of respondents (60.67%) reported a medium level of satisfaction with their FPOs, with 58.67% in Telangana and 62.67% in Chhattisgarh. Similarly, overall empowerment levels were predominantly medium (50.00%), as reported by 49.33% of respondents in Telangana and 50.67% in Chhattisgarh, indicating moderate yet positive empowerment outcomes through FPO participation across both states. With regards to the Perception of farmers about integration of Agri-Tech Startups with Farmer Producer Organisations, majority of respondents (62.00%) across both states exhibited a medium level of perception towards Agri-Tech startup and FPO integration, with Telangana (68.00%) slightly ahead of Chhattisgarh (56.00%). To understand the regional variations in the profile characteristics of farmers associated with Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs), a comparative statistical analysis was conducted between two agriculturally diverse states i.e., Telangana and Chhattisgarh. The Z-test for independent samples was employed to determine whether any statistically significant differences existed between the means of the two groups across each variable. The following section outlines the null and alternate hypotheses formulated for this analysis, followed by the interpretation of results for each variable as shown in the table 2.

Null Hypothesis (H₀):

There exists no statistically significant difference in the selected profile characteristic of farmers between Telangana and Chhattisgarh.

Alternate Hypothesis (H₁):

There exists a statistically significant difference in the selected profile characteristic of farmers between Telangana and Chhattisgarh. Strengthening empowerment is critical for building resilient, participatory, and innovation-driven rural communities.

Perception:

The mean perception score toward Agri-Tech Startup-FPO integration was significantly higher in Telangana (87.36) compared to Chhattisgarh (84.03).

The Z-statistic of 3.972 and p-value < 0.001 confirm this as a statistically significant difference. Telangana farmers hold a more positive perception of the potential and relevance of such integration in improving agricultural advisory and support services. Favorable perception is a key precursor to adoption, and this result highlights the readiness of Telangana farmers to embrace digital innovations and institutional collaboration for better agricultural outcomes.

Conclusion

The study highlights that while Farmer Producer Organizations provide a common institutional platform, the socio-economic, psychological, behavioural, and institutional characteristics of member farmers vary significantly between Telangana and Chhattisgarh. The Ztest analysis across 22 variables revealed that out of 22, 17 variables showed a significant difference between farmers of Telangana and Chhattisgarh. These differences suggest that FPO performance and farmer outcomes are strongly influenced by regional contexts rather than uniform institutional structures. The study underscores the need for state-specific capacity-building strategies focusing on www.extensionjournal.com strengthening extension contact, enhancing innovativeness, promoting risk-taking ability, and improving digital and mobile-based engagement, particularly in relatively lagging regions. Tailored training programmes, improved access to institutional credit, and targeted support for leadership and empowerment within FPOs are essential to enhance farmer participation and institutional effectiveness. Policymakers and implementing agencies should adopt differentiated intervention approaches to ensure that FPOs function as inclusive, resilient, and farmer-centric institutions across diverse agro-economic settings.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementI would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my advisors, Dr. M. L. Sharma and Dr. Arun Kumar, for there trust, insightful discussions, invaluable advices, and unwavering support throughout the entire study. The authors of this research study are thankful and acknowledging the help, support and co-operation from staff of Department of Agricultural Extension, IGKV, Raipur and Transfer of Technology (TTT), IIRR, Rajendranager, Hyderabad.

References

1. Adhikari A, Pradhan K, Chauhan JK, Reddy SK. Analysing the perceived impact of farmers' producer organizations on sustainable economic development. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2021;21(2-3):80-82.
2. Adsul GB. Socio-economic impact of National Horticulture Mission on its beneficiaries in Vasantrao Naik Maharashtra Marathwada region [PhD dissertation]. Parbhani: Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2016.
3. Aitawade NM. Impact of Shri Hanumant Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Krishi Purak Sanstha Maryadit, Yeldag: A case study. Rahuri (MH): Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2017.
4. Akhil A. Farmer producer organizations of Idukki district: A multidimensional analysis of role, function and performance. Thrissur: Kerala Agricultural University; 2018.
5. Naik A. A study on knowledge and adoption of organic cultivation practices in dryland areas of Karnataka. Hyderabad: Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University; 2016.
6. Asha K. A study on the performance of self-help groups in Ramanagara district of Karnataka. Bengaluru: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2015.
7. Chavhan PN. Impact of mobile-based agro advisory services by state department of agriculture in Marathwada region. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2019.
8. Chopade SL, Kapse PS, Dhulgand VG. Constraints faced by the members of farmer producer companies. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(8):2358-2361.
9. Dechamma S, Krishnamurthy B, Shashidhar BM, Vasanthakumari R. Profile characteristics of members of farmer producer organizations. Int J Agric Sci. 2020;12(23):10422-10429.
10. Ghosh AK, Shrivastava P, Naberia S, Wani GK. Attitude of farmers towards farmer producer organization in Patan block of Jabalpur district, Madhya Pradesh. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2025;8(Spec Issue 4):19-22. doi:10.33545/26180723.2025.v8.i4Sa.1778
11. Jadhav AR. Socio-economic, psychological and situational causes of farmers' suicides in Osmanabad district. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2018.
12. Jose AE, Jayalekshmi G, Lade AH. Sociopsychological constructs and perceived economic variables impacting farmer producer organization members in Kerala: A quantitative analysis. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol. 2023;41(8):266-276.
13. Kale NP. Impact of National Agricultural Innovation Project on its beneficiaries in Marathwada region [PhD dissertation]. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2020.
14. Kasu D. A study on impact of National Food Security Mission (NFSM-Rice) programme on rice farmers in Guntur district of Andhra Prades. Guntur: Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University; 2017.
15. Kumud G, Dwivedi GK, Vikas K, Abhay K, Tewari SK. Socio-economic characteristics of home gardens in Bhimtal block of Nainital district, Uttarakhand, India. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol. 2016;9(6):1001-1013.
16. Lakra PK. A study on extent of adoption of hybrid rice production technology by tribal farmers of Surguja district of Chhattisgarh. Raipur: Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya; 2011.
17. Leelavathi M. Impact of vocational training programme Friends of coconut tree and plant protection conducted by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Shivamogga. Shivamogga: University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences; 2017.
18. Mahesh Babu T, Lakshmi T, Prasad SV, Sumathi V, Ramana Murthy B. Profile of farmer producer organization members in Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh. Pharma Innov J. 2021;10(4):501-505.
19. Naik BJ. A study on ICT tools usage by the farmers in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh. Guntur: Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University; 2018.
20. Nigade DD. Impact of Kisan Credit Card scheme among beneficiary farmers in Marathwada region [PhD dissertation]. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2022.
21. Ninama AP. Consequence analysis in relation to sociotechno-economic change among marigold growers of Dahod district, Gujarat. Anand: Anand Agricultural University; 2015.
22. Parmar VS. Knowledge and attitude of farmers towards the use of Kisan Call Centre in South Gujarat region. Navsari: Navsari Agricultural University; 2014.
23. Patil KKR, Chinnappa B, Sowmya HS. Economic impact of custom hiring service centres in maize cultivation: A case study from Karnataka. Indian J Agric Econ. 2018;73(4):478-500.
24. Patil R. A study on performance of Raitha Samparka Kendras in Davanagere district of Karnataka. Bengaluru: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2014.
25. Raut MA. Attitude of beneficiaries towards Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Akola: Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth; www.extensionjournal.com 2018.
26. Singh A, Doharey RK, Singh R, Shudhanshu. Analysis of farmers' attitude towards farmer producer organizations in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol. 2023;41(11):346-351. doi:10.9734/AJAEES/2023/v41i112291
27. Singh DV, Mukhi SK, Mishra SN. Impact of vocational training programme on income and employment generation among farmers. Int J Humanit Soc Sci Invent. 2016;5(2):71-76.
28. Singh SP, Verma SK. Impact of Krishi Vigyan Kendras on socio-economic status, knowledge level and adoption behaviour of respondents. Prog Agric. 2014;14(2):285-289.
29. Velanganni S. An assessment of socio-economic effects of Tiruchengode Agricultural Producer Cooperative Marketing Society with reference to Namakkal district, Tamil Nadu: An empirical study. J Manag Sci. 2014;4(4):218-224.