Socio-economic profile, implementation constraints, and grower strategies in protected vegetable cultivation
Abstract
Protected vegetable cultivation under polyhouses and shade net structures represents a critical, climate-smart technological intervention designed to overcome environmental vulnerabilities, optimize resource-use efficiency, and accelerate farm commercialization. The present investigation was undertaken to comparatively evaluate the socio-economic, personal, and psychological profile of Protected Vegetable Cultivators (PVCG) versus Non-Protected Vegetable Cultivators (NPVCG), identify operational constraints encountered in implementing protected structures, and elicit grower-endorsed remedial strategies. An ex-post facto comparative research design was adopted using a four-stage purposive sampling procedure in Jalna district of Maharashtra, recognized for its high density of protected structures. Four tehsils (Badnapur, Jalna, Bhokardan, and Jafrabad) and twenty villages (five per tehsil) were purposively selected, comprising a total sample size of 120 vegetable cultivators (60 PVCG and 60 NPVCG; 3 of each per village). Data were collected through personal interviews using a structured, pre-tested schedule. The empirical findings revealed that the majority of PVCG were young (71.67%, Mean = 31.67 years vs. 42.00 years for NPVCG; Z = -4.91*), educated up to graduation (31.67%, Mean = 12.33 years vs. 08.33 years; Z = 5.36*), possessed small landholding (41.67%, Mean = 2.12 ha vs. 1.85 ha; Z = 0.96 NS), operated medium area under protected structures (63.33%, Mean = 45.43 R's vs. 00.00 R's; Z = 11.57**), possessed medium operational experience in protected cultivation (75.00%, Mean = 07.55 years vs. 00.00 years; Z = 15.64**), earned medium annual income (63.33%, Mean = Rs. 9,08,666.67 vs. Rs. 4,32,833.33; Z = 5.71*), utilized medium sources of information (80.00%, Mean = 25.02 vs. 22.43; Z = 4.87**), received medium specialized trainings (58.33%, Mean = 02.42 vs. 01.08; Z = 18.12**), maintained medium social contact (81.67%, Mean = 11.80 vs. 18.45; Z = -16.14), and exhibited medium levels of risk orientation (55.00%, Mean = 26.38 vs. 23.05; Z = 05.11**), market orientation (61.67%, Mean = 51.43 vs. 48.25; Z = 2.48**), perception (60.00%, Mean = 60.38 vs. 59.55; Z = 01.89**), and knowledge (76.67%, Mean = 31.28 vs. 30.25; Z = 03.60**). Large-sample 'Z' tests confirmed significant differences (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05) between PVCG and NPVCG across thirteen profile variables. The study prioritized twelve major constraints faced by PVCG: high initial investment for structural construction (66.67%, Rank I), irrigation and labor shortages (65.00%, Rank II), market price fluctuations (63.33%, Rank III), incidence of pests and diseases (61.67%, Rank IV), lack of specific markets for protected produce (58.33%, Rank V), inadequate/untimely disbursement of loans and subsidies (56.67%, Rank VI), lack of scientific production knowledge (55.00%, Rank VII), irregular power supply (53.33%, Rank VIII), high wages of skilled labor (51.67%, Rank IX), non-availability of quality inputs (48.33%, Rank X), non-availability of equipment in local markets (45.00%, Rank XI), and water shortage for irrigation (43.33%, Rank XII). To overcome these constraints, growers suggested increasing subsidy and loan amounts (100.00%, Rank I), introducing criteria-based structural and crop insurance (96.67%, Rank II), establishing cold storage facilities at the taluka level (95.00%, Rank III), providing regular technical guidance (91.67%, Rank IV), regulating marketing channels (90.00%, Rank V), encouraging low-cost protected structures (88.33%, Rank VI), supplying quality inputs at low cost (85.00%, Rank VII), and promoting agricultural machinery at reasonable prices (83.33%, Rank VIII).
Full Text
Tables and figures are in the full-text PDF.
Introduction
In recent decades, Indian agriculture has experienced significant structural transformations driven by climate variability, diminishing per capita landholdings, and escalating demand for high-value horticultural crops. Traditional open-field vegetable cultivation is increasingly exposed to biotic and abiotic stresses-such as erratic rainfall patterns, extreme temperature fluctuations, hail storms, and www.extensionjournal.com devastating pest complexes-which severely impair yield consistency and farm income stability (Hasan et al., 2016; Prakash et al., 2020) [4,12] . In this context, protected vegetable cultivation technology-encompassing naturally ventilated polyhouses, insect-proof net houses, and shade net structures-presents an advanced, intensive production system that modifies the crop microenvironment, optimizes water and nutrient-use efficiency through precision drip fertigation, and enables round-the-year off-season crop production (Sabir & Singh, 2013; Vishnupriyan et al., 2022) [14, 22] . Maharashtra has established itself as one of the leading states in India in adopting protected horticulture, supported by developmental frameworks such as the National Horticulture Mission (NHM), Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH), and the Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA). Within Maharashtra, the Marathwada region, and specifically Jalna district, has emerged as a vibrant commercial hub for protected vegetable cultivation and hybrid vegetable seed production (e.g., tomato, capsicum, and cucumber). In Jalna district, growers enter into buy-back contract farming agreements with leading seed corporations, where 1 R (Guntha) of protected area yields approximately 1 kg of hybrid tomato seed, fetching remunerative contract rates ranging from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per kg. Despite the demonstrated economic advantages of protected structures, widespread adoption and sustained management remain heavily dependent on growers' socio-personal, economic, and psychological profile characteristics. Furthermore, small and marginal farmers encounter substantial capital, technical, operational, and marketing bottlenecks (Senthilkumar et al., 2018; Thakur et al., 2023) [16, 20] . A systematic investigation into the profile attributes of adopters compared to non-adopters, along with an empirical prioritization of operational constraints and grower-endorsed suggestions, is essential for formulating evidence-based extension interventions and refining institutional support mechanisms. Therefore, the present study was undertaken with two specific.
Objectives
• To study the profile of protected vegetable growers in comparison with non-protected vegetable growers. • To identify the constraints faced by protected vegetable growers and to invite their suggestions.
Materials and Methods
The present investigation was conducted in Jalna district of the Marathwada region in Maharashtra State. Jalna district was purposively selected due to having the highest concentration of functional protected vegetable structures in the region. An ex-post facto comparative research design was employed for the study. A multi-stage purposive sampling procedure was adopted to select four tehsils (Badnapur, Jalna, Bhokardan, and Jafrabad) based on the maximum density of polyhouses and shade net structures. From each selected tehsil, five villages were chosen purposively, making a total of twenty villages. From each village, three Protected Vegetable Cultivators (PVCG) and three Non-Protected Vegetable Cultivators (NPVCG) were selected purposively, constituting a final sample of 120 vegetable cultivators (60 PVCG and 60 NPVCG). Primary data were gathered through personal interviews using a comprehensive, pre-tested structured interview schedule. Thirteen independent profile variables-namely age (chronological years), education (formal schooling years), landholding (ha), area under protected cultivation (R's), experience in protected cultivation (years), annual income (Rs./annum), sources of information (scale score), trainings received (number of trainings), social contact (scale score), risk orientation (Supe, 2007 scale) [19] , market orientation (Samanta, 1977 scale), perception (scale score), and knowledge (teacher-made test score)-were measured using standardized scales and scoring procedures. Constraints and suggestions were documented using closed and open-ended items. Statistical analysis was performed using frequency distribution, percentage, arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and large-sample 'Z' tests for testing the significance of differences between PVCG and NPVCG means at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability.
Results and Discussion
Profile Characteristics of Protected and Non-Protected Vegetable Growers
The empirical distribution of Protected Vegetable Cultivators (PVCG, n = 60) and Non-Protected Vegetable Cultivators (NPVCG, n = 60) across all thirteen socio-economic, communication, and psychological variables, along with their category-wise frequencies, percentages, arithmetic means, standard deviations, percentage changes, and calculated large-sample 'Z' values, is systematically arrayed in Table 1. [5,13] .
Sr
Landholding:
The majority of both PVCG (41.67%) and NPVCG (41.67%) were small landholders (1.01 to 2.00 ha), with mean operational landholdings of 2.12 ha and 1.85 ha respectively. The difference was non-significant (Z = 0.96 NS), indicating that land fragmentation is universal across the region, but protected structures provide smallholders with a highintensity commercial pathway (Pawar, 2014; Bhosale & Deshmukh, 2020) [11,3] . [10] .
Area & Experience in PVC:
Annual Income:
The mean annual income of PVCG was ₹9,08,666.67 as against ₹4,32,833.33 for NPVCG, representing an extraordinary positive change of 109.93 per cent (Z = 5.71*). This substantial income multiplier is driven by lucrative hybrid seed contract farming (fetching ₹15,000-25,000/kg) and off-season premium market sales (Barbade, 2014; Kale, 2020; Tilgame, 2021) [2,8,21] . [9,18] .
Extension & Psychological
Constraints Faced by Protected Vegetable Growers
Empirical data regarding the operational, capital, biological, and infrastructural challenges encountered by PVCG (n = 60) were systematically tabulated and ranked in descending order of severity in Table 2.
Sr.
Constraint
Suggestions Endorsed by Vegetable Growers to Overcome Constraints
The corrective measures and remedial strategies suggested by PVCG (n = 60) to resolve operational, financial, technical, and marketing constraints are summarized in Table 3. 3 reveals that all growers unanimously advocated for increasing subsidy and loan amounts (100.00%, Rank I) to ease initial capital outlays. Furthermore, 96.67 per cent emphasized introducing criteria-based structural and crop insurance (Rank II) to mitigate climate and storm risks, 95.00 per cent urged establishing taluka-level cold chain and precooling storage facilities (Rank III) to prevent distress sales, and 91.67 per cent demanded regular technical guidance from SAU/KVK experts (Rank IV). Institutionalizing these grower-endorsed recommendations will significantly enhance the viability and sustained adoption of protected vegetable cultivation (Prakash et al., 2020; Waghmare et al., 2023) [12,23] .
Conclusion and Policy Implications
The investigation establishes that protected vegetable cultivation serves as a transformative, precision-driven agricultural technology adopted primarily by younger, welleducated agripreneurs with small landholdings. Adopters exhibit significantly superior income levels, informationseeking behavior, technical knowledge, and commercial risktaking ability compared to traditional open-field growers. However, high structural capital outlays, skilled labor shortages, and market volatility remain major bottlenecks. Policy interventions must prioritize: (1) enhancing subsidy caps and expediting credit delivery under PoCRA and NHM/MIDH, (2) introducing comprehensive structural and crop insurance packages, (3) creating decentralized talukalevel cold storage infrastructure, and (4) institutionalizing regular hands-on capacity building on canopy management and pollination by State Agricultural Universities and KVKs.
References
- Amle SD, Lahariya KT, Raut RS, Wakle PK. Awareness of vegetable growers towards safe application of pesticides. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2019;7(5):1817-1820.
- Barbade DS. Impact of drip irrigation on socio-economic development of farmers. Rahuri, Maharashtra, India: Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2014.
- Bhosale BS, Deshmukh PR. Profile of the farmers perception about environmental risk. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;11(Special Issue):253-258.
- Hasan M, Singh DK, Tomar BS, Patel N. Protected cultivation of horticultural crops: status and future prospects in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2016;86(11):1391-1403.
- Iqbal M, Srivastav PK, Sharma A. Socio-economic and technical determinants of polyhouse technology adoption among commercial vegetable growers. Journal of Agricultural Extension Management. 2021;22(1):4558.
- Jadhav DJ, Pawar PP, Sutar MS. Marketing behaviour and market orientation of vegetable growers in Western Maharashtra. Contemporary Research in India. 2022;12(3):114-119.
- Jethi R, Joshi K, Chandra N. Knowledge and adoption of protected cultivation technologies among hill farmers. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2020;56(2):112117.
- Kale ND. Impact of national agricultural innovation project on its beneficiaries in Marathwada region. Parbhani, Maharashtra, India: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2020.
- Patel DD, Chauhan NB, Soni NV. Social participation and communication behaviour of commercial horticultural growers. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 2015;26(1):78-82.
- Patole SD. Knowledge and adoption of protected floriculture technology by polyhouse owners. Rahuri, Maharashtra, India: Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2017.
- Parbhani, Maharashtra, India: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2014.
- Prakash P, Kumar P, Kar A, Singh AK. Status and impact of protected cultivation of horticultural crops in Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2020;77(3):518-526.
- Prakash P, Kumar P, Kar A, Singh AK, Sharma A. Protected cultivation in Maharashtra: determinants of adoption, constraints, and impact. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2022;35(1):47-58.
- Sabir N, Singh B. Protected cultivation of vegetables in global arena: a review. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2013;83(2):123-135.
- Sawant PA, Mahadik RP, More SS. Knowledge and perception of vegetable growers regarding recommended pest management practices in Maharashtra. Journal of Soils and Crops. 2018;28(1):190-195.
- Senthilkumar R, Sangeetha M, Anand M. Constraints perceived by the farmers in protected cultivation of commercial vegetables. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(8):23412347.
- Sindhura K, Tekale VS, Thakre PN. Socio-economic profile of vegetable growers in the Amaravati division of Maharashtra, India. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2022;40(12):402409.
- Singh V, Kumar S, Thakur S. Socio-economical profile and its correlation with entrepreneurial behaviour of vegetable growers. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2022;40(11):448454.
- Supe SV. Scale for measurement of risk orientation of farmers. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2007;43(1-2):45-48.
- Thakur N, Sharma R, Thakur P, Shilpa, Chaturvedi A, Khushwaha R, et al. Exploring the entrepreneurial behavior of vegetable growers: influential factors and implications for agricultural development. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2025;9:1512414.
- Tilgame B. Economic evaluation and resource use efficiency under protected cultivation in Marathwada. Parbhani, Maharashtra, India: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2021.
- Vishnupriyan K, Shivaraj B, Kumar R. Technoeconomic feasibility of polyhouse vegetable cultivation in peninsular India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2022;77(3):389-401.
- Waghmare PR, Deshmukh ND, Suradkar DD. Capacity building and training impact of climate-smart agricultural technologies on Marathwada farmers. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2023;18(2):301-308.
How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.