Evaluation of farmer training programmes of Krishi Vigyan Kendra in Tonk, Rajasthan

Introduction

Agriculture constitutes a foundational pillar for global food security, rural livelihoods, and sustainable economic development. However, the sector faces mounting challenges due to rapid population growth, climate change, natural resource degradation, biodiversity loss, and escalating production costs (FAO, 2023; World Bank, 2024) [4,12] . The Green Revolution markedly increased agricultural productivity by introducing improved crop varieties, irrigation infrastructure, and external inputs. Nevertheless, mounting concerns about environmental sustainability have redirected scholarly and policy attention towards the development of climate-resilient, resource-efficient, and knowledge-intensive agricultural systems (Berrueta et al., 2021) [2] . The sustainable transformation of agriculture, therefore, necessitates not only technological innovation but also the effective dissemination and adoption of these innovations, which is largely facilitated through responsive extension systems (Anderson & Feder, 2004) [1] . In this context, agricultural extension serves as a strategic mechanism for the transfer of knowledge, the promotion of behavioural change, and the enhancement of informed decision-making among farming communities. Agricultural extension has evolved from a conventional technology transfer approach to an integrated agricultural development system emphasizing participatory learning, institutional collaboration, digital transformation, and farmer empowerment (Birner et al., 2009; Klerkx et al., 2012) [3,6] . Modern extension services increasingly function as knowledge brokers linking researchers, policymakers, private organizations, and farming communities. Simultaneously, advances in digital agriculture, artificial intelligence, mobile-based advisory services, precision farming, and ICT-enabled extension have improved farmers' access to timely, location-specific information and strengthened advisory services (Yadav et al., 2026; Mukherjee et al., 2026) [13,7] . However, their effectiveness depends on farmers' awareness, technical competence, institutional support, and the quality of extension delivery (Varshney et al., 2022) [11] . In India, agriculture remains central to rural livelihoods and food security. Yet, fragmented landholdings, diverse agroclimatic conditions, and deficient access to quality extension services continue to limit the adoption of improved technologies. To address these constraints, India's extension system has progressively adopted decentralised, demanddriven, and farmer-centred approaches (Birner et al., 2009) [3] [5,8,10] . Farmer training remains the central focus of KVK activities, with research indicating that advisory services offered by these institutions yield both direct and spillover benefits in terms of knowledge acquisition, improved management practices, increased technology adoption, and strengthened livelihood resilience (Varshney et al., 2022) [11] . Moreover, integrating digital advisory platforms with conventional extension modalities has further augmented farmers' access to pertinent information and improved their capacity for effective decision-making (Yadav et [11,8] . Addressing this empirical and geographical gap is essential to develop more responsive, demand-driven, and farmer-centred extension interventions. Against this backdrop, the present study appraises the farmer training programmes organized by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Banasthali Vidyapith, Niwai, District Tonk, Rajasthan. Specifically, it examines the socio-economic characteristics of participating farmers, identifies factors motivating their participation, reviews their perceptions of KVK training programmes, and documents their suggestions for improvement. The findings are projected to generate empirical evidence to strengthen KVK-based extension services and promote more effective, participatory, and context-relevant agricultural advisory systems.

Research Methodology

The methodology adopted in the present study describes in detail the procedures used in the selection of study area, respondents, research instruments, methods of data collection, and statistical analysis. The study was conducted in the operational area of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Banasthali Vidyapith, Niwai, located in Tonk district, Rajasthan, India. Niwai tehsil lies between 26.35° N latitude and 75.93° E longitude at an average elevation of approximately 400 m above mean sea level and covers a geographical area of 1,022.94 km². The region has a semi-arid subtropical climate with agriculture as the predominant occupation. Farming is largely characterized by small and marginal landholdings, with major crops grown under both rainfed and irrigated conditions. KVK Banasthali Vidyapith actively implements farmer training, technology assessment, frontline demonstrations, and advisory services across its operational villages. The study area was purposively selected because of the KVK's active extension programmes and its suitability for evaluating the effectiveness of farmer training interventions. The study employed a descriptive ex post facto research design, as the independent variables had already occurred and no experimental manipulation was involved. This design was considered appropriate for assessing farmers' perceptions, motivational factors, and suggestions regarding the training programmes organized by the selected KVK. The investigation was conducted using a cross-sectional survey approach to collect information from farmers who had previously participated in KVK training programmes. A list of farmers who had attended training programmes organized by KVK Banasthali Vidyapith during the preceding two years was obtained from the KVK records. From a total of 622 trained farmers, approximately 20% were selected using proportionate sampling, resulting in a final sample of 90 respondents distributed across five villages, namely Churada, Manoharpura, Banasthali, Chikana, and Dangarthal. Each village contributed 18 respondents, ensuring balanced representation of trainees across the operational area. Primary data were collected through a pre-tested structured interview schedule consisting of both closed-and open-ended questions. The schedule was originally prepared in English and subsequently translated into the local language to facilitate accurate responses. Face-to-face interviews were conducted after establishing rapport with the respondents to improve the reliability of the information collected. Secondary information relating to the study area and KVK activities was obtained from KVK records, district statistical offices, and relevant institutional publications. The study considered socio-personal, socio-economic, communication, and psychological characteristics of the respondents as independent variables. These included age, education, caste, occupation, operational landholding, annual income, family size, family type, material possessions, urban contact, extension contact, change-agent linkage, social participation, and socio-economic status. The dependent variables comprised farmers' motivational factors for participating in KVK training programmes, perceptions regarding different dimensions of the training programmes, and suggestions for improving future training interventions. Standardized scales, including the modified Pareek and Trivedi Socio-economic Status Scale, were used wherever applicable, while other variables were measured using structured schedules specifically developed for the study. The collected data were edited, coded, classified, and tabulated before analysis. Descriptive statistical techniques, including frequency, percentage, mean, and ranking, were employed to summarize respondents' characteristics and their perceptions of KVK training programmes. The statistical analyses were performed according to the nature of the www.extensionjournal.com variables to facilitate interpretation and presentation of the findings.

Results and Discussion

Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents

The socio-economic profile of the respondents provides valuable insights into the characteristics of farmers participating in KVK training programmes and their potential influence on technology adoption and extension participation. The majority of respondents (60.00%) belonged to the middle-age group (31-50 years), followed by young (21.11%) and older farmers (18.89%) (Table 1). This finding indicates that economically active farmers were more inclined to participate in KVK training programmes, probably because they are directly involved in farm decisionmaking while remaining receptive to technological innovations. Similar observations were reported by Jaiswal et al. (2019) [5] and Natarajan et al. (2025) [8] , who found that middle-aged farmers constituted the dominant group attending KVK training programmes due to their greater involvement in agricultural operations and willingness to improve productivity. Education is widely recognized as a key determinant of farmers' ability to understand, evaluate, and adopt improved agricultural technologies. In the present study, 86.67% of respondents were literate, with nearly three-fifths (58.89%) educated up to high school or intermediate level. The relatively high educational status of the respondents suggests greater capacity to comprehend scientific recommendations delivered through KVK training programmes. These findings corroborate those of Varshney et al. (2022) [11] , who demonstrated that agricultural advisory services significantly improve knowledge acquisition and technology adoption among trained farmers, particularly where literacy facilitates effective knowledge transfer. The study further revealed that 42.22% of respondents belonged to the general caste category, while 33.33% and 24.44% belonged to other backward classes and scheduled caste categories, respectively. Although KVKs are mandated to provide inclusive extension services, the higher representation of socially advantaged groups indicates the need for strengthening outreach among marginalized farming communities. Moreover, 70.00% of respondents reported no membership in any formal social organization, indicating relatively low social participation. Similar findings were reported by Sarnaik et al. (2020) [9] , who observed that farmers' extension contact and training exposure significantly influenced their perception of KVK services, highlighting the importance of institutional engagement in enhancing learning outcomes. Agriculture was the principal occupation of 94.44% of the respondents, while 67.78% belonged to the marginal and small farm categories. These findings indicate that KVK training programmes primarily reached resource-constrained farmers who generally require greater institutional support for technology adoption. Similar beneficiary profiles have been documented by Natarajan et al. (2025) [8] and Thirumal et al. (2025) [10] , who reported that KVK interventions substantially improved the knowledge, skills, and socioeconomic status of smallholder farmers through need-based capacity-building programmes. The majority of respondents maintained one to four livestock animals, belonged to the medium-income category (₹60,001-100,000), and possessed basic farm machinery such as sprayers (80.21%), chaff cutters (64.58%), and tractors (40.62%). Although mechanization was moderate, ownership of essential farm implements suggests a reasonable level of production orientation among trainees. Respondents also reported frequent interaction with Village Development Officers and Subject Matter Specialists, indicating that public extension agencies continue to serve as important sources of agricultural information. This observation agrees with Varshney et al. (2022) [11] , who emphasized that regular interaction with extension personnel strengthens knowledge dissemination and creates positive spillover effects on technology adoption among neighbouring farmers. Overall, the findings indicate that KVK training programmes primarily attracted literate, middle-aged, smallholder farmers with moderate resource availability but limited social participation. Such farmers represent an important target group for extension interventions aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity, livelihood resilience, and technology adoption through need-based training programmes.

Factors motivating farmers to participate in KVK training programmes

Identifying the factors that motivate farmers to participate in extension programmes is essential for improving the effectiveness and outreach of agricultural training initiatives. Since respondents could indicate multiple motivational sources, the cumulative percentage exceeded 100%. Among the different sources, the Village Pradhan/Sarpanch emerged as the most influential motivator, encouraging 42.70% of respondents to participate in KVK training programmes, followed by Subject Matter Specialists (31.25%), friends (29.16%), neighbours (27.08%), and family members (23.95%) (Table 2). In contrast, printed extension materials such as pamphlets (7.29%) and newspapers (18.75%) had relatively limited influence on farmers' participation (Table 1). These findings underscore the continuing importance of interpersonal communication and local leadership in influencing farmers' participation in extension activities. Village leaders often enjoy high social credibility and maintain close interaction with farming communities, making them effective agents for mobilizing participation in training programmes. Likewise, the prominent role of Subject Matter Specialists reflects the confidence of farmers in technically competent extension personnel. Similar results were reported by Jaiswal et al. (2019) [5] , who identified farmer training as an effective mechanism for transferring agricultural technologies through direct interaction between scientists and farmers. Furthermore, Varshney et al. (2022) [11] demonstrated that advisory services not only improve knowledge among direct beneficiaries but also generate significant spillover effects through farmers' social networks, emphasizing the value of interpersonal communication in technology dissemination. The relatively limited influence of newspapers, pamphlets, and exhibitions suggests that mass media alone may not be sufficient to motivate farmers to participate in extension programmes. Instead, combining community-based leadership with expert advisory services and digital www.extensionjournal.com communication platforms is likely to improve participation and programme effectiveness. Similar conclusions were drawn by Yadav et al. (2026) [13] , who highlighted the growing role of digital platforms in strengthening agricultural extension through personalized and interactive advisory services, and by Mukherjee et al. (2026) [7] , who reported significant improvements in farmers' knowledge through ICT-enabled advisory systems. These findings indicate that integrating conventional interpersonal extension approaches with digital communication technologies could substantially enhance the outreach and impact of future KVK training programmes. Any other -

Farmers' opinion regarding various aspects of KVK training programmes

Farmers' perceptions of different components of KVK training programmes provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of extension interventions and identify areas requiring further improvement. The respondents evaluated seven major dimensions of the training programme, namely duration, timeliness, teaching methods, usefulness, course content, boarding facilities, and lodging facilities.

Duration of training

The majority of respondents (62.22%) perceived the duration of the training programmes as adequate, whereas 37.78% considered it inadequate and suggested extending the training period to improve understanding of technical content (Table 5.17). The predominance of favourable responses indicates that the existing duration generally meets farmers' learning requirements; however, the proportion seeking longer training reflects the growing demand for more comprehensive and practical sessions. Similar findings were reported by Natarajan et al. (2025) [8] , who observed that appropriate training duration significantly enhanced farmers' understanding of improved agricultural practices and contributed to better livelihood outcomes. Likewise, Jaiswal et al. (2019) [5] emphasized that sufficient exposure time is essential for effective technology transfer, particularly where practical demonstrations constitute a major component of extension training.

Timeliness of training

More than half of the respondents (54.44%) expressed satisfaction with the timing of KVK training programmes, while 31.11% were partially satisfied and 14.44% were dissatisfied (Table 5.18). Farmers suggested organizing short, need-based training sessions at different crop growth stages rather than a single programme before the cropping season. This finding highlights the importance of synchronizing extension interventions with crop calendars to maximize learning and technology adoption. The results support the observations of Varshney et al. (2022) [11] , who reported that timely advisory services significantly improve farmers' decision-making and generate positive spillover effects within farming communities. Similarly, Yadav et al.

(2026) [13] demonstrated that continuous, stage-specific advisory services through digital platforms substantially improve farmers' access to relevant information.

Teaching methods

Teaching methods were perceived positively by the respondents, with 46.67% rating them as most appropriate and 35.56% as appropriate, whereas only 17.78% considered them inappropriate (Table 5 (2019) [5] , who concluded that practical demonstrations and interactive teaching methods substantially improve farmers' comprehension and adoption of agricultural technologies. Furthermore, Mukherjee et al. (2026) [7] reported that ICTenabled learning tools significantly enhanced farmers' knowledge of recommended crop production practices.

Usefulness of the training programme

A substantial majority of respondents perceived the training programmes as beneficial, with 61.11% considering them very useful and 32.22% useful, while only 6.67% rated them as least useful (Table 5.20). This finding demonstrates the effectiveness of KVK training in addressing farmers' information needs and strengthening their technical competence. Similar outcomes were documented by Varshney et al. (2022) [11] , who reported that agricultural advisory services significantly improved farmers' knowledge, management practices, and technology adoption. Likewise, Thirumal et al. (2025) [10] concluded that KVK interventions have played an important role in empowering farming communities through knowledge enhancement and capacity building.

Course content

The course content was considered adequate by 60.00% of the respondents, whereas 36.67% perceived it as partially adequate and only 3.33% considered it inadequate (Table 5.21). The high level of satisfaction suggests that the training curriculum was largely relevant to farmers' production needs. However, the responses also indicate the need for periodic revision of training modules based on emerging technologies and local farming problems. Similar findings were reported by Natarajan et al. (2025) [8] , who emphasized that contextspecific and demand-driven training content significantly improves the effectiveness of KVK programmes.

Boarding and lodging facilities

Most respondents expressed favourable opinions regarding the facilities provided during training. About 61.11% considered the boarding arrangements appropriate, while 31.11% rated them most appropriate, with only 7.78% expressing dissatisfaction (Table 5.22). Likewise, the majority of respondents were satisfied with the lodging facilities, indicating that the overall training environment was conducive to learning. Although logistical facilities are not directly related to knowledge transfer, they contribute substantially to trainees' comfort, participation, and overall satisfaction with extension programmes. These findings agree with Sarnaik et al. (2020) [9] , who reported that farmers' perceptions of extension effectiveness are influenced not only by technical quality but also by the overall organization and management of training programmes.

Suggestions for improving KVK training programmes

The suggestions provided by respondents offer practical insights for strengthening future KVK training programmes (Table 5 [5] , Natarajan et al. (2025) [8] , and Thirumal et al. (2025) [10] , who emphasized that improving trainer competency, participatory teaching methods, continuous advisory support, and practical skill development significantly enhance the effectiveness of KVK training programmes. Moreover, Varshney et al. (2022) [11] demonstrated that strengthening advisory quality and followup interactions contributes to sustained knowledge dissemination and wider technology adoption among farming communities.

References

1. Anderson JR, Feder G. Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Res Obs. 2004;19(1):41-60.
2. Berrueta C, Giménez G, Dogliotti S. Scaling up from crop to farm level: co-innovation framework to improve vegetable farm systems sustainability. Agric Syst. www.extensionjournal.com 2021;189:103055. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103055.
3. Birner R, Davis K, Pender J, Nkonya E, Anandajayasekeram P, Ekboir J, et al. From best practice to best fit: a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. J Agric Educ Ext. 2009;15(4):341-355.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The state of food and agriculture 2023. Rome: FAO; 2023.
5. Jaiswal M, Singh A, Singh K, Singh B. Training: an effective tool for transfer of agricultural technologies. Indian J Ext Educ. 2019;55(2):1-5. doi:10.48165/IJEE.2019.55201.
6. Klerkx L, Van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B, editors. Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new dynamic. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. p.457-483.
7. Mukherjee S, Padaria RN, Burman RR, Nikam VR, Aiswarya S, Mahra GS, et al. Assessment of Kisan Sarathi in influencing farmers' knowledge on rabi crop practices: a difference-in-difference approach. Indian J Agric Sci. 2026;96(5):646-652.
8. Natarajan K, Senguttuvan K, Murugan PP. Impact of training programmes of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) towards socio-economic development of weaker section farmers in Cuddalore district. Madras Agric J. 2025;111(4-6):1.
9. Sarnaik SD, Bhople PP, Mankar DM, Tekale VS. Perception of farmers towards effectiveness of extension services of KVK. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(4):43-48.
10. Thirumal A, Vaishnavi P, Arunkumar R. Legacy and interventions of Krishi Vigyan Kendra's on empowerment of farming communities in India. Education. 2025;1964:66.
11. Varshney D, Joshi PK, Kumar A, Mishra AK, Dubey SK. Examining the transfer of knowledge and training to smallholders in India: direct and spillover effects of agricultural advisory services in an emerging economy. World Dev. 2022;160:106067.
12. World Bank. Agriculture and food global practice report 2024. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024.
13. Yadav B, Maurya AS, Patel S, Kumar R, Kumar A. Assessing the role of digital platforms in strengthening agricultural extension services: advisory to empowerment. Indian J Ext Educ. 2026;62(2):47-53.