An analysis of farm profitability of adopted and non-adopted KVK farms of Sant Kabir Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

One of the major objectives of the farmer is to earn higher profit with every passing year in addition to meeting his family requirement. The inabilities of farmers to fully exploit the available technologies result in lower efficiencies of production, which is one of the main reasons for low productivity and low profitability. Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) play a vital role in taking new technologies to farmers' fields, creating significant positive impacts. With strong technical expertise and on-farm demonstration facilities, they hold a distinct advantage over other service providers in delivering effective technology transfer. The KVKs are evolving as the future grass-root level institutions for empowering the farming community. KVKs have become integral to decentralized planning and implementation aimed at achieving growth in agriculture and allied sectors. They organize need-based training programs to support farmers and raise awareness about advanced agricultural technologies through various extension activities. KVKs also produce and supply essential quality inputs-such as seeds, planting materials, organic products, and biofertilizers-to the farmers under their adoption programs. Socio-economic status plays a crucial role in shaping all aspects of social behavior in Indian society. It is well recognized that an individual's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy significantly influences his actions and interactions. Generally, people with higher socio-economic status tend to exhibit more modern attitudes and behaviors compared to those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. To analyze farm profitability, the focus was given to rice and wheat production because of the growing rice and wheat demand, especially with an increasing household's income in the cities, and also soil and climate are favorable for rice and wheat production in the research area. Unfortunately, in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, rice as well as wheat production is yet to be commercialized. Several factors, including natural and non-natural, were identified to be behind the low production. Factors such as the lower yields and profitability, price variability, low level of technology transfer, use of local seeds, high fertilizer cost, and lack of modern agricultural implements are among the key challenges holding back productivity in the state. In this context, the knowledge regarding good varieties (Wheat and Rice) in terms of yield and market price is highly essential for farmers. Economic considerations are a major determinant influencing the choice of new technologies. It is generally anticipated that adoption levels will rise when farmers experience higher profits from the technologies they adopt. The objectives of the study were www.extensionjournal.com to examine the socio-economic status and farm profitability of Adopted farmers and non-adopted KVK farms in the Sant Kabir Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh. This comparative study between Adopted and non-adopted KVK farms would help to know whether the Krishi Vigyan Kendra had the potential to benefit the farmers or not, as well as this information is important for scientists, policymakers, administrators.

Materials and Methods

As the study focused on KVK-adopted farmers, a list of 50 adopted farmers was obtained, and an equal number of nonadopted farmers were selected using a proportionate random sampling method from nearby areas. This approach helped minimize differences in farm, farmer, and environmental characteristics between the two groups. Primary data were collected from the sample respondents through personal interviews using a pre-tested interview schedule. Secondary information was gathered from the annual reports and other publications of the Krishi Vigyan Kendra. The primary data corresponded to the agricultural year 2022-2023.

Cost of crop production

In India, the cost-concept approach is commonly applied to assess crop production profitability. The major cost components used in this method include Cost A 1 , A The input use for the study is mentioned below:

The output is taken for the study are:

Results and Discussion

Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents

The study aimed to examine the socio-economic characteristics of adopted and non-adopted KVK respondents, including land utilization patterns, age, family size, educational status, non-farm income, cropping pattern and cropping intensity. The detailed socio-economic profiles of the respondents were analyzed using field survey data and are presented below.

Land utilization pattern

The operational landholding characteristics of respondents, both adopted and non-adopted, include total holding size, uncultivated area, cultivated area, irrigated area, area sown more than once, and gross cropped area. On average, adopted respondents had a larger holding size of 1.35 hectares compared to 1.15 hectares for non-adopted respondents, reflecting a 17.39% higher holding. The uncultivated area was slightly higher for non-adopted respondents (0.22 ha) than for adopted respondents (0.25 ha). Net cultivated area averaged 1.13 hectares for adopted farmers and 0.96 hectares for non-adopted farmers. Additionally, adopted respondents had higher irrigated area, area sown more than once, and gross cropped area, exceeding non-adopted respondents by 25.00%, 10.75%, and 16.12%, respectively. Presented in (Table 1).

Age and family size of the respondents in the area under study

The data indicated that the average age of respondents was 37 years for adopted farmers and 39 years for non-adopted farmers. The average family size was 7 for adopted respondents and 9 for non-adopted respondents. Male members averaged 2 in adopted families and 3 in nonadopted families, while the number of children was the same in both groups, at 2. Female members were higher among non-adopted respondents (3) compared to adopted www.extensionjournal.com respondents (2). The number of dependent family members was also greater in non-adopted respondents (6) than in adopted respondents (4). Consequently, the total family size was larger for non-adopted respondents (9) compared to adopted respondents (7). Presented in (Table 2).

Educational status

The education status of the adopted and non-adopted respondents depicts that illiteracy found to be higher in nonadopted (46%) as compared to adopted (30%). The maximum number of the respondents were found to be educated up to primary level (28%) and (26%) among adopted and nonadopted respectively. These findings suggest a potential connection between education level and adoption. But further research is needed to establish causality and explore underlying factors. Taking into account the limitation of the study, such as sample size and context, future analysis and investigation will provide a more comprehensive understanding of relationship. Presented in (Table 2).

Extent of non-farm income in the area under study

The maximum percentage of respondent were found to earn less than 10000 rupees in case of adopted (70.00%) and nonadopted (64.00%) respondents respectively, while 18.00 and 20.00% adopted and non-adopted respondent were found to earn income between Rs.10001-50000 and 6.00 and 10.00% earned income between Rs.50001-100000 and 4.00 and 6.00% income lies between 100001-500000 while only 2.00% adopted respondents are income earn more than 500000 rupees per annum. Presented in (Table 2).

Cropping pattern and cropping intensity of selected respondents

Approximately 50% of the area was allocated to different crops during the Kharif and Rabi seasons. Among both adopted and non-adopted respondents, paddy was the major Kharif crop, covering 40.78% and 39.49% of the gross cropped area, respectively. During the Rabi season, wheat (49.56% for adopted and 59.23% for non-adopted) followed by mustard (12.28% and 12.73%) were the principal crops grown in the study area. Overall, the area under Kharif and Rabi crops was 45.22% higher for adopted respondents compared to non-adopted respondents. Adopted respondents allocated 125% and 66.66% more area to urd and maize, respectively, than non-adopted respondents during the Kharif season. In the Rabi season, they devoted 40% and 33.33% more area to mustard and gram, respectively, compared to non-adopted respondents. In the Zaid season, chari and vegetables were the main crops for adopted respondents, accounting for 3.50% and 6.14% of their gross cropped area, whereas non-adopted respondents cultivated only vegetables, covering 1.27% of their total gross cropped area. (Table 3) Per hectare Cost of crop production of paddy in the area under study For adopted and non-adopted respondents, the average total cost per hectare was ₹55,978.41 and ₹59,245.93, respectively, indicating that adopted respondents incurred 5.51% lower costs compared to non-adopted respondents. out of total cost incurred, the proportion of variable, fixed and managerial cost was found to be 62.19, 28.70 and 9.09 per cent respectively in case of adopted respondents and 63.78, 27.12 and 9.09 respectively in case of non-adopted respondent. Variable cost was found to be 7.86 per cent less and fixed and managerial cost was same in case of adopted over non-adopted respondents. The working capital in case of adopted and non-adopted respondent was found to be Rs.33478.92 and Rs.36335.14 respectively which is higher by 7.86 per cent in case of adopted over non-adopted respondents. The adopted and non-adopted respondents used to invest on fertilizer (9.98% and 10.05%) followed by irrigation (9.42% and 9.37%), seed (6.99% and 8.35%) and plant protection (1.32% and 1.34%) of their total cost. Presented in (Table 4). www.extensionjournal.com

Cost and return of paddy cultivation per hectare in the area under study

The data in Table 5 shows that the total cost of paddy production was ₹55,978.41 for adopted farmers and ₹59,245.93 for non-adopted farmers, indicating a 5.51% lower cost for the adopted group. The shares of Cost A 1 and Cost A 2 were nearly identical for both groups. Cost B 1 and B2 accounted for 55.19% and 81.99% of the total cost for adopted farmers, compared to 56.20% and 81.52% for nonadopted farmers. All costs A 1 /A 2 , B 1 , B 2 , C 1 , C 2 and C 3 were found to be less by 7.45 per cent, 7.20 per cent, 4.96 per cent, 7.61 per cent, 5.49 per cent and 5.51 per cent as compare to non-adopted respondents. gross income was found to be 9.82 per cent more in case of adopted respondents over nonadopted respondents which was Rs. 98026.00 and Rs.89254.00 respectively. Family labour income was found to be Rs.52126.73 in case of adopted respondents and Rs.40954.81 in case of non-adopted respondents, which is higher by 27.27 per cent in case of adopted over non-adopted respondents. The net income of adopted respondents was found to be Rs.47126.53 and non-adopted respondents was Rs.35394.06. Adopted respondents has high net income by 33.14 per cent as compare to non-adopted respondents. Presented in (Table 5).

Per hectare Cost of crop production of Wheat In the area under study

For wheat cultivation, the average total cost for adopted farmers was ₹55,258.66 per hectare, compared to ₹57,944.16 per hectare for non-adopted farmers-reflecting a 4.63% lower cost for the adopted group. Of the total cost, adopted farmers spent 61.82% on variable costs, 29.08% on fixed costs, and 9.09% on managerial costs, while the corresponding proportions for non-adopted farmers were 63.17%, 27.73%, and 9.09%. Variable costs were 6.66% lower for adopted farmers, whereas fixed and managerial costs remained the same for both groups. The working capital in case of adopted and non-adopted respondent was found to be Rs.32849.76 and Rs.35197.23 respectively which is higher by 6.66 per cent in case of adopted over non-adopted respondents. The adopted and non-adopted respondents used to invest on seed www.extensionjournal.com (9.38% and 10.60%) followed by fertilizer (8.66% and 9.70%), irrigation (6.47% and 7.62%) and plant protection (1.07% and 1.47%) of their total cost. Presented in (Table 6).

Cost and return of wheat cultivation per hectare in the area under study

The data in Table 7 shows that the total cost of wheat cultivation was ₹55,258.66 for adopted farmers and ₹57,944.16 for non-adopted farmers, indicating a 4.63% lower cost for the adopted group. The shares of Cost A 1 and Cost A 2 were similar across both groups. Cost B 1 and B 2 accounted for 54.02% and 81.16% of the total cost for adopted farmers, compared to 56.86% and 80.75% for nonadopted farmers. All cost components-A 1 /A 2 , B 1 , B 2 , C 1 , C 2 , and C 3 -were lower among adopted farmers by 6.31%, 6.10%, 4.14%, 6.47%, 4.63%, and 4.63%, respectively. Regarding returns, the average wheat yield for adopted farmers was 42.65 q/ha, whereas non-adopted farmers achieved 37.29 q/ha. With a market price of ₹2,015 per quintal, the yield advantage for adopted farmers amounted to 14.37% over non-adopted farmers. Gross income was found to be 14.79 per cent more in case of adopted respondents over non-adopted respondents which was Rs. 100196.62 and Rs.87285.92 respectively Presented in (Table 7).

Conclusion

The study revealed clear differences between farmers who adopted KVK recommendations and those who did not. Adopted farmers generally held slightly larger land areas and followed a similar cropping pattern as non-adopted farmers, with paddy dominating during the kharif season and wheat in the rabi season. However, adopted farmers achieved a noticeably higher cropping intensity, indicating better land use efficiency. They were also younger on average and lived in comparatively smaller families. Their educational levels were higher, with fewer illiterate individuals and more farmers educated up to higher secondary and graduation www.extensionjournal.com levels.

Non-farm income patterns were similar across both groups, though a small share of adopted farmers earned higher incomes beyond the mid-range category. In crop production, adopted farmers managed to reduce overall cultivation costs mainly through lower variable expenses while maintaining similar fixed costs. They obtained higher yields, earned more net income, and secured better returns on investment for both paddy and wheat. Overall, the findings indicate that adoption of KVK interventions contributed to improved efficiency, profitability, and socio-economic conditions for farmers.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors acknowledge to Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology for funding the study.

References

1. Adesope OM, Matthews EC, Oguzor NS, Ugwuja VC. Effect of socioeconomic characteristics of farmers on their adoption of organic farming practices. Economic Journal, Nigeria. 2012;8(2):212-220.
2. Asiwal BL, Balai LR, Akhtar J, Asiwal RC. Role of KVK in enhancing the productivity and profitability of moong bean through FLDs in Sikar district of Rajasthan. 2015;10(3):221-225.
3. Bandgar SG, Kude NR, Bhople RS. Adoption of university recommended cotton technologies and the constraints faced by the farmers. Res J. 2004;28(1):9195.
4. Dessale M. Analysis of technical efficiency of small holder wheat growing farmers of Jamma District, Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security. 2019;8(1):125146.
5. Khai HV. The costs of industrial water pollution on rice production in Vietnam. EEPSEA Technical Report. 2011.
6. Kumbhare NV, Singh K. Adoption behaviour and constraints in wheat and paddy production technologies. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2016;11(3):41-44.
7. Kumari M, Singh KM, Sinha DK, Ahmad N, Mishra RR. Role of socio-economic variables in adoption of crop insurance: a discriminant function approach. 2017.
8. Ladha JK, Fischer KS, Hossain M, Hobbs PR, Hardy B. Improving the productivity and sustainability of ricewheat systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains: a synthesis of NARS-IRRI partnership research. 2000.
9. Mulwa R, Emrouznejad A, Muhammad L. Economic efficiency of smallholder maize producers in Western Kenya: a DEA meta frontier analysis. International Journal of Operational Research. 2009;4(3):250-267.
10. Mitra S, Yunus M. Determinants of tomato farmers efficiency in Mymensingh district of Bangladesh: data envelopment analysis approach. 2018.
11. Obare GA, Nyagaka DO, Nguyo W, Mwakubo SM. Are Kenyan smallholders allocatively efficient? Evidence from Irish potato producers in Nyandarua North district. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics. 2010;2(3):78-85.
12. Sharma RK, Chauhan SK, Gupta S. Technical efficiency in North-Western Himalayan region: a study of Himachal Pradesh agriculture. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2008;21(1).
13. Sharma P. Costs, returns and profitability of soybean cultivation in India: trends and prospects. Economic Affairs. 2016;61(3):413-425.