Study the profile and knowledge level of turmeric growers regarding use of biofertilizers

Introduction

Agriculture plays a vital role in the Indian economy and the productivity of crops largely depends on the efficient use of agricultural inputs, particularly fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers have contributed significantly to increasing agricultural production; however, their continuous and indiscriminate use has raised concerns regarding deterioration of soil fertility, reduction in beneficial microbial activity and environmental sustainability. These concerns have increased the importance of eco-friendly and sustainable nutrient management practices. Biofertilizers are preparations containing beneficial living microorganisms that enhance the availability of plant nutrients and promote plant growth. These microorganisms contribute to biological nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilization and improvement of soil biological activity. Different microorganisms such as Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB) and other beneficial microbes are widely used for improving nutrient availability and maintaining soil health. Biofertilizers are considered an important component of Integrated Nutrient Management as they complement other nutrient sources and support sustainable crop production (Magarvadiya et al., 2014) [1] . Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) is an important commercial spice crop with considerable culinary, medicinal and economic value (Hiremath, 2011) [2] . India is a major producer, consumer and exporter of turmeric and Maharashtra is among the important turmeric-growing states. Sangli district occupies a significant position in turmeric production and marketing and is well known for its quality turmeric. The increasing demand for turmeric in domestic and international markets has further emphasized the need for sustainable and efficient production practices (Kaushalkumar, 2012) [3] . Turmeric is a nutrient-exhaustive crop and requires balanced nutrient management for optimum growth, rhizome development and productivity. Excessive dependence on chemical fertilizers may affect soil health and long-term crop sustainability. In this context, the use of biofertilizers offers potential benefits by improving nutrient availability, enhancing soil microbial activity and supporting sustainable turmeric cultivation. Biofertilizers such as Azospirillum, Azotobacter and PSB can play an important role in improving nutrientuse efficiency when used along with appropriate organic and inorganic nutrient sources.

However, the effectiveness of any agricultural technology depends largely on the knowledge and understanding of farmers regarding its proper use. Knowledge regarding the type of biofertilizer, recommended dose, method and time of application, storage and expected benefits is essential for its effective utilization. Inadequate or incomplete knowledge may result in improper application and reduced effectiveness of biofertilizers (Bhople et al., 2002) [4] . Farmers' profile characteristics such as age, education, farming experience, landholding, social participation, extension contact and information sources may also influence their exposure to agricultural information and understanding of improved technologies. Despite the potential benefits of biofertilizers in sustainable agriculture, their scientific use among farmers may be influenced by variations in knowledge and access to technical information (Chavan, 2015) [5] . Understanding the profile characteristics and knowledge level of turmeric growers is therefore important for designing effective extension strategies and capacity-building programmes.

Methodology

The present study was conducted in Sangli district of Maharashtra state. The district was purposively selected due to its importance in turmeric cultivation. Four tehsils, namely Miraj, Tasgaon, Palus and Walwa, were purposively selected because of their larger area under turmeric cultivation and higher concentration of turmeric growers. An ex-post-facto research design was employed for the study. A total of 10 villages were selected from the four selected tehsils based on the concentration of turmeric growers. The list of turmeric growers was obtained from the Agricultural Assistants of the Department of Agriculture in the respective villages. A total of 160 turmeric growers were selected through simple random sampling for the investigation. The data was collected through personal interviews using a structured and pre-tested interview schedule. The schedule was prepared in consultation with the research guide and advisory committee members and was initially developed in English and subsequently translated into Marathi for better understanding by the respondents. Pre-testing was carried out with 15 turmeric growers who were not included in the final sample and necessary modifications were made before final data collection (Kankate et al., 2018) [6] . The profile characteristics studied included age, education, farming experience, experience in turmeric cultivation, social participation, extension contact, source of information, landholding, annual income, marketing behaviour, risk orientation, innovativeness and economic motivation. The knowledge level of turmeric growers regarding the use of biofertilizers was measured using a structured knowledge schedule developed for the study. Each correct response was assigned a score of one, whereas no knowledge was assigned a score of zero. Based on the total knowledge score, the respondents were classified into low, medium and high knowledge categories using the range method (Kamble et al., 2024) [7] . The collected data were compiled, tabulated and analyzed using appropriate statistical tools such as frequency and percentage.

Result and discussion

The profile characteristics of turmeric growers provide an important basis for understanding their socio-economic and psychological background, which may influence their access to agricultural information and knowledge regarding the use of biofertilizers.

A)

Profile characteristics of turmeric growers.

Age

The study revealed that the majority of turmeric growers (55.00%) belonged to the middle-age group (36-55 years), followed by 31.25 per cent in the young-age group (up to 35 years), while 13.75 per cent belonged to the old-age group (56 years and above). The age of the respondents ranged from 25 to 56 years. The predominance of middle-aged growers may be attributed to their active involvement in farm operations, decision-making and turmeric cultivation. The present findings are similar to those reported by Ingale et al. (2024) [8] , who also found that the majority of respondents belonged to the middle age group.

Education

The findings revealed that the largest proportion of turmeric growers (39.37%) had primary education, followed by 36.25 per cent with secondary education. Further, 12.50, 10.63 and 1.25 per cent of the respondents had higher secondary, undergraduate and postgraduate education, respectively. None of the respondents was illiterate. Overall, 75.62 per cent of the turmeric growers had education up to the secondary level. This educational background may have facilitated their understanding of information related to improved cultivation practices and biofertilizer use. Similar results were reported by Ingale et al. (2024) [8] , who observed that the majority of the respondents had studied up to the primary or secondary level. [9] , Lad (2014) [10] and Ekhande et al. (2020) [11] , who found that the majority of turmeric growers had medium farming experience.

Sr

Sr

Experience in turmeric cultivation

The findings revealed that half of the turmeric growers (50.00%) belonged to the medium group of experience in turmeric cultivation (9-14 years), followed by 25.63 per cent with low experience (up to 8 years) and 24.37 per cent with high experience (15 years and above). Overall, 74.37 per cent of the respondents had medium to high experi-ence in turmeric cultivation. The experience ranged from 3 to 19 years. The predominance of medium-level experience may be attributed to the continuous involvement of the growers in turmeric cultivation, which helped them acquire practical knowledge and experience regarding various crop production practices. The findings were similar to Chinchmalatpure et al. (2023) [12] that the respondent medium experience in turmeric cultivation.

Sr

Social participation

The findings revealed that a majority of the turmeric growers (53.75%) belonged to the low land-holding group, followed by 35.00 per cent in the medium group and 11.25 per cent in the high landholding group. Overall, 88.75 per cent of the respondents belonged to the low and medium land-holding categories. The predominance of low landholdings may be attributed to fragmentation and subdivision of agricultural land among farm families. The present findings are similar to those reported by Hipparkar (2015) [13] and Mutteppa et al. (2020) [14] who observed that the majority of respondents had low level social participation.

Sr

Extension contact

The findings revealed that the majority of turmeric growers (56.87%) belonged to the medium social participation group, followed by 28.13 per cent in the low group and 15.00 per cent in the high group The predominance of medium social participation may be attributed to farmers' involvement in various agricultural and community organizations, which provided opportunities for interaction, information exchange and exposure to improved agricultural practices. The present findings are similar to those reported by Borse (2020) [15] and Patel et al. (2021) [16] , who found that the majority of respondents had medium extension contact.

Sr

Source of information

The findings revealed that the majority of turmeric growers (68.12%) belonged to the medium annual income group, followed by 18.13 per cent in the high-income group and 13.75 per cent in the low-income group. Overall, 86.25 per cent of the respondents belonged to the medium and high annual income categories. The predominance of medium-income respondents may be attributed to regular income from turmeric cultivation and other agricultural activities. The relatively better economic position of the respondents may have enabled them to invest in improved agricultural inputs and technologies such as biofertilizers. The present findings are similar to those reported by Nigade et al. (2017) [17] , Shende et al. (2020) [18] and Ingale et al.

(2024) [8] , who observed that the majority of respondents had a medium level of use of information sources

Sr

Land holding

The findings revealed that the majority of respondents (43.12%) belonged to the marginal landholding category, followed by 36.90% with small landholdings. About 15.68% of respondents had semi-medium landholdings, whereas only 4.30% possessed medium landholdings. None of the respondents had large landholdings. Overall, 80.02% of the respondents had marginal and small landholdings, indicating that turmeric cultivation in the study area was predominantly practiced by small and marginal farmers.

Sr

Annual income

The findings revealed that 35.00 per cent of respondents belonged to the medium annual income category, followed by 23.75 per cent in the low-income category. About 19.37 per cent had high income, while 13.75 and 8.13 per cent belonged to very-low and very-high in-come categories, respectively. Thus, the majority of respondents belonged to the medium-income category. The present findings are similar to those reported by Nigade et al. (2017) [17] , Pathade (2017) [19] , who observed that the majority of respondents belonged to the medium annual income group.

Sr

Marketing behaviour

The findings revealed that 53.75 per cent of respondents had a medium level of the measured attribute, followed by 29.37 per cent with a high level. About 16.88 per cent of respondents belonged to the low category. Thus, the majority of respondents (53.75%) were in the medium category. The present findings are similar to those reported by Katole et al. (2018) [20] , Sravani (2020) [21] who found that the majority of respondents had a medium level of marketing behaviour.

Sr

Risk orientation

The findings revealed that 58.12 per cent of respondents belonged to the medium category, followed by 25.63 per cent in the high category. About 16.25 per cent of respondents belonged to the low category.

Thus, the majority of respondents (58.12%) were in the medium category. The present findings are similar to those reported by Shende et al. (2020) [18] , Rempuii (2022) [22] , who found that respondents had a medium level of risk orientation.

Sr

3.12

Innovativeness

The findings revealed that 55.63 per cent of respondents belonged to the medium category, followed by 24.37 per cent in the high category. About 20.00 per cent of respondents belonged to the low category. Thus, the majority of respondents (55.63%) were in the medium category. The present findings are similar to those reported by Bihare (2015) [23] and Nigade et al. (2017) [17] , who observed that the majority of respondents had a medium level of innovativeness.

Economic motivation

The findings revealed that 53.12 per cent of respondents belonged to the medium category, followed by 33.75 per cent in the high category. About 13.13 per cent of respondents belonged to the low category. Thus, most respondents (53.12%) were in the medium category.

Sr

B) 4.2.1 Knowledge level of turmeric growers regarding use of biofertilizers

The findings revealed that 59.38 per cent of respondents belonged to the medium category, followed by 23.75 per cent in the low category. About 16.87 per cent of respondents belonged to the high category.

Thus, the majority of the respondents (59.38%) were in the medium category. The present findings are similar to those reported by Purohit et al. (2014) [24] , Yamgar (2013) [25] and Talpe et al. (2011) [26] who also observed that the majority of respondents had a medium level of knowledge regarding recommended agricultural practices and biofertilizer use. The findings revealed that respondents had relatively higher knowledge regarding the expiry period of biofertilizers (75.62%), their role in rhizome rot management (73.12%) and biological nitrogen fixation (70.62%). Knowledge was comparatively lower regarding proper dosage (48.75%) and application near the root zone (55.00%). Overall, respondents demonstrated better knowledge of the general benefits and uses of biofertilizers, while some gaps existed in their technical application practices.

Conclusion

The study revealed that the majority of the turmeric growers were middle-aged, had primary-level education and possessed medium levels of farming experience and experience in turmeric cultivation. Most respondents belonged to the medium annual income category and possessed marginal landholdings. Most of the turmeric growers also exhibited medium levels of social participation, source of information, extension contact, marketing Behaviour, risk orientation, innovativeness and economic motivation, indicating a moderate socio-economic, communication and psychological profile. With respect to knowledge regarding the use of biofertilizers, the majority (59.38%) of turmeric growers had a medium level of knowledge, followed by low (23.75%) and high (16.88%) levels. The findings indicate that turmeric growers possessed a moderate level of knowledge regarding the use of biofertilizers. Therefore, there is scope for strengthening farmers' knowledge through effective agricultural information and extension interventions to promote the scientific use of biofertilizers in turmeric cultivation.

References

1. Magarvadiya DK, Patel VT. Knowledge and attitude of farmers regarding biofertilizers. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 2014;25(2):1-19.
2. Hiremath S. Knowledge and adoption pattern of biofertilizers by the farmers of Tungabhadra command area. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka. 2011.
3. Kaushalkumar. Entrepreneurial behaviour of turmeric growers. Thesis (Unpublished), Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani. 2012.
4. Bhople RS, Borkar RD. Biofertilizers: Farmer attitude and adoption. Agricultural Extension Review. 2002;14:21-22.
5. Chavan VS. Extent of knowledge and adoption of biofertilizer use by the farmers. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis (Unpublished), MPKV, Rahuri. 2015.
6. Kankate MA, Tekale VS, Thakare PN. Adoption of improved cultivation practices of turmeric in Yavatmal district, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(12):640-647.
7. Kamble P, Kapse PS, Kadam RP, Jakkawad SR, Deshmukh PR. Adoption of liquid biofertilizers among the soybean growers in Marathwada region of Maharashtra. Int J. Agric. Extension Social Dev. 2024;7(12):456-458.
8. Ingale SD, Deshmukh JM, Netake NB, Dhok TG, Lohkare AU, Demunde SV. Relational analysis of soybean growers with knowledge and adoption of biofertilizers. Int. J. Agric. Extension Social Dev. 2024;7(10):87-90.
9. Sonawane HP, Shirke VS, Ahire MC. Study of strawberry growers from Mahabaleshwar tehsil of Satara district (Maharashtra). Asian Journal of Extension Education. 2009;27:91-95.
10. Lad AS. Utility perception of mass media by the farm women. Ph.D. (Agri.) Thesis, VNMKV, Parbhani. 2014.
11. Ekhande NS, Padwal MH. Study the profile of the turmeric growers in Hingoli district, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(11):2420-2426.
12. Chinchmalatpure UR, Khawale VG. Adoption of turmeric cultivation practices by turmeric growers. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 2023;38(4):312-316.
13. Hipparkar BG. Entrepreneurial Behaviour of Pomegranate growers Thesis (Unpublished) Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra, India. 2015.
14. Chigadolli M, Krishnamurthy B, Shivalingaiah YN. Relationship and extent of contribution of profile characteristics of turmeric growers towards their knowledge about improved cultivation practices in Belagavi, Karnataka. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2020;8(2):1513-1517.
15. Borse. Extension contact and adoption behavior of respondents. Asian Journal of Extension, Education. 2020;38:112-118.
16. Patel AK, Sharma RK. Analysis of personal and socio-psychological traits of farmers regarding sustainable agricultural practices. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 2021;32(1):45-49.
17. Nigade DD, Kamble VB, Khobare SG. Knowledge and adoption of biofertilizers by the sugarcane growers. Agriculture Update. 2017;12:685-687.
18. Shende SS, Ahire RD, Kalamkar RB. Study the profile of the turmeric growers in Hingoli district, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(11):23972405.
19. Pathade S. Study of Socio-Economic and psychological characteristics of self help group members. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2017:1-19.
20. Katole RT, More GB, Todasam P, Darange AS. Marketing behaviour of turmeric growers in Akola district of Maharashtra state. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(5):09-12.
21. Sravani. Marketing behaviour of turmeric farmers in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2020.
22. Rempuii. Attitude of rural youth towards agripreneurship. M.Sc. thesis. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, Maharashtra; 2022.
23. Bihare GA. Study on management of ecofriendly practices in agriculture among the tribal farmers of Betul district of Madhya Pradesh Thesis. Rajamata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Gwalior. 2015.
24. Purohit P, Dodia H. Constraints Faced by Farmers in Adoption of Biofertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Extension Research. 2014:1-11.
25. Yamgar AS. Post-harvest technology followed by turmeric growers. Thesis, MPKV, Rahuri; 2013.
26. Talpe YL, Kale SM, Chawane CB, Nagalwade LD. Knowledge of farmers towards biofertilizer and its determinants in Nagpur district. 2011:1-9.
27. Ahire RD, Kapse PS. Socioeconomic impact of commodity interest group among pomegranate growers. Agrosco Report 20142015 VNMKV, Parbhani. 2015. How to cite this article: Shende DB, Sonawane HP, Shaniware YA, Bhagat S. Study the profile and knowledge level of turmeric growers regarding use of biofertilizers. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2026;9(9):885891. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26180723.2026.v9.i9l.42 90