Knowledge and Adoption Level of Improved Technology among Rural Women owing to Extension Programmes

The study has assessed the impact of extension programmes on the adoption level of improved technologies in agriculture and animal husbandry in the Kullu district of Himachal Pradesh for the agricultural year 2002-03. A significant difference has been observed in the knowledge and adoption levels among SHG-beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups. The study has revealed that the importance or ranking attached to various agricultural practices has been almost the same by both the groups, though with a significant gap in the extent of their adoption. In cereals, timely harvesting, followed by seed selection and seed treatment are the most adopted practices by beneficiary group while seed selection, followed by timely harvesting and timely sowing are the preferred practices by non-beneficiaries. Chemical weed control, pre-sowing soil treatment, sowing in lines at proper spacing have been the most ignored practices, although the level of their adoption has been found higher among beneficiaries than non-beneficiaries. In the case of vegetables, use of HYVs and sowing in lines are commonly practised by both the groups. Seed treatment, soil treatment and proper spacing are the practices where maximum chasm has been observed among the two groups. Similarly, in the case of animal husbandry, a significant gap in the adoption level of various practices has been observed among both the groups. The study has inferred that the extension programmes organized by various extension agencies for SHGs constitute appropriate educational tools for the transfer of technology and raising the socio-economic status of rural people.


Issue Date:
2006-07
Publication Type:
Journal Article
PURL Identifier:
http://purl.umn.edu/57766
Published in:
Agricultural Economics Research Review, Volume 19, Number 2
Page range:
301-310
Total Pages:
10




 Record created 2017-04-01, last modified 2017-08-25

Fulltext:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)