ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis is by far the most significant scientific accomplishment in my life

and it would have been impossible without a bunch of people who supported me and
encouraged me.
I express my deep sense of gratitude to my guide DR. P.
Sujathamma, Associate Professor, Dept. of Sericulture, S.P. Mahila
Visvavidyalayam, Tirupati, under whom I have carried out my research work. It was
her constant inspiration, guidance and support that have enabled me to complete
my thesis successfully.
No words can adequately express my gratitude to DR.
K. V. Benchamin, Director, NSSO, Central Silk Board, Bangalore who had
sanctioned me Study Leave to pursue doctoral work.
This work has been greatly aided by the encouraging guidance of DR. S. B.
Dandin, Director, Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore.
I sincerely express my gratitude to Jayant Jayaswal, Scientist E & Director
In charge, NSSO, Central Silk Board, Bangalore.
The foremost guiding force is DR. H.K. Kalappa, Scientist – E, NSSO, Central
Silk Board, Bangalore who had influenced the scientific temper in me and given
guidance and constructive suggestions.
I am very much indebted to DR. R.K. Rajan, Joint Director; DR. N.B.
Vijaya Prakash, Joint Director; DR. R. G. Geetha Devi, Scientist – E, Central
Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore; DR. T.M. Veeraiah, Joint
Director, SSTL, Kodathi and DR. A. Manjula, Joint Director, NSSO, Central Silk
Board, Bangalore for their valuable suggestions.
I am thankful to Dr. G. Savithri, Head, Department of Sericulture, S.P. Mahila
Visvavidyalayam, Tirupati, for her support and suggestions during the course of my
thesis work.
I take this opportunity to profusely thank Prof. A. Violet, Dean, School of
Sciences; Prof. M.N. Reddy, Department of Microbiology, DR. D. Bharathi, Professor;
DR. K. Nagalakshmi, Associate Professor; DR. Vijaya kumari, Assistant Professor;
and Ms. P. Swathi, Research scholar, Department of Sericulture, S.P. Mahila Visva
Vidyalayam, Tirupati and DR. B. Sujatha, Lecturer, S.K. University, Anantapur for
the support and suggestions during the course of my thesis work.
I immensely thank DR. D.M. Mamatha, Assistant Professor, Department of
Sericulture, S.P. Mahila Visvavidyalayam, Tirupati, for rendering support in many
ways during the course of my research.

I am very much indebted to DR. P. Sudhakar Rao, Scientist-C, Central

Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, whose constant inspiration,
supervision, guidance and support have enabled me to complete my thesis.

I am to express my sincere thanks to Mr. P. Kumaresan, S.R.O and DR. G.

Srinivas, Scientist-C of Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute,
Mysore, for rendering support in analysing the data and for the help extended
through the course of my investigation.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr. T. Siva Bharatha Murthy for
extending support in computing Tables, Graphs and Plates and for the help
extended during the course of my research.
I cherish the charmingly encouragement and blessings of my father P.
Sundaram and all my In-laws. My deep sense of heart felt gratitude mixed with
emotions to my beloved Husband Mr. D. Mohan Rao who has extended support in
computing the data and given constant encouragement throughout the course of
this work and blessings to my loving children Chi. D. Gnana Swarup Rao and D.
Manu Deep Rao for their understanding, patience and support when I had to steal
away the quality time meant for them.
Finally I thank one and all those who have helped and encouraged me towards
the successful completion of this work.
 PREFACE

My knowledge on sericulture was very limited, when I joined as Senior

Research Assistant at Silkworm Seed Production Centre, Central Silk Board,
Madanapalle in Chittoor district in 1991 after passing my M.Sc with Distinction in
Genetics and Plant Breeding. It is known that India is the second largest country
next to China and in India, Andhra Pradesh is the second largest silk producing
state after Karnataka. Chittoor district is positioned second among the sericulture
regions of Rayalaseema regions in Andhra Pradesh. While working there, I am
entrusted with the seed production and transfer of technologies to the field. Under
extension communication programmes, I have to organize extension activities such
as group discussions, field days, film shows, seminars, exhibitions and farmer’s
meet etc., for creating awareness among sericulturists about new technologies and
their impact. Whenever I visited the farmer’s field in Chittoor and some parts of
Anantapur district, I used to ask questions to the farmers about their knowledge
and adoption of improved sericultural technologies and about the yield differences.
Most of the farmers replied that they don’t have any knowledge to adopt
technologies. Some of them expressed that they could not adopt due to financial
constraints. Some others expressed that it was the traditional practice and they
have strong belief on their own ideas. This was the inspiration that made me to do
Ph.D, and particularly to select the topic “A study on knowledge and adoption of
improved technologies in mulberry sericulture under different socio-economic
conditions and yield gap analysis in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh”.

Presentation of the thesis begins with a crisp introduction giving the basis for
this investigation and its research objectives. This is followed by a review of
literature on various aspects of the investigation. This is followed by profile of the
study area and methodology. The results and discussion of this work has been
organized into 4 chapters. The first chapter deals with knowledge and adoption
levels of improved technologies by sericulturists. The second chapter deals with
relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of farmers and their
knowledge and adoption of recommended practices. The third chapter deals with
yield gap in mulberry and cocoon production. The fourth chapter deals with
constraints encountered by the farmers for bringing down economically recoverable
gaps. These are followed by summary and recommendations and finally the
bibliography and annexure.

I hope that the work initiated and encouraging results obtained will be an
inspiration to policy makers, scientists, extension officers, extension staff working in
the field, researchers and sericulture students. I believe that these findings solves
the problems faced by sericulturists, initiate the farmers to adopt technologies
through the support of extension staff thereby improving silk productivity, quality
and reducing cost of production. Finally it is hoped that the out come of this
research will be helpful to the sericulturists.

P.DEEPA
 CONTENTS
S. NO ITEM Page. No.

I. INTRODUCTION 1 – 15

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 16 – 82

III. PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA 83 – 98

IV. METHODOLOGY 99 – 113

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 114 – 146

1. Knowledge and adoption level of
improved technologies by sericulturists 114

1.1 Overall knowledge of sericulturists on the

individual recommended technology 115 – 116
practices
1.2 Specific knowledge of sericulturists on the
individual recommended technology 116 – 117
practices of mulberry cultivation
1.3 Specific knowledge of sericulturists on the
individual recommended technology 117 – 119
practices of silkworm rearing
1.4 Overall adoption of the recommended
technology practices by sericulturists 119

1.5 Specific adoption of the individual

recommended technology practices of 119 – 120
mulberry cultivation by sericulturists
1.6 Specific adoption of the individual
recommended technology practices of 120 – 122
silkworm rearing by sericulturists
1.7 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of the
selected recommended technology practices 123 – 125
of mulberry cultivation by sericulturists
1.8 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of the
selected recommended technology practices 125 – 130
of silkworm rearing by sericulturists
 2. Relationship between the socio-
economic characteristics of
130
sericulturists and their knowledge and
adoption of recommended practices
2.1 Personal and socio-economic
characteristics of sericulturists 130 -131

2.2 Relationship between the overall

knowledge and personal and socio- 131 – 133
economic characteristics of sericulturists
2.3 Relationship between the overall adoption
and personal and socio-economic 134 – 136
characteristics of sericulturists
2.4 Factors influencing the socio-economic
status of sericulturists and their adoption 136 – 137

3. Yield gap in mulberry and cocoon

production 137

3.1 K2 – variety 139 – 140

3.2 V1 – variety 140
3.3 Cross breed cocoon production 140 – 141
4. Constraints encountered by the farmers
for bringing down economically 141
recoverable gaps
4.1 Constraints encountered by the farmers
for bringing down economically
141 – 146
recoverable gaps in K2 and V1 varieties and
Cross breed cocoon production
5. Tables 147 – 171
6. Graphs 172 – 185
6. Photos 186 – 199
VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 200 – 214
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY i – xxix
IX. ANNEXURE xxx – xl
 LIST OF TABLES
S.No Name of the table Page No.
1 Categorization of sericulturists based on their 147
overall knowledge on the recommended practices
of sericulture
2 Categorization of sericulturists based on their 147
overall adoption of the recommended practices of
sericulture
3 Specific knowledge of farmers on the individual 148 – 149
recommended practices of mulberry cultivation
4 Specific knowledge of farmers on the individual 150 – 152
recommended practices of silkworm rearing
5 Extent of adoption of specific recommended 153 – 154
practices of mulberry cultivation by sericulturists
6 Extent of adoption of specific recommended 155 – 158
practices of silkworm rearing by sericulturists
7 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of some of 159 – 160
the selected recommended practices of mulberry
cultivation
8 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of some of 161 – 164
the selected recommended practices of silkworm
rearing
9 Personal and socio-economic characteristics of 165 – 166
sericulturists
10 Relationship between knowledge and socio- 167
economic characteristics of sericulturists
11 Relationship between adoption and socio- 168
economic characteristics of sericulturists
12 Factors influencing adoption of cross breed 169
silkworm rearing by the farmers in Chittoor
district
13 Yield gap in mulberry leaf production (K2-variety) 170
14 Yield gap in mulberry leaf production (V1-variety) 170
15 Yield gap in cross breed cocoon production 170
16 Constraints faced by the farmers for adoption of 171
technology in the study area
 LIST OF MAPS/GRAPHS
S. No Maps/ Graphs Page No.

Map – 1 Different regions in Andhra Pradesh 86

Map – 2 Different districts in Rayalaseema region 87

Map – 3 Selected mandals in Chittoor district 88

Map – 4 Mulberry acreage in Chittoor district 89

Categorization of sericulturists based on their

Graph - 1 overall knowledge on the recommended 172
practices of sericulture

Categorization of sericulturists based on their

Graph - 2 overall adoption of the recommended 173
practices of sericulture
Adequate knowledge of farmers on the
Graph - 3 individual recommended practices of 174
mulberry cultivation
Inadequate knowledge of farmers on the
Graph - 4 individual recommended practices of 175
mulberry cultivation
Adequate knowledge of farmers on the
Graph - 5 individual recommended practices of 176
silkworm rearing
Inadequate knowledge of farmers on the
Graph - 6 individual recommended practices of 177
silkworm rearing
Extent of partial adoption of specific
Graph - 7 recommended practices of mulberry 178
cultivation by sericulturists

Extent of nil adoption of specific

Graph - 8 recommended practices of mulberry 179
cultivation rearing by sericulturists.

Extent of full adoption of specific

Graph - 9 recommended practices of silkworm rearing 180
by sericulturists
 Extent of partial adoption of specific
Graph – 10 recommended practices of silkworm rearing 181
by sericulturists

Extent of nil adoption of specific

Graph - 11 recommended practices of silkworm rearing 182
by sericulturists

Yield gap in mulberry leaf production 183

Graph - 12
(K2 –Variety)

Yield gap in mulberry leaf production (V1 184

Graph - 13
–Variety)

Graph - 14 Yield gap in cross breed cocoon production 185

 LIST OF FIGURES
S. No. Title Page No.
1 Dense plantation [minimum spacing] 186
2 Plantation of mixed varieties [local, K2 and V1] 186
3 Bottom pruning 187
4 Pruning with secature 187
5 Row system of plantation [Kolar] 188
6 Wider spacing 188
7 Furrow irrigation 189
8 Inter cropping [sun hemp] 189
9 Inter cultivation (operation) 190
10 Inter cultivation 190
11 Harvesting of leaf for chawki 191
12 Harvesting of leaf for late age 191
13 Yellowing of leaf due to lack of adequate irrigation 192
14 Mulberry leaf infected with tukra 192
15 Robust plantation of V1 193
16 Plantation of S36 variety 193
17 Rearing in dwelling house 194
18 Separate rearing house 194
19 Chopping of leaves for chawki 195
20 Chawki rearing 195
21 Leaf preservation 196
Silkworm rearing in trays covered with paraffin 196
22
paper
23 Shoot rearing 197
Sericultural wastes dumped in front of the rearing 197
24
house
25 Cocooning in chandrikae 198
26 Vermicomposting with sericultural wastes 198
27 Interviewing the progressive farmer – I 199
28 Interviewing the progressive farmer - II 199
 “SILK” the very name itself evokes delicate feelings. Till date no fabric in the
world has conquered this Queen of Textiles. And this is the magic of Silk. Silk is not
just another fabric in India. Over the centuries, it has been an indispensable part of
Indian culture and traditions. Endowed with salubrious climate and rich
sericigenous fauna, India ranks No.2 in World Silk production. The word ‘Silk’
spells luxury and class. It is the yarn of life, extruded by an unassuming caterpillar
into a continuous filament. Silk has been linked with sought-after creations by the
biggest names in haute couture. Yet, many admirers of spectacular garments are
unaware of the modern origins of this illustrious textile. The fact that the raw
material comes from areas in developing countries and transition economies is in
stark contrast to the affluent environment where elegant garments of famous
fashion houses are presented to a select few. Today China and India are the two
largest producers of silk.

SERICULTURE IN INDIA

India has been a sericulture country since time immemorial. Today India is
the second largest silk producer of raw silk and also has the distinction of being the
world’s largest consumer of silk. In developing countries such as India, agriculture
and agro-based industries play a vital role in the improvement of rural economy. The
limited availability of land, the limited cash returns, and agriculture being confirmed
to one or two seasons in the year, have made villages to look for supporting rural
industries, such as sericulture. In India, over three million people are employed in
various fields of sericulture. It is a cottage industry and provides ample work for the
women folk in the rural areas in rearing silk worms, while the male members work
in the fields. Recently with the invention of new technologies by research
institutions both in mulberry cultivation and silkworm handling among
sericulturists, the industry is now practiced as main profession and as a major cash
crop, of the country.
 Sericulture in India plays an important role in the economic life of man. While
silk spells luxury and wealth, its production means, a highly employment oriented,
low capital intensive and remunerative activity ideally suited to the conditions of
labour abundant economy of India. With unique distinction of sole producer of all
the four kinds of commercially know natural silks viz, mulberry, tasar, eri and
muga, India enjoys her position as the second largest raw silk producer in the world.
Sericulture is sought by the policy makers to be an ideal tool for poverty alleviation
in rural India and thus Central and State Governments have orchestrated
congruence of all planned efforts to harness the fruits of this ancient and traditional
enterprise by making it flourish across the country. Recognizing the declining trend
among the giant silk producing countries, India has been taking all measures,
banking on this opportunity, to fill the void in the world silk market.

Sericulture has attained a significant growth in the past five decades in India
after independence. The mulberry area increased steadily from 83 thousand
hectares in 1960-61 to 3418 thousand hectares in 1993-94, but there was decline in
the mulberry area in the ensuring years and so reduced to 1,79,065 hectares
during 2005-06. The raw silk yarn production was stagnant and was hovering
around two thousand tones in sixties and seventies. But silk production increased
considerably in the eighties and reached 11.49 thousand tones in 1990-91. The
growth rate of raw silk production reduced in the later part of the last decade due to
the reduction in mulberry area, but still there was an improvement in the total raw
silk production due to increased productivity and so the silk production increased
from 15742 tonnes in 2003-04 to 17305 tonnes in 2005-06.

Silk productivity in India between 1960 and 1970 was very low and ranged
from 14 kg to 20 kg per hectare. However, a significant leap in productivity was
observed in the eighties and nineties, when it reached to around 86.25 kg per
hectare during 2005-06. The improvement in productivity was due to the
replacement of age-old low yielding local mulberry varieties and pure local
multivoltine silkworm breeds with high yielding mulberry varieties and cross breed
and bivoltine silkworm races along with adoption of improved practices for mulberry
cultivation and silkworm rearing in the field through the efforts of Central Silk
Board and the State Sericulture Departments.

Sericulture finds a place among the most competitive agro- based enterprises
and many corporate bodies are showing interest to step into this sector. India has
to play a suitable strategy not only to increase its silk production but also to
improve silk quality standards, to be competitive in the world silk market. India is
regularly exporting its silk to many countries in the world against stiff competition
from other silk producing countries, mainly from China. Now global trade scenario
is fast changing and the countries are liberalizing exports and import policies. From
2005, WTO regulated International trade under the guiding principle of GATT which
imposes stiff competition among countries to make their produce more acceptable to
the people by its quality and low price, which will mean that India should produce
more quality silk at a low price.

The export of silk goods steadily increased from a modest level of Rs.17 million
in 1960-61 to a whopping Rs. 3194.20 crores during 2005-06. *The export of Rs.
2998.22 crores has been achieved during April to February during the period of year
2006 – 07. The import of raw silk during the period April to February of the year
2006 – 07

*Source: Indian Silk, Vol. 46(3).

decreased by 35.6% (i.e. 2733 MT) as compared to the corresponding period of the
year 2005 – 06. However, Indian exports are mostly in the low unit price category
unlike that of Western Europe or China. The export of high value products from
India is dependent on import of quality raw silk especially from China. Sericulture
as one of the agricultural pursuits is emerging as a premier enterprise, in certain
parts of the Southern states, in recent years. In 1990s, it recorded a rapid area
expansion, and has now established at around 1.72 m ha. In the process, it has
receded mostly from the rainfed areas, and has got intensified under irrigation. New
technologies with higher production potential in mulberry varieties and their rearing
technologies have provided an unprecedented opportunity for the sericulture
enterprise to develop in the future.

SERICULTURE IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Sericulture is practiced in many states of the country. Andhra Pradesh is the

second largest producer (5336 Tonnes) of mulberry silk in the country after
Karnataka (7471 Tonnes). Andhra Pradesh State has three regions i.e.,
Rayalaseema, Telangana and Coastal Andhra. Mulberry acreage is mainly
concentrated in the drought prone areas of Rayalaseema region. Rayalaseema
contains four districts namely, Chittoor, Anantapur, Kurnool and Kadapa. Mulberry
acreage is mainly concentrated in Anantapur and Chittoor districts that are
adjoining to Karnataka State which is often called as “Silk State of India”. Chittoor
district is the second largest silk producing traditional sericulture belt of Andhra
Pradesh, where farmers have successfully established sericulture and this area
represents the irrigated sericulture tract of the state. Some mandals in Chittoor
district namely Kuppam, Palamaneru and Madanapalle which are adjacent to
Karnataka state are well developed by increasing acreage of mulberry cultivation
and cocoon production. Kuppam of Chittoor district which was just like any other
sericultural area in the state till five years ago, has transformed itself into a “Model
sericulture cluster” today (Sudhakar Rao et al., 2002). Three natural silk varieties
i.e., Mulberry, Tasar and Eri are grown in the state. In tasar silk production, the
state occupies fourth place and ericulture is in the take off stage. The rich silk
heritage of the state with its living fabrics from the looms in Pochampally, Gadwal,
Dharmavaram and Narayanpet propelled the growth of weaving industry a very
strong forward linkage to the reelers and farmers. The state is endowed with 97646
acres under mulberry crop, covering about one lakh farmers.

Sericulture in Andhra Pradesh is practiced under different agro climatic

conditions. Bulk of the silkworm rearings is of cross breed type which is being
reared all through the year. The entire mulberry is cultivated under irrigated
conditions. Realizing the importance of sericulture industry in providing
employment as well as steady income to the rearers and its share in the export
market, the Central and State governments are now taking steps to expand
sericulture even in non-traditional areas. The pace of bivoltine silk production in
India picked up momentum in 2001-2002. With the advent of JICA project, the
basic needs like appropriate bivoltine sericulture technology, silkworm breeds
suitable for the tropical conditions of India and inadequate services/support
systems were addressed, which paved the way for introduction and subsequent
expansion of bivoltine raw silk production in the country. In Andhra Pradesh, one
State Sericultural Research and Development Institute and one Regional Sericulture
Research Station have been established by the State Government and Central
Government in Hindupur and Anantapur respectively for providing research and
developmental support to the industry.

Progress of sericulture in Andhra Pradesh over the last six years

Particulars Unit 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Employment Lakh
6.05 6.52 6.79 7.15 6.00 4.88
generation persons

Area under Cum.

121,104.00 130,563.00 135,960.00 143,073.00 90,000.00 97,646.00
Mulberry Acres

Production of CB
Tons 37,651.00 42,982.00 50,664.00 53,693.00 44,405.00 46,785.00
cocoons
Cocoonproductio
Kg 43.37 48.92 53.29 53.38 54.00 55.00
n/100dfls
Production of
Tons 4,183.00 4,775.00 5,629.00 5,966.00 5,082.00 5,336.00
Raw silk
No. of Sericulture
No. 114,000 116,641 117,210 117,221 90,000 76,971
Farmers

As far as the pre-cocoon activities are concerned, mulberry is cultivated under

irrigated conditions with high yielding varieties like V1, S13, S36, M5 etc. Annual
silkworm seed requirement of the state is estimated to be 1200 lakh numbers out of
which 34 lakh numbers for bivoltine and 1166 lakh numbers for cross breed. The
farmers are receptive for implementation of improved technologies. Thereby the
production per unit area has drastically increased from 450 to 540 kgs. Hitherto
the farmers were reluctant to take up bivoltine production because of inherent
problems faced by the farmers. For development of Bivoltine sericulture, serious
efforts are made through implementation of projects. In this line, the first project is
called “Karnataka Sericulture Project”. After the Karnataka Sericulture Project, the
central government launched “National Sericulture Project” through Central Silk
Board. Both the projects ended with limited success and the goal of the project
especially production of Bivoltine Silk was not achieved fully. Present situation
demands quality product at low cost to survive in the international market. Central
Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore actively engaged in conducting
research in the filed of mulberry sericulture and developed many technologies. The
technologies should reach the sericulturists for realizing the benefit of the
technologies. To develop sericulture on a sound scientific basis and to produce
quality Bivoltine silk to compete in the international market, Govt. of India launched
a comprehensive project. In 1990, Central Silk Board sought the technical co-
operation from Japan through Japan International Co-operation Agency to develop
bivoltine sericulture technologies. This project is launched in 3 phases. First phase
is called “Bivoltine Sericulture Technology Development Project” (BSTD) (1991–
1997), Japanese scientists in collaboration with scientists of CSRTI, Mysore
developed technologies for bivoltine sericulture suited to Indian condition. In second
phase (Popularizing Promotion of Practical Bivoltine Sericulture technology project
(PPPBST) (1997– 2002), the technologies were demonstrated with the selected
farmers identified under technical service centres located in different pocket of
Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu. In third phase Project on
Strengthening Extension System for Bivoltine Sericulture (PEBS) (2002 – 2007),
popularizations of technologies were initiated by changing the project site and
farmers. In Andhra Pradesh Technical Service Centre, Kuppam was selected in the
second phase and in the third phase Palamaner, Venkatagiri Kota, Gudibanda,
Hindupur, Angallu and Penukonda were selected. In the recent past with the
improvement of improved technologies and support of Central Silk Board, the
required infrastructure is created and farmers are showing interest to take up
bivoltine production.

The Department of Sericulture is well supported by the Andhra Pradesh State

Sericulture Research and Development Institute with its R&D activities. This
institute is playing a pivotal role in the development of productive and qualitatively
superior silkworm hybrids suitable to the tropical conditions of the state. It has
made its presence felt with the development of Swarnandhra, the cross breed
besides the development of two bivoltine hybrids namely, Hemavathy and
Kalpatharuvu. All these hybrids have been authorized by the Central Silk Board for
national level use. Further, efforts by the scientists of the Institute also contributed
in the development of seven new hybrids suitable for the prevailing conditions of the
state in particular. In addition, the scientists also developed four eco and user
friendly cost effective products (Shakthi – a bed disinfectant, Abhaya - an anti viral
product, Seri plus – a surface disinfectant and Seri clean – a hygiene product) for
control of various diseases caused by the virus, bacteria and fungus. The intensive
R&D efforts by the Institute and the effective extension work carried out by the
departmental staff will certainly make the sericulture, a viable and sustainable
economic activity in the state contributing immensely for the overall development of
the rural populace. Realizing the high potential for sericulture development in the
state, the staff of department of sericulture is implementing all the new technologies
in the field. The impact of these technologies has boosted the quality and quantity
of cocoons produced in addition to the increased earnings of the farmers which in
turn enhance the rural economy. These efforts have contributed to the increase in
productivity per unit area besides cost benefit ratio. Even though, there is overall
improvement in quantity and quality of cocoons in the state, there exists wide gap
between the potential and the actual yields realized on the farmers’ field.

The Indian Government through Central Silk Board is implementing Catalytic

Development Programmes [CDP] in association with the concerned State Sericulture
Departments to increase productivity, quality and other critical support both under
mulberry and non- mulberry sectors. The schemes under CDP are aimed towards
expansion of host plantations, development of farm infrastructure, upgradation of
reeling & processing technologies in silk, enterprise development programme, data
base development, etc at an outlay of Rs. 4500 million. Central Silk Board has also
taken up implementation of projects on ‘IT initiatives’ and ‘Quality Certification
Systems for silk and silkworm seed’. Emphasis is given to the growth of bivoltine
mulberry sericulture in the traditional states and the expansion of vanya silks in the
north-eastern region as well as in the traditional states.

State government has been implementing special developmental programmes

for sericulture under the Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP). Under the World
Bank aided sericulture project, the department of sericulture has been expanded.
Both research and extension activities have been strengthened with increasing staff,
mobility and training facilities. More and more purposeful extension activities are
carried out to help the farmers by way of encouraging planting of mulberry, drip
irrigation, construction of rearing houses, supply of reeling equipments, production
of quality and disease free layings, free disinfection of rearing houses, equipments
and supply of nylon nets at subsidized cost, so as to enable the farmers to increase
cocoon production. Lot of efforts have also been undertaken with state, central and
world bank funds, to streamline research and extension activities to benefit the
farmers. Despite these efforts, the potential is not fully harnessed and there is
always a gap between research findings and farmers practice.

SERICULTURE IN CHITTOOR DISTRICT

In Chittoor district, 11,938 acres of mulberry is under cultivation in 39

mandals as on March, 2007 (Source: O/o Deputy Director, DOS, Chittoor), which is
second highest in Andhra Pradesh i.e., next to Anantapur District. However due to
continued drought conditions, low rainfall and severe scarcity of water for the past
five years, significant quantum of mulberry acreage got uprooted and many gardens
become unproductive as the earlier acreage as notified by the DOS was about
34840 acres in the district. Against the notified acreage productive is estimated to
be around 10743 acres in the district and the requirement of silkworm seed for the
same is approximately 86 lakhs. To meet the above requirements of dfls, the
Department of Sericulture (DOS) has established 6 grainages with a target of 42.50
lakh dfls and issued licenses to 18 private grainages (LSPs) with a target of 100.00
lakhs. However, 2 grainages under DOS at Chittoor and Chandragiri were closed
and 12 LSPs have stopped production activities, thus during the period under
report, only 4 grainages under DOS viz., Madanapalle, Punganur, Palamaner and
Kuppam are functioning and 4 LSPs have produced layings. In addition to the
above, the Central Silk Board (CSB) under National Silkworm Seed Organization
(NSSO) has established two Silkworm Seed Production Centres (SSPCs) in the
district i.e., at Madanapalle and Chittoor during 1980 and 1990 respectively. The
two grainages were given a target of 16.00 lakhs for the year 2006-2007. For
marketing of commercial cocoons, 3 cocoon markets are functioning in the district,
one each at Madanapalle, Kuppam and Palamaner. In addition to the above, one
seed cocoon market is also functioning at Madanapalle for marketing of both
bivoltine and multivoltine seed cocoons. Apart from these, few private chawki
rearing centers also existing for quality supply of young age silkworm to the farmers.

ADOPTION OF IMPROVED SERICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES BY

FARMERS

Adoption is a process by which an individual comes to a decision either to

fully or partially adopt or reject an innovation. In this process, individuals become
aware of a new technology, get interested, critically examine, try and then make the
adoption decision (Dwarakinath et al., 1994). It was observed that the economic
return from sericulture under semiarid farming condition has become uneconomical
through the years as the cost of cocoon production ran over the investment. The
profit uncertainty from sericulture has been associated with several factors. Some
of them are the poor quality leaf, frequent crop loss due to various diseases,
fluctuation in cocoon prices, higher cost of production, non- adoption of
recommended practices and weak extension system.

The term technology has been defined in a number of ways. In the view of
economists, the technology is a bundle of related techniques or the systematic
application of scientific knowledge to practical works. Now-a-days the new
technology is increasingly regarded as social phenomenon involving a set of
interaction between man and the mechanisms with which he works. Thus the term
technology has a wide meaning than that is generally conceived. The introduction of
new sericultural technologies initiated the transformation of Indian sericulture and
thereby created a large potential for increasing sericultural production. The
productivity depends on the extent to which farmers adopt new sericultural
innovations. It is the field that a large part of gains from new sericultural
technology still remains to be realized. This is because of non-adoption of new
innovations (Anonymous, 1974, Puttaswamy et al., 1978; Prakash Kumar, 1986;
Aswatha Narayana, 1989; Gopala, 1991 and Singhvi et al., 1994). Adoption of new
technology is not a simple process and a number of social, economical, physical and
biological factors influence it to a considerable extent (Srivastava et al., 1976). In
developing country like India, the problem is further aggravated owing to its unique
socio-economic conditions.

Improved agricultural and sericultural practices are the results of modern

science and technology. There are a good number of improved technologies
available to increase the production of silk and its quality. The production and
demand are not going hand-in-hand. The possible reason could be differences in
adoption level. Thus could be attributed to their different socio-economic status.
Various factors like nature of innovation, personal characteristics of education,
family size, financial constraints, socio-economic status, etc. influence the adoption
of recommended sericultural practices. Thus it is essential to evaluate the impact of
socio-economic status of the farmers on technology adoption. The impact of
technological change show that there has been overall increase in output of crops,
increases in net farm income, improvement in the standard of living, changes in
social structure, level of education, change in attitude and values of rural people
and increase in contact with the urban areas and extension agencies (Acharya,
1973).

Generally farmers look for a simple, inexpensive, less labour and time saving
technologies, in order to increase return and efficiency in sericulture. Unless the
research findings are converted into simple and more practical technology, they
cannot be practiced in the field with ease. No technology is of any consequence
unless it is carried to the ultimate user and gets adopted. At present, a large
number of new technologies and practices are not translated in the field and often
technologies carried to the farmers get considerably distorted or looped off by the
time they get adopted at the field level (Sarda and Khurana, 1993). Chikkanna
(1999) observed that providing appropriate technologies and its diffusion for
adoption would improve the quality and quantity, which is of paramount importance
and will open up new vistas for farmers and thereby, making possible for them to
achieve substantial gains in farm income. Lakshmanan (1995) pointed out that the
introduction of many new technologies in mulberry leaf production and rearing of
silkworm has met with only partial success.

The adoption of any technology depends on the individual farmer as it is

associated with several factors such as age, education, knowledge and socio-
economic condition. Knowledge is a prerequisite for adoption (Mehta et al., 2000).
Hence the farmers should be made aware of the technologies to get it adopted.
Subramanyam (1976) indicated that transfer of technology from laboratory to land is
more important for increasing crop productivity. The introduction of sericultural
technology is directed towards achieving specific objectives like increase in the
employment and income of the farmers. The introduction of improved sericulture
techniques will not only result in increasing the silk production but also improving
the quality of life, standard of living and socio-economic conditions of rural
population. The production and productivity in sericulture depends upon the extent
of adoption of recommended practices by farmers (Singhvi et al., 1994).

YIELD GAP ANALYSIS

Though the production level has increased to a great extent in the recent past,
there still exists a wide gap between the actual yield obtained in the farmers fields
and the potential of production level with the existing modern technology. The
concept of ‘Yield gap’ provides the information in this regard. It could be observed
that the reasons attributable for yield gap are (i) Natural-season and environment
factor, (ii) Socio-economic factors which influence the adoption of technologies and
usage of inputs, (iii) Linkage efficiency between research stations and farmers
through extension agencies (iv) Technology itself – inherent weakness in
technologies and (v) Managerial efficiency of farmers – input use, risk taking
behaviour, decision-making etc. Currently, the problem of concern to all is that
even though the production level has increased, there is a gap between potential and
actual yield. The general belief is that the farmers are not fully exploiting their
resources in order to achieve high yield. As a result, the production cost is increased
and making Indian silk cost prohibitive. It is therefore, imperative to analyze the
magnitude of the gaps in attainable yields and explore the possibilities of relaxing
existing constraints in order to bridge the attainable yield gaps.

Yield gap refers to the difference between the potential and actual farm yields.
Potential yield refers to that yield which is obtained in the experimental station, with
best available technologies in practice. Potential farm yield is the yield obtained in
the demonstration plots in the farmers’ field while the actual yield refers to the yield
actually realized by the farmers. The difference between experimental station yield
and potential farm (demonstration plot) yield is known as Yield Gap-I and is
hypothesized to be caused by environmental differences and non-transferable
technologies. Yield Gap-II corresponds to the difference between potential farm
(demonstration plot) yield and the actual farm yield and is hypothesized to be
caused by various biological, psychological and socio-economic constraints. The
transformation of research station results in the form of demonstration yield or the
highest sample farm yield representing at least 5 per cent of the total sample can be
used as potential farm yield. While the potential yield is the same, actual yield at the
farmers level vary from place to place and farmer to farmer.

Numerous studies have been conducted to study the yield gaps in several
agricultural crops including rice, maize, cotton, coconut etc., in these studies
production constraints and their effects on the yield levels of the farmers were
identified. In sericulture also, many studies conducted in the recent past reveal the
importance of production factors. However, the yield of silk cocoon/mulberry just
like any other agricultural crops is influenced by the cultural, management
practices, quantities of inputs applied, level of technology, agro-climatic conditions
and socio-economic factors.
 In this context, the present research has been taken up to quantify the
knowledge and adoption of improved sericultural technologies under different socio-
economic conditions by the farmers and to analyze the probable reasons for such
yield gaps in mulberry as well as cross breed cocoon production and to identify the
constraints and problems faced by the sericulturists in adoption of the improved
technologies in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh and to suggest suitable solutions
for bridging the same.

OBJECTIVES

The following specific objectives were formulated:

1) To study the knowledge level of sericulturists about the new improved
sericultural technologies.

2) To assess the adoption of improved sericultural technologies by different

categories of farmers in the semi-arid conditions in Chittoor district of
Rayalaseema region in Andhra Pradesh.

3) To study the impact of improved sericultural technologies on cocoon yield,

income and employment with different categories of farmers and yield gap
analysis.

4) To identify the constraints and problems faced by the sericulturists in

perception of the improved technologies and to suggest suitable guidelines
for perception and adoption with precision thereby to improve productivity
and increase income level.
The main purpose of this chapter is to present a resume of conceptual formulation
relating to knowledge and adoption of sericultural innovations and yield gap
analysis in mulberry leaf and cocoon production. As there are not many studies on
the cited objectives in sericulture, allied studies both on sericulture and agriculture
have been reviewed and presented under the following heads.

2.1 Relationship between the socio-economic characteristic and knowledge

level of farmers on the recommended sericultural and agricultural
technologies.
2.2 Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics and adoption level
of farmers on the recommended sericultural and agricultural technologies.
2.3 Concept and methodology for assessment of yield gap.
2.4 Factors contributing to yield gap and studies on technological changes.
2.5 Constraints and problems encountered by the farmers for non- adoption of
the recommended sericultural and agricultural technologies to achieve
higher yields.

2.1Relationship between the socio-economic characterestic and

knowledge level of farmers on the recommended sericultural and
agricultural technologies

Knowledge refers to the fact or condition of knowing things with a

considerable degree of familiarity gained through experience or contact or
association with the individual or things known.

The studies conducted by different authors on knowledge level of

sericulturists about recommended sericultural technologies are discussed and
detailed below.
 Coleman (1951) reported that there was no significant association between the
ages of respondents, their knowledge and adoption level, on the basis of a research
study conducted in a New York rural community.

Wilson and Gallup (1955) observed that the farmers in the middle age group
adopted more number of practices. Similar observation was made by Dhanashekara
Babu (2001).

Wilson and Gallup (1955) found that farmers who had large farm size adopted
more number of farm practices and vice-versa. The same trend was reported by Das
(1970), Sainath (1982), Ramegowda (1983) and Palvanan (1985).

Young and Marsh (1956) revealed that there is a positive relation between
education and adoption of technologies. Similar findings were reported by
Choudhary (1967), Byra Reddy (1971), Jalihal (1974) and Ramegowda (1983).

Lionberger (1960) pointed out that the early adopters were younger or middle
age group farmers than late adopters.

Rao and Moulik (1966) concluded that application of nitrogenous fertilizers

was partial due to low knowledge.

Bhaskaran and Mahajan (1968) reported in their study that education was
positively related with retention of knowledge among farmers.

Veerabhadraiah (1969) reported that lack of knowledge is the major reason for
non-adoption of fertilizer in respect of hybrid maize cultivation in Bangalore district.
He also indicated that lack of knowledge is the reason for not using certified seeds,
recommended seed rate and spacing.

Singh et al., (1970) reported that there was non significant relationship
between land holding and their knowledge on sugarcane cultivation. They also
reported that there was positive significant relationship between newspaper reading
behaviour of farmers and their gain in knowledge on sugarcane cultivation.

Somashekarappa (1971) found that there was significant relationship between

the level of education and retention of knowledge among farmers. Similar findings
were reported by Bhaskaran and Mahajan (1968).

Krishna (1972) reported that 10% of hybrid maize growers had high knowledge
and 80% of growers had low knowledge.

Anonymous (1974) reported that the advantage of package of practices was

demonstrated to the sericulturists during 1971-72. Since then, nearly 50 per cent
of the sericulturists who have own irrigated mulberry gardens in Kolar and
Bangalore districts are reported to start practicing the improved technologies. The
package of practices consists of application of fertilizers, spacing of mulberry,
preservation of leaves, chawki rearing under controlled condition, box rearing and
spacing etc.

Govindappa (1974) conducted a study on knowledge and acceptance of

recommended farm practices by small farmers in Bangalore district and reported
that small farmers have low knowledge compared to marginal and big farmers.

Pimpriker et al., (1975) reported that education was found to have significant
relationship with knowledge of poultry farming practices of trained and untrained
farmers.

Srivastava and Mukunda Das (1976) through their study on economics of

sunflower cultivation and processing reported that most of the farmers are aware of
recommended spacing, fertilizer and insecticides and lacking proper knowledge on
recommended seed quantity /unit area.
 Anantha Raman (1977) revealed that socio-personal characters like contact
with extension agencies, mass media use and knowledge level had shown negatively
significant relationship with training needs of small and marginal farmers.

Puttaswamy et al., (1978) indicated that majority of Bangalore and Kolar

farmers were aware of the recommended silkworm hybrid and silkworm diseases.
The percent of farmers aware about the pebrine, flacherie, grasserie and muscardine
were 64.0, 87.0, 91.0, and 97.0 respectively.

Sridhar and Murthy (1978) found that lack of knowledge about new
technology of silkworm rearing was the main reason for non-adoption.

Sundaraj (1978) reported that there was significant relationship between age
and their knowledge in tomato cultivation. He also observed a significant
relationship between social participation of farmers and their knowledge on tomato
cultivation.

Rajashekaraiah (1979) inferred that the knowledge of selected recommended

practices of silkworm rearing was more among big farmers than small farmers.
Further, he reported that there was a significant association between “overall
knowledge level” and the category of the farmers. He also reported that majority of
the farmers had knowledge about the recommended practices like race of silkworm
but only few farmers were aware of recommended spacing.

Hanumantha Reddy (1980) identified the influence of family size on the

knowledge level of dairy farmers.

Kantharaj (1980) found that majority (64%) of sunflower growers had medium
knowledge on recommended practices. The percentage of farmers under ‘low’ and
‘high’ knowledge categories was found to be 16% and 20%, respectively. He reported
that there was a significant relationship between land holding and their knowledge
on sunflower cultivation. He also found a significant relationship between social
participation of farmers and their knowledge on sunflower cultivation.

Ravindra (1980) observed that majority (77%) of the poultry farmers were
found to have medium knowledge level, while there were only 7.5% in the high
knowledge category and the rest in low knowledge category.

Dayananda Patel (1985) reported that there was significant difference in the
knowledge level of farm men and women with respect to improved practices of
sericulture. Nearly 75% of farm men and 66% of farm women possessed medium
level of knowledge. About five per cent of farm men and 9% of farm women have
high level of knowledge. He observed that there was non significant relationship
between social participation of farm men and women and their knowledge level.

Shivaraju (1985) reported that a majority of big and small farmers were in low
employment range when compared to marginal farmers. The adoption behaviour of
big, small and marginal farmers with respect to recommended practices of bivoltine
silkworm rearing was found to have positive and significant relationship with their
knowledge level. Extension guidance and irrigation potential contributed
significantly for the variation in the net income level, while knowledge and market
orientation were found to be significant in explaining the variation in the
employment potential of big farmers. He also found that the net income of big
farmers was positively and significantly related with knowledge on bivoltine seed
cocoon production.

Kshama Giridhar et al., (1986) reported that 68.4% of male members (n = 519)
were engaged in sericulture of whom 120 as full time job and 235 part time, while
59.8 % of the women were engaged in sericulture, out of which 103 as full time and
156 worked part time basis. Further they also stated that 37.61% were un-educated
followed by 31.4% educated up to primary, 21.3% up to high school. Also most of
the sericulturists reared silkworms in their dwelling houses and only 30.8% reared
in separate houses. Of which 57.7% of them were tiled roofing, 38.3% with thatched
roofing and only 4% RCC. They also reported that 96% of the houses were not ideal
for effective disinfection and rearing silkworms.

Prakash kumar (1986) reported that there was no relation among farmer’s
age, knowledge and their adoption behaviour.

Siddappaji et al., (1987) inferred that 59% of the respondents were literates in
Mysore district. Of which 3, 17 and 24% were graduates, educated up to secondary
and primary level, respectively and the remaining 41% were illiterates. He also
reported that out of 234 sericulturists interviewed on their rearing sites, in Mysore
district, only a few of them had undergone sericulture training.

Aswatha Narayana (1989) reported that nearly 65% of farmers had medium to
high knowledge on silkworm rearing practices.

Srinivasa (1989) observed that cent per cent of the sericulturists had correct
knowledge on variety of mulberry, preparation of land, system of planting and
irrigation with respect to mulberry-cultivation and place of rearing, location of
rearing house, recommended race of silkworm, number of feedings per day,
number of instars, and number of moults with respect to silkworm rearing
practices. He observed that there was a highly significant relationship between
mass media participation, extension participation and social participation on
knowledge of sericulture practices. He also found that there was a non significant
relationship between size of land holding and the knowledge of improved silkworm
rearing practices. He also revealed that there was a positive and highly significant
relationship between education and the knowledge level of sericulturists with
regard to mulberry cultivation and silkworm rearing.

Similar result was observed by Satheesh (1990), Gopala (1991), Sreedhara (1996)
and Srinivasa et al., (1996). He also noticed that there was a non significant
relationship between farm size and family size on knowledge level of sericulturists
with regard to mulberry cultivation and silkworm rearing. He also found that
 there was a positive and highly significant relationship between extension
participation and social participation on knowledge level of sericulturists with
mulberry cultivation and silkworm rearing practices.

Jeeta Moza and Rashid Trag (1990) inferred that higher the education, less
favourable seems to be the attitude towards practice of sericulture in Kashmir. It
is also observed that land holding size does not play a significant role in shaping
the farmers attitude towards sericulture.

Satheesh (1990) found that majority of the beneficiaries possessed knowledge on

chawki rearing practices such as appropriate race, rearing place, disease,
disinfection and leaf preservation, but lacking knowledge on practices like bed
cleaning nets and incubation. On the contrary, majority of the non beneficiaries
were knowledgeable with respect to practices like leaf preservation, bed cleaning,
identifying diseases and selection of races, lacking knowledge on size of bed
cleaning nets, area of chawki worms and maintenance of separate mulberry
garden.

Kher et al., (1991) reported that education play an important role in

knowledge and adoption of improved practices. He also reported that social
participation is an important aspect affecting the adoption of an innovation. The
majority of the farmers having low participation fall on the medium adoption
category. It is necessary to strengthen the existing social organizations so that
farmers will participate and learn about the new things.

Srinivasulu (1991) revealed that majority of sericulturists had medium level of

knowledge with regard to recommended practices of mulberry cultivation and
silkworm rearing practices.

Dube and Sawarkar (1992) indicated that socio-economic character like

education had significant relationship with knowledge on rice production technology
among small and marginal farmers. They indicated that social participation had
significant relationship with knowledge on rice production technology among small
and marginal farmers. They also indicated that credit facility had significant
relationship with knowledge among marginal farmers.

Dolli et al., 1993 observed that non adoption or partial adoption of the
improved sericultural practices is the reason for low intake of layings and low
cocoon yield in the study areas of Mysore and H.D. Kote taluks.

Geetha (1993) revealed that there was a significant relationship between

experience in sericulture and knowledge level. Similar result was observed by
Geetha et al., (2001).

Gopala and Krishna (1993) in their study conducted in Kolar district of

Karnataka observed lack of knowledge about disease control was perceived as the
most important reason by sericulture farmers of both developed and less developed
areas. Non availability of M5 improved mulberry variety was the second most
important problem in less developed area.

Singhvi et al., (1993) studied the knowledge level of the sericulturists about
the recommended practices and their extent of adoption and also the characteristics
of the sericulturists associated with the adoption behaviour in Hunsur taluk of
Mysore district. The result showed that all / majority of the respondents were aware
and adopted most of the mulberry cultivation and silkworm rearing practices except
some of the crucial practices like fertilizer application, plant protection measures,
bed cleaning by net and pebrine disease control measures where knowledge and
adoption level were very much low. The rate of adoption was significantly associated
with sericulturist’s education, land holding, mass media participation and extension
contact.

Sudhakar rao (1993) reported that the young and middle age farmers had
better understanding about the complexity of uzicide and had favourable perception
than the old age farmers who were generally oriented to the traditional practices.
 Singhvi et al., (1994) observed that the sericulturists had high knowledge
about almost all recommended practices except bed cleaning practices by using net,
maintenance of optimum temperature and humidity in rearing house during rearing,
and pebrine disease control.

ZeaulAhsan (1994) concluded that the sericulturists had fairly good

knowledge about almost all recommended technologies except bed cleaning during
chawki rearing, quantity of fertilizer to be applied and incubation method. He also
noted that comparatively more number of sericulturists in non-traditional area is
having more knowledge than the traditional area.

Srinivasa et al., (1995) studied the relationship between silkworm rearer’s

characteristics and knowledge and adoption of improved sericultural practices and
found that nine identified characters contribute 42.31 to 76.66% of the variation in
the farmer’s knowledge and adoption level.

Sreedhara (1996) revealed that there was a non-significant difference between

large scale and marginal farmers with regard to overall knowledge regarding
recommended practices, and knowledge on recommended practices was higher in
big farmers (55%) than small farmers (52%). He found a significant relationship
between family size and knowledge of small and marginal farmers. He revealed that
extension participation and extension contact had positive and significant
relationship with knowledge. He reported that material possession had positive
and highly significant relationship with knowledge of big farmers and positively
significant relationship with small farmers. Similar result was observed by
Gangadharappa (1979). He also found that credit facility and net income had non-
significant relationship with knowledge of sericulturists.

Srinivasa et al., (1996) revealed that age of sericulturists was significantly

related with knowledge level in traditional areas and non- significantly related in
non traditional areas. He also reported that formal education, caste structure,
family size and size of land holding influenced the degree of adoption of sericulture
practices both in traditional and new sericulture area and education influenced the
degree of adoption of sericulture practices.

Lakshmanan (1998) reported that lack of awareness and adoption of

traditional practices are the main reasons for non- adoption of recommended
technologies.

Srinivasa (1998) reported that the adoption of sericultural practices was

influenced significantly by education and mass media participation.

Ismath Afshan et al., (1999) while studying the efficacy of extension methods
in sericulture in Kolar district found that field visit followed by progressive farmers
and own experience, field tours and to some extent demonstrations and trainings
are the most effective source of knowledge.

Sunil Dutt and Chole (2002) revealed that age of sericulturists was negatively
and significantly related with the knowledge level. They also reported that there was
a non significant relationship between sericulture experience and knowledge level.

2.2 Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics and

adoption level of farmers on the recommended sericultural and
agricultural technologies

Coleman (1951) in his research study conducted in New York rural

community indicated that there was no significant association between the age of
respondents and their adoption level.

Wilson and Gall up (1955) observed that farmers in the middle age group and
with large farm size adopted more number of practices. Similar results were
reported by Rahudkar (1962).
 Young and Marsh (1956) reported positively significant relationship between
education and adoption. Similar finding was observed by Byra Reddy and Jalihal
(1974), Desai (1975) Rame Gowda (1988), Sakthival (1979), Yerrama Reddy (1979)
and Pamadi (1980).

Lionberger (1960) pointed out that early adopters were younger in age than
late adopters. Similar tendency was observed by Rogers (1962). They also found
that adoption is a decision taken by an individual to continue an innovation. An
innovation may be idea or an objective, which is perceived as new by an individual.
Reddy (1962) observed significant relationship between farm size and adoption of
recommended agricultural practices. The same trends were reported by Kantharaj
(1980), Sainath (1982), Rame Gowda (1988) and Palvanann (1985).

Sharma (1966) stated that mass media was supporting device in adoption of
improved practices. Bhaskaran and Mahajan (1968) found that the retention of
knowledge regarding agro son seed treatment on cotton was slightly higher in young
and middle age farmers compared to old age group.

Singh (1969) from his study observed non-significant relationship between

adoption and education of farmers. Similar result was observed by Veerabhadraiah
and Dwarakanath (1970), Palvanan (1985) and Srinivasa (1989).

Roy et al., (1968) observed positive and significant relationship between mass
media participation and adoption. Similar results were observed by Desai (1975),
Ikramulla Mohammed (1975), Kittur (1976), Hirrannaya (1977), Mahadeva Swamy
(1978), Chandrabhan Singh (1979), Kantharaj (1980), Budihal (1981), Sainath
(1982), Rame Gowda (1983) Prakash Kumar (1986) and Himanthraju (1984).

Veerabhadraiah et al., (1969) noticed a positive and significant relationship

between social participation and the adoption level. Veerabhadraiah and
Dwarakinath (1970), Sainath (1982) and Palvanan (1985) indicated that there is no
relation between education and adoption of technologies.

Chowkidar and George (1972) reported that adopters and non adopters
differed significantly in relation to education.

Jha and Shaktawat (1972) observed that socio-economic status seems to be

associated with adoption of agricultural innovations. They found that there was
significant relationship between extension agency contact and adoption behaviour.
Veerabhadraiah et al., (1973) reported that there was non- significant relationship
between extension agency contact and adoption by farmers. Narasimhanna (1974)
indicated the possibility of obtaining 500kg of bivoltine cocoons from rearing 1250
Dfls per annum per acre through adoption of improved technology.

Byra Reddy and Jalihal (1974) observed no relationship between mass

participation and adoption behaviour of farmers. Similar results were observed by
Kantharaj (1980).

Soma sundaram (1976) reported that there was no significant association

between size of land holding and socio-economic status on adoption among small
farmers. The same trends were reported by Pamadi (1980). Subramanyam (1976)
found in his field experimental study that age was associated with knowledge gained
through different combinations of extra methods.

Sundarraj (1978) reported that there was a significant relationship between

age of farmers and their knowledge and adoption on tomato cultivation.
Gangadharappa (1979) reported that material possession had positive and
significant relationship with adoption of recommended sericulture practices among
big farmers. Similar result was observed by Sreedhara (1996). He pointed out that
young age farmers have retained more knowledge through each of the combination
methods studied as compared to middle age and old age farmers.
 Kantharaj (1980) reported that there was no significant relationship between
age of farmers and their adoption level of sunflower cultivation. Krishnaswamy et
al., (1980) reported that by adopting improved techniques of rearing the
sericulturists could harvest an average yield of 27.72 kg per 100 Dfls in rain fed
areas. Thangaraju and John Knight (1980) of the opinion that 90% of trained
sericulturists followed correct spacing and used recommended number of trays and
disease control measures.

Shivaraju (1985) reported that credit facility had non-significant relationship

with adoption of recommended sericulture practices among big farmers. He found
that the net income of big farmers had positive and significant relationship with
adoption of recommended sericulture practices.

Prakash kumar (1986) observed that education level of farmers and farm size
had positive and significant relationship with adoption behaviour of farmers about
silkworm rearing practices.

Ashwath Narayana (1989) indicated that the age, education level, extent of
land holding, mass media, extension participation and social participation had
significant positive relationship with adoption of the improved silkworm rearing
practices in Kolar district.

Srinivasa (1989) found that family size had highly significant relationship with
adoption level of recommended practices of sericulture. He also found that mass
media participation and social participation had positive and significant relationship
with adoption of chawki rearing practices.

Jeeta Moza and Rashid Trag (1990) inferred that higher the education, less
favourable seems to be the attitude towards practices of sericulture in Kashmir. It is
also observed that land holding size does not play a significant role in shaping the
farmers attitude towards sericulture.
 Satheesh (1990) found that education level, land holding, mass media
participation, extension participation had positive and significant relationship with
the level of adoption of chawki rearing practices. Whereas, the age and social
participation of the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries of chawki rearing centres
had no significant relationship with the level of adoption of chawki rearing practices,
in Bangalore district. Gopala (1991) found that the education level, size of land
holding and mass media participation had positive and significant relationship with
the adoption of sericulture practices in developed area, while non-significant in the
less developed areas. He revealed that extension participation and social
participation had non-significant relationship with adoption of recommended
sericultural practices in both developed and less developed areas.

Srinivasulu (1991) reported that age and education had negative but
significant relationship with adoption of recommended Sericultural practices. He
also observed that land holding and social participation had positive and significant
relationship with the adoption of recommended sericultural practices. The similar
results were observed by Thimmappa (1981), Geetha kutty (1982), Geetha (1993),
Chikkanna et al., (1995) and Geetha et al., (2001). Dube and Sawarkar (1990)
indicated that credit facility had significant relationship with adoption of
recommended sericultural practices among marginal farmers.

Anjaneya Gowda (1993) reported that adoption behaviour of big farmers was
found to be positive and significant with the mass media participation and extension
participation. Small farmers and marginal farmers were found to have positive and
non-significant relationship with mass media participation and extension
participation and their adoption behaviour. Similar results were observed by
Chikkanna et al., (1995).

Dolli et al., (1993) indicated that increase in education (formal, informal or

non- formal) would lead to increase in adoption by farmers.
 Geetha (1993) reported that land holding and net income had negative and
significant relationship with the adoption of sericultural practices. She also
reported that adoption behaviour of the farmers had positive and significant
relationship with their family size. Further she observed that there is a significant
correlation between sericulture experience and technology adoption. It was
supported by Geetha et al., (2001). They revealed that there was a positive
significant relationship between the extension support and adoption of improved
sericultural practices.

Sudhakar rao (1993) reported that the young age farmers are better in
understanding about the complexity of Uzicide and had favourable perception than
the old age farmers who were gradually oriented to the traditional practices.
Chikkanna et al., (1995) showed that the level of adoption was higher for the
practices of FYM application, spacing in late age silkworm rearing and disinfection,
where as the adoption was low/ poor for the practices of application of fertilizers,
spacing in chawki rearing and incubation care. He also found that age of big, small
and marginal farmers had positive but non significant relationship with adoption
behaviour.

Siddaramaiah and Prakash Kumar (1994) who investigated the adoption of

improved sericultural practices by big and small farmers in Ramanagaram taluk of
Bangalore district observed 60.00% of the respondents applied the recommended
quantity of FYM, while 25.00% applied the recommended dose of fertilizers and
43.75% adopted the recommended plant protection measures. Further, the extent
of adoption was significantly associated with education, land holding, extension
participation and economic motivation.

Singhvi et al., (1994) observed that majority of the farmers (98.30%) reared
silkworms in their dwelling houses and adopted the disinfection measures partially.
Nearly 50% of the farmers applied FYM and used bed disinfectants. It was also
observed that the adoption level of fertilizer application, plant protection measures,
maintenance of optimum temperature and humidity in rearing house, use of bed
cleaning nets and disease control measures was low. The rate of adoption was
significantly associated with education, land holding, mass media participation and
extension contact. Similar results were observed by Satheesh (1990), Gopala (1991),
Sreedhara (1996), Srinivasa et al., (1996) and Sunildutt and Chole (2002).

Zeaul Ahsan (1994) reported that net income had positively significant
relationship with adoption of recommended sericulture practices. Similar result was
observed by Sunildutt and Chole (2002). Nikhade et al., (1997) indicated that lack of
knowledge about fertilizer doses for mulberry and control of silkworm pests and
diseases, low prices and low weighing cocoons and delay in payments are the major
constraints for non adoption of technologies by the sericulturists of Risod Panchayat
Samiti of Akola district of Maharashtra state.

Chikkanna et al., (1995) in their studies observed the constraints for non-
adopting the recommended practices were non-remunerative price for cocoons, non-
availability of finance and unawareness of technology.

Nataraju et al., (1995) reported that adoption rate was low with respect to
paddy cultivation practices under NARP in Karnataka. It was 33 per cent for seed
rate, 0 per cent for seed treatment, 24 per cent in nitrogen application, 22 per cent
in potassium application and 12 per cent in case of plant protection.

Srinivasa (1996) indicated that the factors like age, education, land holding,
organization participation, mass media participation cosmopolitism and extension
participation influence the socio economic status.

Govindaiah et al., (1996) witnessed that plant protection measures were

mostly adopted by sericulture farmer in irrigated mulberry gardens while in rain fed
areas, adoption rate was totally nil. Though, there was 65% garden under rain fed
farming, none of the farmers adopted plant protection measures. Lack of knowledge
about disease control measures, fear of toxicity to silkworms, lack of finance and
poor extension are the major constraints for non adoption.

Sreedhara (1996) reported that family size had non-significant relationship

with adoption of improved practices. He observed that the credit facilities of big
farmers had positive and significant relationship with their adoption level. He
reported that the net income of small farmers was significantly related with the
adoption level. He indicated that factors like education, land holding, mass media
participation, credit facility, employment and risk preference influence socio
economic status of big farmers. Further he observed that education, land holding,
mass media participation, extension participation, risk preference and net income
influences socio economic status of small farmers.

Srinivasa et al., (1996) observed that land holding and family size have less
influence on the adoption level when compared to education and extension contact
by the sericulturists and formal education had not influenced the knowledge and
degree of adoption of improved practices in traditional area whereas its influence
was assured in non traditional area.

Lakshmanan et al., (1997) studied to find out the level of adoption and
constraints for non adoption of recommended practices of mulberry cultivation and
silk worm rearing in Tamilnadu state and found that most of the sample
respondents neither applied the crucial inputs like FYM, Chemical fertilizer etc. nor
adopted any disease control measures during silkworm rearing as per the
recommended level.

Srinivasa et al., (1998) indicated that the sericultural practices which involve
cash inputs are slow moving technologies. The study conducted by Lakshmanan et
al., (1998) in Salem and Dharmapuri districts of Tamilnadu revealed that most of
the sample respondents neither applied the crucial inputs like FYM, Chemical
fertilizer, etc. nor adopted any disease control measures during silkworm rearing as
per the recommended level. Lack of awareness and traditional practices are the
major constraints for non adoption. In addition, the heavy capital investments and
high variability of yields under unpredicted weather conditions make the farmers
not to accept the technology readily.

Ganapathy et al., (1999) who conducted a study in Mysore taluk observed that
lack of knowledge about disease control measures as the most important reason by
sericulturists for non adoption of recommended practices followed by lack of capital,
high cost of fertilizers, non availability of FYM in time, lack of knowledge about
disinfection measures, non availability of M5 variety and non availability of labour in
time.

Krishnamurthy et al., (1999) observed that 70% of the sericulturists had

medium to high knowledge level on recommended sericulture technologies in the
traditional area of Gowribidanur and Sidlaghatta taluks of Kolar districts in
Karnataka. Education, mass media exposure and extension participation had a
significant relationship with the knowledge level of sericulturists.

Mohandas et al., (1999) concluded that though there is considerable overall

improvement in the adoption of new sericultural technologies, the impact of it is not
fully reflected on cocoon production. Practices related to young age rearing mainly
contributed to segregate high and low adopters. Low awareness still remained as a
major constraint for adoption of technologies.

Narayana Swamy et al., (1999) who studied the extent of adoption of

important technologies like new mulberry variety (V1), use of black boxing,
maintenance of chawki garden, disinfection of rearing house, hygiene during rearing
and shoot feeding found that except for the total spray by small farmers for
disinfection, none of the other practices are followed by the farmers as
recommended.

Raghu et al., (1999) observed that the adoption of recommended sericulture

practices was very poor in low category (15.00%) farmers than medium (49.00%) and
high category farmers (36.00%). Lack of guidance at correct time was found to be
the reason for non adoption of sericulture technologies.

Srinivasa et al., (1999) in their study in Sidlaghatta and Chintamani taluks of

Kolar district on the effect of education and extension contact on cocoon production
indicated that educated farmers got 20% higher cocoon output than the un
educated farmers and found extension had a positive but non- significant effect.

Venkatesh Kumar et al., (1999) inferred that the adoption of improved

practices in silkworm rearing among multivoltine seed cocoon rearers is higher in
irrigated farmers (72.50%) than rain fed farmers (65.00%). Lack of economic
resources, indifference on the part of the rearers, lack of co-ordination between
farmers and extension workers and lack of effective extension activities were
identified as the main reasons for non-adoption of improved technologies.

Geetha et al., (2001) noticed that farmers having more years of experience (9
years and above) were found to be the highest adopters of technologies (61.7%) i.e.,
there is positive and significant correlation with the level of adoption. She reveals
that factors like family size, occupational status, experiences in sericulture,
extension support, cocoon yield and income, influence socio economic status.

Mallikarjuna et al., (2001) reported that non- availability of credit to the

sericultural enterprise in Mysore district of Karnataka is one of the factors for non
adoption to technologies to the full scale.

Munikrishnappa et al., (2002) studied about the association of the socio

economic characters with knowledge and adoption of improved sericulture practices
by sericulturists and found that a wide range of difference in the level of knowledge
and adoption among the different categories of farmers. This was due to the
difference in socio-economic characters in addition to the various constraints that
hinder the rate of adoption. It was noticed that extension participation along with
the habit of visiting neighbouring places were found to have positive influence on the
knowledge and adoption level of sericulture.

Sunildutt et al., (2002) studied on adoption of sericultural practices by the

sericulturists in Parbhani and Hingoli districts of Maharashtra and found that
46.25% respondents’ adoption level was high where as that of 37.5% and 16.25%
respondents’ was medium and low, respectively. The factors such as education,
income, social contact, mass media use and risk orientation was found to have
positive relationship with adoption while age showed negative relation with it.

Sunildutt and Chole (2002) found that age had shown negatively significant
relationship with adoption of improved sericultural practices. They also reported
that there was a non- significant relationship between sericulture experience and
adoption of technologies. They indicated that factors like education, income, social
participation, extension contact, mass media contact and risk orientation influence
the socio-economic status.

2.3 Concept and methodology for assessment of yield gap

The first attempt to conceptualize yield gap was made by Gomez (1977). The
model breaks the yield gap into two distinct parts by introducing an intermediate
yield level representing the potential farm yield or yield obtained in farmer’s fields
using the modern technology. Yield gap I, is the difference between experimental
station yield and potential farm yield. It exists mainly because of environmental
differences between the experimental stations and the actual farms. There may also
be some components of the technology that are not transferable from the
experimental station to the farmer’s field. Yield gap II is the difference between the
potential farm yield and the actual farm yield. This gap exists because farmers use
inputs or cultural practices that suites them resulting in lower yield than those
possible in their farms. It is possible to explain the gap in two ways. One is to
identify the biological or physical inputs or cultural practices account for the gap.
The other is to identify the farmers who are not using the inputs or cultural
practices that would result in higher yields on their own farms.
 Mukherjee (1977), when working on the Indian farms defined yield gap as the
difference between the highest yield on a farm or at an experimental station and the
national average yield.

Swami Nathan (1979) in his yield gap analysis in wheat in Delhi State
identified three types of yield gaps namely Gap I, Gap II and Gap III. According to
him the gap between the yield possible on theoretical considerations and the best
yield so far achieved can be referred as Gap I which can also be called as Research
gap. Gap II which can be referred to as ‘Research-cum-Management Gap’ is the gap
between the best yield obtained in a Research farm and by a good farmer. He
termed the Gap III is the difference between best average yield realized by a farmer
in a State and the State average yield. The third gap can also be called as extension
gap.

According to Pandey (1978), the difference between farmers actual yields and
the maximum yields possible on theoretical considerations may be visualized as
made up of following four components.

Research gap (Gap I): The gap between the possible yield on theoretical
considerations and the best yields so far achieved on experimental stations may be
referred as research gap. This Gap I can be bridged only through intensive
interdisciplinary research efforts.

Research-cum-management gap (Gap II): The gap between the best yield obtained
on research farm and the potential farm yields as obtained by a good farmer or in a
National demonstration may be termed as Research-cum-management gap. This
Gap II arises due to environmental differences between experimental stations and
the average farm, and also management factors relating to soil fertility, etc.

Extension gap (Gap III): The gap between the maximum potential yields in the
farmer’s environment and the farmer’s actual yields may be referred as Extension
gap. This Gap III arises due to fact that farmers use inputs or practices other than
the optimal, thereby resulting in lower yields.

Resource-cum-management gap (Gap IV): The yield gaps within the farmers
themselves due to variations in resource position and management abilities. This
gap is referred as Resource-cum-management gap.

Krishnaswamy et al., (1980) reported that by practicing traditional techniques

of rearing, the sericulturists could harvest an average yield of 27.72 kg per 100
disease free layings (Dfls) and by adopting improved techniques of silkworm rearing
an increase of 30.99 kgs of yield can be obtained and an extra return of Rs. 252.57
per 100 disease free layings. He while comparing the average national demonstration
yields with average yields of crops concluded that the yield gap was 61.83 per cent
in paddy, 89.30 per cent of jowar, 69.59 per cent for maize, 59.69 per cent for wheat
and 51.55 per cent for ragi.

Gaurha and Jain (1981) found that a wide gap existed between the average
yields obtained on the demonstration and non-demonstration plots of rice. This gap
was as high as 27.20 quintal per hectare for the highest yielding plots. 29 quintals
per hectare for medium yielding plots and 34 quintals per hectare for lowest yielding
plots.

Santhi Swarup and Pandey (1981) while assessing the regional variations in
yield gap of wheat crop in India found that even Punjab which has the highest wheat
productivity in the country has still a yield gap index of 36.4 per cent. West Bengal
has the smallest yield gap of 30 per cent while Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have
the highest yield gap index (75%).

Rao and Prasad (1982), in their study of expectations and achievements of

high yielding varieties of paddy in Andhra Pradesh, have reported the yield
performance of the different high yielding varieties in paddy. The data were
collected from experimental station and demonstration blocks conducted by the
Department of Agriculture and the farmers. They found that the gap between the
demonstration blocks and cultivators farms was about 199 kg/ha in case of PR-6-
17, 214 kg/ha in the case of Jaya and 835 kg/ha in case of Tellahamsa, in West
Godavari region.

Fale et al., (1985) found that in case of rice the yield gap between potential
yield and farmer’s average yield was 56.50 per cent. The gap was 52.40 per cent
with high yielding varieties and 59.8 per cent with local varieties. They in their study
entitled “An economic analysis of yield gap in rice in Ratnagiri district” found that
the gap between yields on experimental stations and those obtained on national
demonstration plots was about 2 qtls/ha or 3.83 per cent, which was quite narrow.
However, the gap between potential yields and actual yields on farmer’s fields was
about 27 qtls/ha or 52 per cent, which was wide.

A sizeable gap between potential yield and actual yield was observed by
Kalirajan (1982) while measuring the yield potential of high yielding varieties
technology at the farm level. He concluded that the deviations in the farmer’s yields
from potential yield were due to the non adoption of the improved practices by
farmers which were possible under their economic environment.

Suryawanshi and Gaikwad (1984) while analyzing the yield gap in Rabi Jowar
found that the difference between the yields of demonstration plots and non-
demonstration plots was 3.60 qtls/ha and the gap between demonstration yield and
yield obtained by following traditional method of cultivation was 4.9 qtls/ha.

Johl (1984) pointed out that the gap between the potential productivity
indicated by research and the actual performance of different crops on the farmer’s
fields ranged from 30 to 300 per cent. Thus, he concluded that even with the
available technology and given cropping patterns in different agro-climatic zones of
the country, there was tremendous potential for increasing productivity through the
application of recommended inputs and better management practices.
 Misra et al., (1987) reported that the highest yield gap was recorded in paddy
(36.11 qtls/ha), followed by wheat (29.53 qtls/ha), maize (15.07 qtls/ha) and bajra
(15.07 qtls/ha).

Patil et al., (1986) found that in case of wheat crop a very small per cent (4.5)
of the farmers had no yield gap. Among those who had yield gaps, majority (51.35%)
had medium yield gap, 28.83 per cent had small yield gap and 15.32 per cent had
large yield gap.

Rajagopalan (1986) studied about yield gap of paddy in Tanjavur district of

Tamilnadu and concluded that yield gap existed among all categories of farmer’s and
in all regions of the district. The potential yield was obtained by 5.4 per cent of the
farmers. The yield gap of below 2.5 t ha-1 was found with 68.5 per cent and above
2.5 t ha-1 was found with 26.1 per cent of the farmers.

Bhoite et al., (1987) developed the concept of yield gap in three stages.
Gap I (Research gap): It is a gap between the yield possible on theoretical
considerations and the best yield so far achieved on research station farms. The
bridging of this gap mainly depends on the efforts of research scientists.

Gap II (Management gap): This is a gap between the best yield obtained on research
farm and that of the best farmer in his own situation. The bridging of this gap
depends on the joint efforts of research and extension scientists.

Gap III (Extension gap): It is the gap between the best average yield obtained in
farmer’s situation and the average yield of farmers. This can be bridged by the joint
efforts of developmental, extension and research agencies.

Chandra Reddy (1987) found that more than 82% of the sample farmers
obtained at least 91.00% of the potential silk cocoon yield in Chittoor district of
Andhra Pradesh. He found best results in respect of most of the post cocoon
characters viz., cocoon weight, pupal weight, shell percentage and renditta in the
case of silkworms (PM x NB4D2) fed with the entire mulberry shoots without tender
flush in all the three seasons tried, compared to that of the individual leaf fed with
chopped leaf.

Jain and Singh (1987) indicated that yield gap – the difference between the
potential yield and the actual yield on farmer’s producing units- is caused primarily
by bio-physical and socio-economic constraints. The purpose of yield gap analysis is
to identify the major biophysical constraints responsible for the yield gap and to
determine the contribution of each factor to the gap and to identify the possible
socio-economic constraints impending the adoption of improved technology.

Subba Rao and Subramanyam (1987) reported that yield gap is the difference
between the crop yields realized at the experiment stations and by farmers on their
farms. This difference is attributable to environmental factors, socio-economic
factors and non-adoption of recommended package of practices by the farmers. He
also while studying the yield gap in Flue Cured Virginia Tobacco, found that the
demonstration trials at research stations indicated yield levels varying from 1193 to
2274 kg/ha for various varieties, while the yield on the farmer’s field ranged between
832 to 1975 kg/ha.

Pandey and Shanti Swarup (1987) observed that the main rice growing states
such as Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh had the highest index of
yield gap i.e., around 73. Besides Punjab, the States like Tamilnadu, West Bengal,
Maharashtra, Jammu and Kashmir had realized half of the potential yields. In the
states such as Haryana, Kerala, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Andhra Pradesh, the index of yield gap was around 50 to 65.

Madhavaswamy and Sesha Reddy (1987) observed a fairly wide gap in the
HYV jowar yields. The study revealed a difference of 7.00 q/ha between the yield of
research station and best cultivators field and a difference of 13.08 q between the
yield of research station (32.00 q/ha) and that of average cultivator (11.92 q/ha) was
estimated at 20.8 q/ha.
 Ananthanarayan and Eswarappa (1988) in their study about the impact of
national demonstration on crop yields found that the average national
demonstration yield was 6.8 t ha-1 as against district average yield of 2.3 t ha-1, thus
having a gap of 3.5 t ha-1 in the case of paddy. The highest National demonstration
yield was 9 t ha-1.

Jayaram (1988) reported that the yield gap of large farmers was 8.69 per cent
and that of small farmers was 10.47 per cent in case of paddy. In case of irrigated
ragi, the author found the yield gap of large farmer’s was 18.91 per cent and of small
farmers was 10.42 per cent.

Pochaiah and Rameshkumar Reddy (1988) in their study on the extent of

adoption and yield gap in paddy observed that a majority of paddy growers (52.5 per
cent) had medium yield gap followed by high (28.3 per cent) and low (19.2 per cent)
yield gap. Further, they found positive and significant difference between irrigated
and rain fed paddy farmers with respect to the yield gap.

Siddappaji and Vasundhara (1988) reported that 28.4, 26.3, 17.5 and 16.4 %
of the respondents reared PM x NB4D2, NB18 and pure bivoltines viz., NB18, NB4D2
respectively, obtained cocoons of 20.2 kg to 59.8 kg, 20.1 kg to 68.5 kg, 23 kg to
47.3 kg and 20.5 kg to 56.4 kg. In the case of cross-breeds the cocoon yield ranged
from 26.4 kg to 49.3 kg in case of PM x NB7, 29.7 kg to 53.9 kg for PM x NB 18, 16.6
to 51.3 kg for PM x NB4D2 and PM x KA for 32.5 to 34.9 kg in different districts of
Karnataka.

Maya (1989) observed that the yield gap between the best and ordinary farms
in Luzon [Philippines] in the rice farm fields when compared to the experiment
station yields, “Best” farmers have consistently had higher yields and higher net
returns relative to the “Ordinary” farmers .The distinguishing features of the “Best”
farmers relative to “Ordinary” farmers are (a) Better quantity and (b) Higher stock of
technical knowledge (c) Greater supervision time (d) Timely access to inputs.
 Radhakrishnan et al., (1990) reported a yield gap of about 700 kg/ha in
Robusta and more than 900 kg/ha in Arabica coffee.

Srivastava and Singh (1990) revealed that there was a yield gap of 37 per cent
in case of marginal farmer’s in paddy cultivation, while the same was 44 per cent
and 52 per cent in respect of small and medium farmer’s respectively. The gap was
found to be also high in the case of big farmer’s, being 47 per cent.

Holikatti (1991) studied the yield gaps in chilli in Karnataka. He found that
the estimated total yield gap in Byadagi chilli ranged from 52.25 per cent in large
farms to 52.25 per cent in small farms. The size of yield Gap-I in chilli was generally
small (25.32%) while the size of yield gap II was large (38.07%). Yield gap II ranged
from 36.33 per cent on small farms to 38.74 per cent on large farms.

Nantawan-Sarobol (1992) in their studies on soybean yield gap analysis

studies in sukhothai organic activities observed that the yield obtained from the
farmers with free inputs ranged from 0.75 to 2.50 t/ha while the yield from the field
practiced with farmers’ technology ranged from 0.80 to 2.07 t/ha and the yield gap
between the two groups were ranged from 7.03 to 19.24% .The contribution of the
fertilizer toward the yield appeared to be greatest (127.08 kg/ha) followed by insect
control and weed control 26.04 kg/ha and 16.44 kg/ha) respectively. However, the
combined analysis showed no statistical difference among treatments. The above
climatic condition especially the below average rainfall plus the damaging by pest
seemed to be the responsible factors .The result of the 1990 trail plot followed the
same trend of the 1989 data. There was no significant difference among yield
obtained from any treatments.

Nithyashree (1992) in her study on yield gap of coffee in Chickmagalur district

of Karnataka found that a majority of the farmers (39.2 per cent) had high yield gap
and also that big farmer’s obtained more yield than the small farmers.
 Gopikrishna (1993) conducted a study on yield gap in paddy cultivation and
reported that relatively higher percentage of farmers growing paddy under well and
tank irrigation had experienced medium level of yield gap compared to a majority of
farmers growing paddy under canal irrigation coming under low yield gap.

Kulkarni (1993) who studied the yield gap analysis of bivoltine production in
Mandya district found a yield gap (Gap I) of 30.26 % and attributed the reason to
environmental conditions and other infrastructural facilities. Further, the yield gap
II was found to be 19.62 % due to non adoption of recommended package of
practices.

Sahu (1993) in their studies on yield gap analysis of paddy production in

Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh was found that biological and socio-economic
constraint have more impact on actual production figures than lack of research. The
yield gap was greater in the case of local varieties (57%) than high yielding varieties
(52.4%).

Mukhopadhyay and Das Gupta (1994) found that average yield gaps were
accounted for 1.50q/ac, 2.17q/ac and 8.50q/ac for kharif paddy (local), kharif
(HYV), mustard and Boro paddy respectively.

Sinha (1994) found that the yield of rice and wheat varied from 0.68 to 1.83
tones/ha and 0.26 to 0.95 t/ha, respectively during the first year of reclamation of
sodic soils. Thus, there was a wide yield gap on farmer’s fields under both the
crops. They concluded that the rice and wheat production under sodic soils in the
state can be only enhanced if farmers modernize rice and wheat cultivation with
reclamation technology of sodic soils.

Patil (1995) in his study on yield gaps and constraints in groundnut

production in Dharwad district, observed a wide gap between the potential yield
(1742 kg/ha) and the actual yield of groundnut (1289 kg/ha).
 Dhamodaran and Vasanthkumar (1997), in their study on yield gap and
constraints to high yields in sugarcane observed that a majority of the sugarcane
growers of Tamilnadu (65 per cent) had medium level of yield gap, followed by 30 per
cent of the respondents with high level of yield gap.

Madan Singh (1997) conducted a study in Banka district of Bihar and

reported that there existed a wide gap in rice yield when compared to national
average. The minimum gap was observed in the case of marginal farmers. But
small and medium farmers did not differ much in relation to yield gap.

Nagabhushanam and Herle (1997) reported that there was a yield gap of 26.11
per cent between progressive farmers and average farmers in case of paddy. The
yield gap was 34.74 per cent between the research station yields and average
farmers yield, but between research station and progressive farmers that was only
3.63 per cent.

Pochaiah et al., (1988) reported a yield gap of 4 q/ha (20.22%) and 6.49 q/ha
(19.30%) between the demonstration plots and sample farmer’s yield in case of rain
fed and irrigated paddy respectively. It was shown that irrigated paddy respondents
had relatively more yield gap than rain fed paddy respondents. They also reported
that majority (52.5%) of the respondents had medium yield gap followed by high
(28.3%) and low (19.2%) yield gap in case of paddy in Jammu district of Jammu &
Kashmir.

Shrivastava (1997) in his studies on yield gap in soybean production in

research managed trails at Kamphaeng Saen and Banpong, soybean yield was 2.04
and 1.61 t/ha, respectively compared with yield of 1.46 and 0.62 t/ha obtained in 2
farmers managed trails at Banpong Environment and socio-economic factors
contributing to the yield difference are discussed. Singh (1997) reported that yield
gap in respect of paddy in marginal, small and medium farmers were respectively
43.5, 58.0 and 60.5 per cent.
 Nagabhushanam and Karthikeyan (1998) reported that yield gap of paddy
between progressive and average farmers were 24.74 per cent in Uttar Kannada
district of Karnataka. Nagaraj (1999) reported that there existed an overall yield gap
of 49.69 per cent in groundnut production in Karnataka.

Aphiphan (2000) in his studies on yield gap analysis in soybean production

indicated that a potential possibility of growing soybean at Bonpong was high. This
is due to the fact that in research managed trails conducted at Kamphareng Saen
and Banpong, the yield of soybean were 2.04 and 1.61 t/ha respectively, where as
the average farmers yield was 1.03 t/ha. Yield gap between the trails conducted at
Kamphaeng Saen and Banpong indicated the effect of environmental conditions on
difference between the experiment station and farmer’s field.

Francisco (2000) in the study of exploring the yield gap to attain self
sufficiency, found that there exists a considerable amount of yield gap between
experiment station yields and farmer’s yields and that increased productivity can be
realized by narrowing this yield gap. An inventory of the current sate of R & D
showed that we have the technologies available. However, some policy measures
need to be initiated by the various factors involved in the development of the rice
sector.

2.4 Factors contributing to yield gap and studies on technological

changes

Yield Gap analysis is a new research technique that formally emerged in the
early 1979s. Developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), it was
extensively used to analysis and measure the determinants of gap in yield in
different situations. It has gained wide popularity with researchers and policy
makers.

Bisaliah (1977) decomposed the yield difference between the two wheat
production technologies in Punjab into its constituent sources. He found that
technique of production contributed 15 per cent of the total change in output
(40.50%). The increased use of inputs under Mexican wheat contributed about 25.5
per cent to the total difference in output. Among the different inputs the
contribution of fertilizer, capital and labour was 15 per cent, 8 per cent and 2 per
cent, respectively.

Kunnal (1978) while studying the impact of new technology in jowar on output
growth in Hubli taluk of Karnataka state using decomposition model estimated the
total difference in output at 72 per cent. Of this total difference in output, the
improved production practices followed under new technology contributed to the
extent of 33 per cent and remaining portion attributed to the increased use of inputs
under new technology vis-à-vis traditional technology.

Sampath (1979) while studying the efficiency in Indian agriculture using the
farm management survey data for Deoria district during the year 1967-68 reported
that on small farms the inefficiency was 35.27 per cent .This was largely (22.18%)
contributed by allocative inefficiency while in the case of large farms, allocative
inefficiency, accounted for 26.03 per cent of 37.83 per cent of economic inefficiency
observed on large sample farms. Sinha and Swaminathan (1979) found that there
existed a wide gap between yields obtained on demonstration plots and the yields
realized on average farms. They estimated that the absolute maximum production of
grain equivalent in India would be of the order of 4572 million tones per year. The
study concluded that India was endowed with a large untapped production potential
which provided hope for a bright agricultural future in the country.

Choudhary et al., (1980) compared the groundnut crop yield obtained by the
average farmer under traditional method of farming with that obtained under
improved technique of farming in their study of yield gaps of groundnut in
Anantapur region of Andhra Pradesh. The study showed that the average yield
obtained under improved technique of farming was 12.5 quintals per hectare,
whereas the average realized yield under traditional method was only 6.25 quintals
per hectare, thus showing a gap of 50 per cent in yield between the two techniques
of farming.

Deshaiah (1980) indicated that there was substantial yield advantage in

growing high yielding varieties of ragi and groundnut in Tumkur district of
Karnataka. He found that the yield from high yielding varieties of ragi and
groundnut was higher by 93 and 107 per cent, respectively. Kalirajan (1980) while
analysing the contribution of location specific research to agricultural productivity
observed that the yield from location specific modern varieties of rice was 26.8
quintals per acre, whereas yield from exotic modern varieties was 17.7 quintals per
acre, thus showing a gap of 9.1 quintals per acre between the two varieties.

Sarin and Binswanger (1980) felt that measurement of gaps in terms of gross
returns instead of yields would be more appropriate for farming systems which
comprised more than one crop or more than one variety of crops as the computation
of yields posed the problem of adding up yields. They further recommended
individual crop oriented gap analysis in plains where high yielding genotypes had
already been adopted on an extensive scale.

Alshi (1981) studied the impact of technical change on output in cotton

economy in Akola district of Maharashtra state. The per hectare production of
American cotton and hybrid cotton was 43 per cent and 306 per cent higher than
that of desi cotton. The superior cotton cultivation practices followed on American
and hybrid cotton farms accounted for 27.77 per cent and 110.57 per cent,
respectively to the total difference in cotton output. The sub-optimal use of the
production inputs on desi cotton farms compared to their counterparts on other two
categories of farms was responsible for 16.14 per cent (American cotton) and 199.87
per cent (hybrid cotton) of lower output. Among all the inputs the sub-optimal use
of capital turned out to be important source of productivity difference.

Herdt and Mandac (1981) in their study on modern technology and economic
efficiency of Philippines rice farmers formulated a model to decompose the total yield
gap into three components responsible for this gap namely, profit seeking behaviour,
allocative inefficiency and technical inefficiency. They attributed 78 per cent of the
yield gap in rice due to technical inefficiency (0.9t/ha). Profit seeking behaviour and
allocative inefficiency accounted for the remaining 22 per cent of the yield gap (0.2
t/ha). Ponnuswamy and Singh (1981) suggested that the yield gap can be
sufficiently bridged by improving input supply and infrastructural facilities.

In a study on technological changes and functional income distribution in

Indian agriculture, Bisalaih (1982) found that with the introduction of new
technology into wheat farming sector in Indian agriculture a considerable increase
in output per acre has been recorded. Using intercept dummy variable technique he
found that the contribution of variety was significant.

Indusekharan (1982) used decomposition analysis to distinguish Intensive

Cotton District Programme (ICDP) farms and non-ICDP cotton farms in Dharwad
district. The results showed that the per acre production of cotton in ICDP farms
was about 44 per cent higher than non-ICDP farms. The net contribution of
programme to total change in per acre output was estimated to be 31.18 per cent.
The contribution of labour, chemical input and capital together was about 12.5 per
cent of the increased output.
Rangaswamy (1982) observed that the yield of jowar on demonstration farms
was 20.30 quintal per hectare while it was only 7.6 quintal per hectare on farmer’s
fields thus showing a gap of 35.5 per cent. In the case of bajra, the farm potential
yield was 11.67 quintal per hectare whereas it yielded on an average, 7.6 quintal per
hectare on farmers’ fields thus showing an yield gap of 49.5 per cent. Rao and
Prasad (1982) reported that the factors responsible for yield gap in groundnut were
non adoption of improved seeding practices, lower application of fertilizers and plant
protection measures.

The ratio on farmer’s plots to that on demonstration plots was used by Rastogi
(1982) as an index to measure the yield gaps in respect of different crops over a
period of time and at different locations. The yield gap ratio showed wide variations
between different crops. Even for the same crop, it varied from region and from year
to year even in the same region. The variation in yield ratios during different years
were attributed higher yields under demonstration in all the years and for all crops,
thereby establishing the built-in mechanism of the recommended technology to
withstand weather risks. He concluded that given the infrastructural and
institutional support, the recommended technology could help in bridging the
potential gap which varied from 200 per cent to 400 per cent in the case of sorghum,
pearl millet, castor and chickpea. There was scope for raising the yields of other
crops as well.

Patil et al., (1986) revealed that the factors contributing to yield gap in wheat
were low use of critical inputs like FYM, chemical fertilizers, number of irrigations
and inter culturing operations. Russel and Young (1983) measured the technical
inefficiency of North-West England farm using the frontier production function
analysis. The Kopp and Timmer measure of efficiency index worked out to be 0.72
and 0.73 respectively. A slightly lower Kopp measure of technical efficiency was
attributed a mild decreasing returns to scale observed on the sample farms. Further,
majority (75%) of sample farmers achieved more than 64 per cent efficiency level,
while one-third sample farms operate at high (>75%) efficiency level was recorded
by the sample farmers.

Shapiro (1983) reviewed the theoretical and empirical work on allocative

efficiency in traditional agriculture and studied the Tanzanian cotton farms with a
modified technical efficiency analysis. Re-analysis of earlier empirical studies
showed that on an average the marginal value products of inputs different by >40
per cent from marginal factor cost which should be equal under allocative efficiency.
He opined that if all the sample farms achieved the technical efficiency level of the
best farmer among the group 0.51 per cent of more output could be achieved by
using the same level of inputs and technology as used by the best farmer.

Hebbar (1984) while studying input use and production performance of

improved variety and local variety of ragi in Doddaballapur taluk found the per
hectare yield of improved ragi was 1339 kgs while the yield of local variety of ragi
was 811 kgs. The analysis also revealed that there was a change in input use
pattern when the cultivation shifted from local to improved variety of ragi. There was
a reduction in the use of FYM and bullock labour and an increase in the intensity of
fertilizer and human labour use under improved variety of ragi. Kalirajan (1984)
examined the importance of efficient use of technology in achieving the higher
production. The results indicated a wide variation in the technical efficiency among
the sample farmers. Deficient extension system was identified as important factor
causing the variation.

Chitniz and Bhilegaonkar (1985) in their study about the technological gap in
dry farming system reported that mean technological gap was highest for small
farmers followed by medium and large farmers in respect of dry land technologies,
namely, varietal recommendation, sowing technique, use of fertilizer, plant
protection measures, horticultural operations and inter-cropping technologies. The
study indicated that small, medium and big farmers differed significantly with
respect to their level of technological gap. The study was conducted in Aurangabad
district of Maharashtra.

Gundurao et al., (1985) fitted Cobb-Douglas type of production function to the

field level data while decomposing the yield difference between local and improved
varieties of ragi grown in Bangalore district. The improved variety produced about
45 per cent more output than the local variety. Among the different sources
contributing to yield difference a new technology (improved variety) accounted for
the highest share (32%) followed by the capital (15%) and the adoption of the
transplanting method (14%).

Jaiswal and Rathore (1985) observed that the technological gap in wheat
cultivation practices was 57.1 and 72.4 per cent respectively amongst the categories
of irrigated and un irrigated category of farmers in Damoh, Madhya Pradesh. It was
revealed that the technological gap was highest in respect of fertilizer application
seed treatment and plant protection for both categories of farmers. Panghal et al.,
(1985) estimated the magnitude of gaps in attainable yield using simple statistical
tools like means and coefficient of variations in a case of study of an analysis of
attainable yield gaps in important food crops in Haryana. The study showed that the
average realized yield levels of wheat, gram, bajra, and rice during the last 16 years
were only 44, 25, 16 and 47 per cent respectively of the potential attainable yields.

Makkishivasubramanya (1986) found that the use of variety, fertilizers and

labour were the factors responsible for yield gap in ragi. He in his study about
technological gap in integrated soil conservation practices has revealed that
technological gap was high in agrostrologic practices like planting of grass species
such as Congo signal all along the top and sides of contour bunds. The composite
technological gap in integrated soil conservation practices was found to be 48.37 per
cent.

Ravi (1986) reported that the average cocoon yield for PM x NB 4D2 was 32.39,
18.50 and 27.53 kg and for PM x NB18 were 31.25, 18.58 and 21.56 kg for 100
layings during winter, summer and rainy season, respectively. The silk cocoon yield
for the same breeds was found to fall within the range as above (Vishwanath, 1987).
He observed a wide gap between the National Demonstration plots yield and the
actual yield with respect to groundnut. The gap was maximum in the states such as
Andhra Pradesh (15.89 q/ha), Maharashtra (6.84 q/ha) and Karnataka (5.82 q/ha).
Poor management practice like untimely showing, improper seed ratio and use of
untreated seeds were responsible for this gap. In view of this fact, they advocated
strengthening of the existing extension and training net work.

Subramanya (1986) reported a significant contribution of difference in input

use levels to the yield gaps between the demonstration plots and the farmer’s fields.
The decomposition analysis of output difference between demonstration plots and
the HYV of ragi farms revealed that the superior technique of production followed on
the demonstration plots and sub-optimal use of inputs on the farmers field
contributed to the extent of 60 per cent and 13 per cent respectively. The respective
figures for the farmer’s plots growing local variety of ragi and demonstration plots
were 71 per cent and 41 per cent.
 Chandra Reddy (1987) while studying the efficiency of silk cocoon production
in Karnataka using the frontier production function found that a large (>82%)
number of sample farmers obtained at least 91 per cent of the potential output. He
also examined the farmer’s category-wise input use efficiency using the Kopp
measure. The quantum of excess use of inputs was comparatively high (58.11% to
60.34%) on large farms compared to their small counterparts (42 to 44%).

The technical efficiency at two locations of Srilanka was studied by Ekanayake

and Jayasuria (1987) using the frontier production function approach during 1984-
85 crop year. The authors categorized farmers into two groups as head reach and
tail reach farmers. In the head reach, the stochastic frontier approach suggests that
all variation in output were due to purely random frontier. However, the COLS
measure showed substantial technical inefficiency in the head reach farms and the
mean sample technical efficiency was only 53 per cent. In the location, there existed
a considerable technical inefficiency and gave a sample mean technical efficiency of
50 per cent. Jaiswal et al., (1987) revealed that there existed 24 per cent adoption
gap in respect of wheat cultivation technologies in Bundekland region of Madhya
Pradesh.

Misra et al., (1987) found that the omission of weed control measures and
fertilizer application caused maximum yield gap in chickpea. Singh and Reddy
(1987) estimated the gap between potential and actual yield of castor in southern
Telangana Zone of Andhra Pradesh .The actual yield of 1637kg, resulting in a wide
gap of 1108 kg per hectare between potential yield and actual yield. They stated that
even the progressive farmers failed to follow all the recommended practices.

Basavaraj (1988) while studying yield gaps in cotton crop used the
decomposition analysis to assess the contribution of various sources to the yield gap
between the farmer’s field and the demonstration plots. The decomposition analysis
revealed that the difference between the potential farm yield and the actual yield
ranged from 53.38 per cent on Dharwad large farms to 58.51 per cent on Raichur
small farms. The contribution from difference in input use to the yield gap ranged
from 14 per cent (Raichur) to 54.55 per cent (Dharwad) on large farms. This
suggested that a large percentage of untapped potential farm yields could be
exploited by using higher doses of inputs particularly on Dharwad farms. The
contribution of techniques of production to the productivity difference was negligible
(-1.17%) on Dharwad large farms and it contributed to the extent of 43.17 per cent
on Raichur large farms.

Pandey (1978) studied the sugarcane production in West Uttar Pradesh on

cost functions and yield gaps. The total variable cost comprised of all material and
labour cost including irrigation and interest on working capital. Cost on machinery
bullocks and rental value of land were included in fixed cost. The average cost per
quintal of sugarcane production at output levels of 300 quintals, 400 quintals and
600 quintals per hectare were found to be Rs.26, Rs.25 and Rs.21.2 respectively
.The authors further estimated the lowest average cost of Rs.18 per quintal of the
sugarcane output of 925 quintals per hectare.

Hiremath (1989) employed the Cobb-Douglas production function through

restricted UOP profit function with constant returns to scale. The structural break
was observed in A-2 and A-119 bidi tobacco varieties (new technology) over S-20 (old
technology). The total estimated output difference of A-2 over S-20 was 105 per
cent, of which, the contribution of superior cultural practices and increased use of
inputs on A-2 farms was 72 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. Similarly, the
total yield difference between A-119 and S-20 farms was estimated at 154 per cent.
The faulty cultural practices and sub-optimal use of inputs on S-20 farms
contributed to the extent of 90 per cent and 64 per cent respectively. Among all the
inputs, the sub-optimal use of fertilizer and labour turned out to be the major
contributing factors under both the technologies. Cropping pattern and yield gaps
under dry land conditions of Agra district of Uttar Pradesh were examined by
Gyanendra and Pandey (1990). The authors divided yield gaps into three different
types. The first type was the difference between the genetic potential yield and the
research level yield, the second, the difference between yield obtained at research
station and on the progressive farmers adopting recommend technology. The third
type was the difference between the yield of progressive farmers and the yield of
average farmers of the area.

Srivastava and Singh (1990) reported that technological gap was highest in
respect of fertilizer application in all categories of farmers. It was 56 per cent and 76
per cent in case of marginal farmers with regard to nitrogen and phosphorus
fertilizer respectively. While the same was 38 and 75 per cent in case of small
farmers, it was 46 per cent and 90 per cent in case of medium farmers. The gap in
Nitrogen fertilizer application was 64 per cent of large farmers while the same in
respect of phosphorus fertilizer was 78 per cent.

With regard to the adoption of no-cost technologies, out of the fifteen practices
identified, five practices viz., correct use of application of farm yard manure to
manure use of appropriately aged seedlings, correct time of transplanting, correct
time of weeding and proper time of harvesting were adopted by more than 90 per
cent of farmers. Percentage of adopters in respect of appropriately aged seedlings,
use of correct seed rate, correct time of application of farm yard manure, green
manure and application to the main field was low.

Jayaram et al., (1992) studied the technical efficiency in rice cultivation in

Mandya district of Karnataka. The results of the frontier function analysis revealed
that relatively higher level of output efficiency was observed on both small (97.54%)
and large (97.60%) sample farms. In contrast, the input use was highly inefficient.
The efficiency indices obtained through the Kopp measure indicated that a majority
(72%) of small farms operated at an efficiency level of >75 per cent and about 46 per
cent of large farms used inputs at the rate of 86 per cent and above efficiency level.
Further, the actual and frontier use of input showed that all the factors were
excessively used than frontier usage by both the category of sample farmers.

Choudry et al., (1993) studied yield gaps in groundnut crop in Anantapur

district of Andhra Pradesh. The reasons for yield gap were analyzed through
experimental data. The contribution of optimum time of sowing to the productivity
was as high as 64.5 per cent of the maximum farm potential. By application of a
balanced fertilizer of N and P at the optimal level, the yield could be increased by 53
per cent. Placement of fertilizer through fertilizer-cum-seed drill or through an
attachment to the country seed drill increased the groundnut yield by 18 per cent.
The high yielding varieties contributed to the extent of 34 per cent. Forty per cent of
the increased yield was obtained by taking plant protection measures. The optimum
seed rate of 125 kgs per hectare increased the yield to the extent of 17 per cent. A
clean cultivation was responsible for increasing the yield by 15 per cent.

Deoghare (1993) used the UOP profit function with constant returns to scale
to study the impact of technical change in cotton on yield levels in Maharashtra
state. Author considered LRA-5166, H-4, AHH-468 cotton hybrids (new technology)
and AKH-4 (old technology) for the study. The new technology varieties (LRA-5166,
H-4 and AHH-468) produced 69.53 per cent, 60.37 per cent and 103.97 per cent
more output than old technology (AKH-4) variety. Among the various constituent
sources, the contribution of faulty cultural practices followed on AKH-4 cotton farms
was more (40.24%) in case of LRA-5166 cotton, whereas relatively higher
contribution was observed from difference in input use levels to the yields difference
on H-4 (38.37%) and AHH-468 (52.08%) farms.

Kautala (1993) used the stochastic model to study technical efficiency of

wheat farms in Karnal district of Haryana. The estimated mean technical efficiency
was 0.7636, which implied that the actual output of wheat on an average was 23.64
per cent less than the frontier output. So, under perfect technically efficient
planned production, farmers would be able to increase the output by 23.64 per cent
without additional cost. Further, with the idealistic environment of production
technologies the discrepancies between actual and frontier output could be
minimized.

Nagaraj (1999) observed that the yield of traditional crops (PM x C.nichi) is
less than 20 kg per 100 Dfls which in comparison with the yield potential of the area
was far from satisfaction. The yield gap of 49.5 % in the traditional cross suggests
the poor management in terms of nutrition, adequate space, adjustment in the
climatic conditions in the rearing enclosures, hygiene and sanitary measures during
rearing and overall skill to rear silkworm is far from satisfactory.

Rao and Veerabhadraiah (1993) reported that out of the fourteen low cost
technologies identified in paddy only three were found to be adopted by more than
70 per cent of the farmers. These practices were correct method of fertilizer
application to nursery, use of improved variety and correct method of irrigation to
nursery. Practices like seed treatment, deep application of green manure to main
field, correct method of fertilizer application to main field, like planting, chemical
weed control and correct method of top dressing were adopted by only two to five per
cent of the farmers.

Suryawanshi and Gaikwad, (1984) studied the impact of viable technology for
promoting oilseeds in Maharashtra .The frontline demonstrations data at the centers
of All India Co-coordinated Research Project on oilseeds in Maharashtra laid out
along adjacent plots of farmers following traditional practices were used to show the
comparative production potentials and benefits accruing from viable technology. At
the national level, the recommended technology increased the yield by 36 to 45 per
cent in groundnut, by 35 per cent in sesamum, by 21 to 47 pr cent in sunflower, by
21 to 63 per cent in safflower and by 77 per cent in Niger crop. In Maharashtra,
productivity on demonstration plots increased by 53 per cent in groundnut, 22 to 48
per cent in sunflower and safflower over that obtained by the farmers following
traditional practices. Analysis showed that significant yield gaps were due to the
adoption of improved technologies. The yield gaps in the case of kharif groundnut,
summer groundnut, sesamum, sunflower and safflower were 56, 20, 200, 226 and
640 per cent, respectively.

Bambang-Sayaka (1994) in their studies on Farm-level impact analysis of the

adoption of the packages of technologies introduced under the soybean yield gap
analysis project in West java East java and Indonesia revealed that generally the
potential soybean yields were not achieved by SYGAP [Soybean Yield Gap Analysis
Project] participants in both districts due to the following reasons : 1) not all the
SYGAP participants adopted the whole packages of recommended technologies in
both districts ; 2) there was pest outbreak during the 1991 dry season in both
districts (more serious in Karawang) and 3) drought in Jombang. Results of the
comparative and covariance analysis showed that the mean yield levels of the
SYGAP participants in Karawang were attacked by pests.

Fattah (1994) studied on factors affecting the yield gap of rice in Southeast
Sulawesi [Indonesia]. The result showed that rice yield at the farmers level was 4.20
t/ha while recommended package of technologies yield 5.57 t/ha, the difference
was 1.37 t/ha. The major factors which can be taken as the source of the gap were
water management; rice mainly in dry season was not ensured, forced farmers to
postpone the planting rice timely.

Jaiswal and Duboliya (1994) observed that majority of farmers were in

medium to high level of adoption gap with respect to soil treatment, time of sowing,
seed treatment, method of sowing, fertilizer application, irrigation, weed control and
plant protection in Surguja district of Madhya Pradesh.

Ramajore and Sinha (1994) reported that yields of rice and wheat varied from
0.68 to 1.83 tones per hectare and 0.26 to 0.95 tones per hectare respectively
during the first year of reclamation of sodic soils, while studying yield gaps in the
progressive and the less progressive districts in Uttar Pradesh. So, the authors
concluded that production of these crops could be enhanced only if the farmer
undertook the reclamation of sodic soils with a modern technology.

Mahawer et al., (1995) in their study about the technological gap between
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of scheduled caste research project in Rajasthan
revealed that there was a wide gap (68%) in the knowledge possessed by the
beneficiary farmers in respect of plant protection measures, whereas it was 89.34
per cent in case of non-beneficiary farmers. The study showed that there was
significant difference in the knowledge level of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in
other areas of wheat production technology viz., use of high yielding varieties, seed
rate and seed treatment, fertilizer application, improved agricultural implements and
overall knowledge.

Patil and Deshmukh (1995) reported that there was an overall technological
gap of 39.57 per cent in case of contact farmers and 57.73 per cent in case of
potential farmers in respect of selected practices of paddy cultivation. The gap was
highest in case of use of chemical fertilizers for main field (81.83%), use of chemical
fertilizer nursery (50%) and seedbed preparation (40%) for contact farmers. But the
technological gap in case of potential farmers was highest for plant protection
(93.75%) followed by use of chemical fertilizer in main field (89.52%).

Patil (1995) reported that mean technological gap in different cultivation

practices of paddy was highest in respect of application of fertilizers to nursery (88%)
followed by seed treatment (81.75%), application of FYM/Compost to nursery before
sowing (79%), application of FYM/Compost to main field (71.15%) use of chemical
fertilizers (57.58%) and preparation of raised beds for nursery (37%).

Ray et al., (1995) reported that the mean technological gap in aus, aman and
Boro paddy in West Bengal were 37.4, 40.7 and 25.2 per cent respectively.
Technological gap in individual practices of paddy cultivation in case of aman paddy
were high in case of seed treatment (60%), farm yard manure application (55%),
nitrogen application (44%), phosphorus application (57%), potassium application
(63%) and use of plant protection measures (41%).

Ramanuja Rao et al., (1996) observed that in Chamarajanagar area, the

average yield of A category farmers (0.5 – 1.0 acre) was 20.50 kg with an yield gap of
19.5 kg (48.75%) under rain fed condition whereas in case of B (1.00 – 2.00 acre)
and C (2.0 -3.0 acre) categories, the average was 21 and 23 kg with an yield gap of
19 kg (47%) and 17 kg (42.50 %) respectively. The average yield was 24 kg with a
yield gap of 16 kg (40 %) in case of D category (3 acres and above). Irrespective of
the category of farmers, the average yield of cross breed cocoons under rain fed
conditions was 21.2 kg per 100 Dfls with a yield gap of 44.68 %. It was also
revealed that irrespective of the area, the yield gap was more in case of A category
(0.5 – 1.00 acre) which was attributed to the non adoption of recommended
packages of practices due to their socio-economic constraints.

Mohanty and Sahu (1997) in their study about adoption of improved

agricultural practices by tribal farmers reported that there was marked difference
between adopted and non-adopted village regarding the adoption of improved rice
cultivation practices, while 60 per cent of farmers in the adopted village used high
yielding varieties, it was only 32 per cent in non-adopted village. With regard to
sowing it was 50 per cent and 25 per cent respectively in adopted and non-adopted
village. The use of fertilizers was followed by 55 per cent of farmers in adopted
village, while only 15 per cent of farmers in non-adopted village followed it. The
trend was similar in case of plant protection chemical too, wherein it was 40 per
cent for adopted village and 20 per cent for non-adopted village.

Nagabhushanam (1997) studied the extent of yield gaps in Karnataka by

collecting data from 120 paddy growing farmers. The authors reported a narrow gap
of 8.63 per cent (Gap-I) between research station yield (19.00 quintals per acre) and
progressive farmer’s yield (17.36 quintals per acre). This yield difference was
attributed to the environmental differences and management factors relating to the
soil fertility. Further, the yield obtained by the average farmers (12.40 quintals per
acre) showed a wider gap of 26.11 per cent when compared to the progressive
farmers. This Gap-II was due to non exposure of farmers to the technologies as well
as the non participation in the educational activities conducted in the area. The
various factors like, physical, institutional, economic and social prevented the
farmers from achieving the full potential of new technology. Out of the total gap of
34.74 per cent, the Gap-II between progressive farmers and the average farmers
yield level constituted more (26.11%) compared to Gap-I. This alarms the extension
agency to take up the education activities to reduce the Gap-II.
 Nikhade et al., (1997) in their study about technological gap in red gram,
green gram and bengal gram in Gulbarga district of Karnataka observed that a wide
gap (43%) was observed in the use of plant protection measures, followed by
application of nitrogenous (31%), phosphatic (25%) fertilizer and seed rate (29%) in
cultivation of red gram.

Patil et al., (1997) analyzed the constituent sources of yield gaps in groundnut
production in Dharwad district of Karnataka state. Multistage random sampling
was used to collect data from 120 sample farmers. The decomposition analysis of
productivity difference indicated about 28.69 per cent of yield gap between the
potential farms and the sample farms. The contribution of techniques of production
to the yield gap was comparatively less (3.42). This meant there was a limited scope
for exploiting the untapped farm potential through better techniques of production.
The difference in input use found to contribute much more (25.82%) to the
productivity difference. There is a vast scope for exploiting the greater yield levels on
the farmers’ field by increasing the use of inputs. The sub-optimal use of human
labour contributed for the highest share (14.36%) among all the inputs. However,
the contribution of plant protection chemicals was negative. This implied that
reduction in the expenditure on this input would result in a higher output on the
farmers’ field.

Subba Rao et al., (1997) observed that irrespective of the category of farmers,
the average yield in Hosur, Denkanikote and Krishnagiri areas of Dharmapuri
districts in Tamilnadu was 37.3 kg with an yield gap of 26.3 kg (41.3%) when
compared to the potential yield (63.64 kg/ 100 Dfls ) at the research station. It
was also reported that the yield gap was more in case of small farmers and less with
marginal farmers and the yield gap was still less with big farmers.

Veeresham et al., (1997) reported that irrespective of the category of farmers (A

= 0.5-1.0 acre, B = 1.0 – 2.0 acres, C = 2.0 – 3.0 acres and C = 3.0 and above acres),
the average cocoon yield of Hindupur, Kadiri and Madakasira areas was found to be
36.41 kg with an yield gap of 27.236 kg i.e. 42.78% when compared to the potential
yield 63.64 kg/ 100 Dfls at the research station.

Radha et al., (1998) analyzed the yield gaps and constraints for a low yield in
rain fed groundnut in Andhra Pradesh. The study was based on the data collected
from 40 farmers randomly selected in two mandals of Karimnagar district. The
farmers were classified into two categories viz, Group-I who realized a higher
groundnut yield than the district average (504 kg/ha) and Group-II otherwise.
Authors reported that yield Gap-I (the difference between the experimental yield and
demonstration yield) was 200 kgs per hectare, which worked out to be 10.25 per
cent. Yield Gap-II [difference between potential farm yield and Group-I farmers’ yield
(1268 kgs/ha)] was higher than the yield gap-III [difference between potential farm
yield and Group-I farmers’ yield (983 kgs/ha)].The study indicated the existence of a
wider yield gaps between the potential farmers and sample farmers. However, the
second group of farmers had comparatively more rate of adoption of an improved
technology and recorded higher yield. The size of Gap-I indicated a negligible
influence of environmental factors on the productivity of groundnut.

Singh and Sharma (1998) revealed that more than half of the respondents
(54.45%) did not adopt seed treatment in paddy. Lack of knowledge and lack of
availability of chemicals were the major reasons for non-adoption. Majority of the
respondents (37.7%) reported that they used more seed rate because of damage
caused by birds and animals and also due to poor germination. The study revealed
that none of the farmers adopted line sowing. It was found that 32.5 per cent of the
respondents applied more than the recommended dose of fertilizers, while 70 per
cent of the respondents applied less than the recommended dose. The study
revealed that 93 per cent of the farmers were in the non-adopted group regarding
weedicide application. They also studied the analysis of biological constraints in
Paddy production. The application of all inputs at recommended levels increased
paddy yield by 659,1243 and 2372 kg/ha-1 over farmers levels under the yield gaps
of low, medium and high on 13 sites. While computing the contribution of various
factors, fertilizer appeared to be the major constraints at the sites where gap was low
but for plant protection the highest contribution (30%) was recorded from high yield
gap sites. Effect of weeding and plant density ranged from 14 to 18 % under various
yield gaps. It can be concluded that imbalance use of fertilizer by the farmers is the
major constraints in impairing paddy production in the province.

Nagaraj (1999) reported that none of the big and small groundnut farmers
adopted practices like seed treatment with chemicals, weedicide application, plant
protection measures, opening dead furrows, use of grass outlets and farm ponds in
groundnut cultivation.

Subbaswamy et al., (2000) revealed that non application of fertilizers in

adequate quantities adversely affected the soil fertility status at farmers level
resulting in poor leaf quality which caused yield gap in the rearing conducted by
farmers. The gap can be reduced by applying adequate quantities of fertilizers to the
mulberry garden.

Sudhakar Rao et al., (2002) reported that higher levels of productivity could be
achieved by adoption of new technologies to improve leaf yield per acre and cocoon
yield per unit area.

Venkataramana (2003) studied on Potentials of improved mulberry leaf and

silkworm cocoon production technologies in Telangana Region. Results showed that
leaf yield was 30,371 kg/ha per year during 1998-99 and 31,526 kg/ha per year
during 1999-2000, compared to the benchmark yield of 20,772.80 kg/ha per year
with the adoption of the full packages of moriculture. Silkworm cocoon yield was 51
kg/100 diseases-free laying during 1998-99 and 51.75 kg/100 dfls during 1999-
2000, compared to the benchmark yield of 27.27 kg/100 dfls. Results indicate that
the leaf yield showed an increase of 48.13% in 1998-99 and 51.74 % during 1999-
2000 compared to the benchmark yield before the start of the demonstration.
2.5 Constraints and problems encountered by the farmers for non-
adoption of the recommended sericultural and agricultural
technologies to achieve higher yields

Bedi and Saxena (1965) reported that inadequate and untimely provision of
credit was the main factor for non-adoption of improved agricultural practices.
Channe Gowda (1971), in his study observed that the problems expressed by
farmers in increasing the yield of paddy in order of their relative importance were
lack of assured irrigation at critical periods of crop growth (52.7%), lack of credit
facilities (19.5%), poor soils (16.0%) and non-availability of fertilizers (15.3%).

Govindappa (1974) observed that lack of finance, risk due to disease, low
profit, high cost of inputs, labour problems and lack of knowledge are the important
reasons for non-adoption of dairy management practices by the small farmers of
Bangalore district.

Channe Gowda (1976) found that non-availability of credit was the major
constraint in non-adoption of improved paddy practices. Reddy and Veeresh (1976)
inferred that lack of knowledge and scientific cares were reasons for the low cocoon
yield in bidadi, Hubbli.

Sridhar and Murthy (1978) found that lack of knowledge on new technology of
silkworm rearing was the reason for non-adoption.

Gaurha et al., (1981) revealed that inadequate infrastructural facilities and

lack of proper knowledge prevented the farmers from using proper dosage of
fertilizers and plant protection chemicals in case of paddy. Puttaswamy et al., (1978)
found lack of finance (54%) and space (24%) are the reasons for not having separate
rearing rooms as per the recommendation. Other reasons they found for non-
adoption of recommended practices were non-availability of layings at required time,
lack of knowledge and lack of interest among the farmers.
 Rajashekaraiah (1979) reported that non-availability of credit, failure of crop,
lack of trays and mountages, lack of knowledge on the control of diseases were the
most important reasons for non adoption of recommended practices of silkworm
rearing. Chenne Gowda (1980) reported that lack of knowledge as primary reason
for non- adoption/ low receptiveness. It was supported by Thangaraju and John
Knight (1980).

Catedral (1982) carried out a study on Biological constraints for increased

seed cotton yields in selected cotton growing areas [study conducted in the
Philippines]. Results showed that yield gaps varied widely across farms from 0.222
to 0.865 t/ha, or an average of 0.478t/ha. Among the levels of inputs studied, insect
control contributed the greatest bulk to the yield gap accounting for 37 to 92%, or
an average of 0.307 t/ha .The contribution of fertilizer was 15% or 0.664 t/ha on the
average. Weed control, has an insignificant contribution representing 9% on the
average.

Ghodake and Walker (1982) catalogued capital constraint, profit seeking

behaviour, lack of knowledge about new technology, risk bearing ability,
institutional and social infrastructure as factors preventing farmers from realizing
the yield potentials on the fields. Several studies documented the superiority of the
new technology over the old technology. In most of these studies economic factors,
capital in particular, emerged as more important than the biological factors, as
constraints for adoption and exploitation of the new technology.

Rao and Prasad (1982) in their study on yield constraints of kharif groundnut
in Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh observed an increasing awareness of yield
constraints in crop production. They found that the yield variations between
farmer’s practices and improved package of practices were significant during
unfavourable season compared to favourable season. According to them, improved
seeding practices in combination with plant protection measures contributed
significantly to the per hectare yields and returns from groundnut.
 Aigbekaen (1984) found that the factors that militated against adoption were
lack of labour, high cost of production and lack of credit in case of rubber.

Arya and Shaha (1984) in their study on new technology for rain fed
agriculture and identification of constraints on its adoption claimed that by adopting
the new technology the yield could be increased by 1.5 to 3.3 times above the
present levels. The main constraints identified were small and skewedly distributed
holdings, fragmented and scattered holdings, shortage of labour, lack of availability
of inputs and funds and lack of education, extension and training.

Madan Singh et al., (1984) reported that the constraints in adoption of

fertilizer and Plant protection measures in Bajra cultivation were high cost, lack of
knowledge and non-co-operation of neighbouring farmers.

Panghal et al., (1985) while studying the yield gaps in Haryana concluded that
capital requirement in modern agricultural technology substantially increased the
magnitude of risk of crop loss. In view of this, farmers incline towards the adoption
of new technology for the crops that ensured higher and stable yield levels.

Krishnaswamy et al., (1980) suggested that production of quality seed in

required quantities and progress in the post cocoon technology are to be given
greater attention. Manpower training also needs immediate attention and launching
of some intensive programmes to get professionally capable men to efficiently
discharge the various technical management functions of the industry.

Siddappaji et al., (1988) conducted survey in Mysore district and reported the
following reasons for low cocoon yield.
1. Non-application of correct dosage of chemical fertilizer but use of more
quantity of nitrogen in the form of urea for cultivation of local variety of
mulberry.
2. Rearing of local low yielding crossbreeds.
 3. Lack of sufficient space for silkworms.
4. Rearing of silkworms in the dwelling houses.
5. Negligence about Uzi fly attack.

Further, they reported that cocoon yield loss due to flacherie, grasserie,
muscardine, pebrine and Uzi fly was 14.36, 1.456, 0.38, 0.094 and 11.57 %,
respectively.

Ansari and Rao (1987) stated that the constraints in adoption of improved
practices of cotton were perceived relative disadvantages of the recommended
practices, generalization drawn on stray experience of the farmers, lack of knowledge
and an element of doubt for higher monetary investment.

According to Madhavaswamy and Shesha Reddy (1987) lack of suitable

variety, poor threshability, problem of striga, shortage of capital and poor transfer of
technology were the major constraints responsible for non-adoption of high yielding
variety and the consequent presence of a wide yield gap in jowar between the
farmer’s field and the potential farms.

Nagaraj and Srinivasmurthy (1987) in their study about constraints of

fertilizer use revealed that the most expressed constraint was the lack of method to
cover the risk of investment in fertilizer in case of crop failure. Non-availability of
crop loan at reasonable rate of interest, inadequate understanding about the
increased net income from fertilizer were the other major constraints.

Patil et al., (1986) revealed the following constraints in adoption of improved

practices of onion: (i) lack of knowledge, (ii) lack of technical guidance and (iii)
finance.

Phruk-Yipmantasiri (1998) in their upland rice yield constraints study showed

that the new cultivar contributed significantly to the yield difference between the
new and farmer’s practices.
 Sarkar (1988) reported that low yield of mulberry in West Bengal can be
attributed to lack of use of high yielding varieties, lack of knowledge of using
improved agronomical practices especially in the use of fertilizers and lack of
adequate training on the improved techniques of rearing.

Singh et al., (1988) studied the constraints analysis of Rabi crops in Paruanala
watershed of Madhya Pradesh. The major constraints faced in the production were
lack of capital at the time of major farm operations, high cost of fertilizer, lack of
irrigation, low price of produce, lack of high yielding seed and non-availability of
desired variety and lack of proper communication regarding new practices.

Hiremath (1989) identified constraints in tobacco cultivation in Karnataka.

The constraints identified by him were inadequacy of capital, lack of necessary
storage and warehousing facilities, susceptibility to pest and diseases, lack of
technical knowledge, non-availability of improved seeds, lack of availability of neem
cake, karanj cake and labour shortage.

Singh and Yadav (1989) identified the constraints in wheat productivity in

Uttar Pradesh. The constraints for research-cum-management were due to
management-cum-environment factors. Among bio-physical technological, socio-
economic and communication constraints responsible for extension gap, the
technological gap and socio-economic status were the highest and the lowest
contributing factors respectively irrespective of the categories of farmers and regions.

Jaiswal (1994) reported in their studies that lack of irrigation was the major
constraint in non-adoption of transplanting method. Poor economic condition does
not permit 33.33% respondents to adopt this technology and 26.67 claimed non-
availability of labour at desired time. Lack of technical guidance, lack of interest
and involvement of high expenditure were marked in 20.00%, 16.67% and 10%
respondents respectively. He also reported that lack of knowledge and technical
guidance regarding proper use of plant protection measure was the first and
foremost constraint in the adoption of plant protection measures. More than 30 per
cent of respondents were not using plant protection measures due to non-
availability of insecticides, fungicides and suitable plant protection equipments.
Further, poor economic condition of farmers also did not permit them to adopt this
technology.

Satheesh (1990) observed that lack of adequate care at chawki rearing centres
and inadequate technical guidance given at chawki rearing centres were the primary
reasons for not utilizing chawki rearing centres by the non-beneficiaries.

Rade et al., (1990) reported that among the various constraints studied in
adoption of improved package of practices for groundnut, the major constraints
reported by the majority of the farmers were lack of knowledge on the respective
practices, viz., use of recommended seed rate, application of proper doses of
chemical fertilizer, use of plant protection of requisite inputs, non-availability of
irrigation sources and inadequate rainfall were the other constraints reported by the
farmers.

Shrivastava and Singh (1990) tracing constraints in paddy protection revealed

the following findings.

1) The three major constraints viz., high prices of fertilizers, lack of irrigation
facilities and erratic rainfall were faced by marginal, small and medium
category cultivators.

2) Besides these constraints, non-availability of improved seed, lack of technical

knowledge, low price of farm produce, lack of capital, non-availability of credit,
were faced by majority of the farmers.

Mundhava and Patel (1991) in their study about the constraints of ranged
wheat technology revealed that farmers expressed lack of market value as reason for
non-adoption of improved varieties. The reason for not adhering to the
recommended seed and seed rate was found as non-availability of quality seeds and
the fear of farmer about decreased yield, high cost of fertilizers and chemicals was
the major factor hindering their use at the recommended level.

Srinivasulu (1991) observed that lack of knowledge on optimum temperature

and humidity of rearing house, disinfection measures, muscardine disease control,
spinning duration, lack of money and irrigation facilities, shortage of trays non-
availability of disease free layings and labour in time are the main reasons for non-
adoption of recommended sericultural practices.

According to the NARP Status report (1992), Kerala Agricultural University,

the production constraints of rice in the central zone were non-availability of quality
seed, use of excess seed rate by farmers, lack of varieties suitable for dry sowing and
second crop seasons, also for drought and flood prone areas, non-adoption of
recommended dose of fertilizer for dry zone rice, lack of proper weed control, low
plant population due to wider spacing, use of over aged seedlings, inadequacy in the
availability of organic manures, imbalance and untimely use of fertilizers, non-
adoption of liming, non-adoption of scientific water management practices, regular
occurrence of stem borer, gal midge, leaf roller and rice bug and incidence of blast,
sheath blight, brown spot, stack burn and bacterial leaf blight, scarcity of labour at
peak periods of agricultural operation and ever increasing labour wages
(Anonymous, 1992).

Abdul Rehman et al., (1992) in their study about the constraints of evolving,
spreading and adopting improved rice varieties in Kerala found that, out of the nine
constraints identified, lack of facilities for evolving specific varieties suited to certain
rice pockets of Kerala ranked first as perceived by the research system. Non filling
up of post of scientists, lack of facilities to multiply seeds of improved varieties and
for on farm teaching of farmers was other important constraints in the descending
order. Susceptibility to pests and diseases, requirement of heavy dose of fertilizers,
poor cooking quality and low straw yield were the most important constraints in
spreading and adopting improved rice varieties as perceived by extension, client and
input subsystems.

Pandey (1992) studied on farm investigation into yield gaps and constraints in
crop productivity. The yield gap was highest for chickpeas and lowest for wheat. The
major biological and agronomic factors contributing to prevailing yield gaps were
fertilizer application levels, plant protection measures, use of farmyard manure and
seed rate. Farmers’ perceptions of constraints limiting attainment of higher yields
included water management, non-availability of location-specific drought and pest
resistant varieties, lack of technical knowledge and low soil fertility.

Singh et al., (1992) reported that lack of knowledge was found to be an

important constraint for low and non-adoption of chemical and weed control. In
addition to that high cost of pesticides and insecticides was reported as the most
important reasons for low and non-adoption of plant protection measures followed
by non-availability of pesticides in time. In case of fertilizer use the main
constraints were high cost, lack of availability of fertilizers in time and lack of
knowledge.

Anjaneya Gowda (1993) observed that low price for cocoon is the main
constraint (63.33%) followed by lack of individual rearing houses (53.33%). Other
constraints found for non adoption of recommended practices are lack of finance
and awareness.

Choudry et al., (1993) identified bio-physical and socio-economic constraints

in groundnut production. The management practices and input factors were
studied vis-à-vis the farmer’s non-adoption of the same. The study indicated that
90 per cent of farmers cultivated only local varieties and 94 per cent of them did not
take any measures to control pest and diseases. None of the farmers adopted
correct placement of fertilizer and the practice of dead furrow. Because of the fear of
uncertain rains, 65 per cent of farmers did not adopt the optimum date of sowing.
40 per cent of them did not use fertilizer due to shortage of capital. While 25 per
cent of them did not use the fertilizers on account of fear of heavy losses due to
failure of crops as a result of failure of rains. Clean cultivation, deep tillage and
such other practices required for moisture conservation were not practiced by the
farmers, due to lack of bullock power, shortage of capital and lack of knowledge.

Geetha (1993) reported that lack of knowledge, variety planted, fertilizers,

chemicals, scarcity of cuttings and lack of awareness are the main reasons for non-
adoption of recommended sericultural practices.

Ramajore and Singh (1994) evaluated the causes for wide yield gaps in rice
and wheat in sodic soils in the progressive and the less progressive districts of Uttar
Pradesh. The authors reported non-adoption of recommended land leveling
measures, inadequate quantity of gypsum application, improper fertilizer application
and non-adoption of package of practices as constrains. Modernization of rice and
wheat cultivation under recommended technology for sodic soils was recommended
by them.

Singhvi et al., (1994) from their studies identified constraints for non-adoption
of new sericulture technology by farmers in Hunsur Taluk, Mysore district. Lack of
knowledge about disease control, optimum temperature and humidity required
during rearing, lack of capital, high cost of fertilizers, shortage of trays and non-
availability of quality chemicals were main reasons identified for non-adoption.

Zeaul Ahsan (1994) reported that lack of separate rearing house, supply of
quality disease free laying and non-remunerative price of cocoons are also main
constraints for non adopting the recommended sericultural practices.

Chikkanna et al., (1995) in their studies observed constraints for non-adopting

the recommended practices. The constraints were lack of separate rearing house,
non-availability of quality layings, non-remunerative price of cocoon, non-availability
of finance and awareness of technology.

Geethakutty (1982) found that the major constraint posed by the farmers in
split application of fertilizers was the lack of conviction about the relative advantage
of the practice. The major constraints pointed out by the farmers in not adopting
the correct method of application of nitrogenous fertilizers were lack of knowledge
about the specific methods of application, non-availability of the material and their
perceived impracticability.

Patil (1995) in his study on yield gaps in groundnut in Dharwad district of

Karnataka, observed that majority of the farmers felt that labour shortage was the
main constraint for the presence of yield gap. Non-availability of quality seed (65%),
untimely and insufficient rainfall, less fertile soil, lack of technical knowledge,
problem of pests and diseases and shortage of capital were the other constraints
faced by the farmers.

Ray et al., (1995) studied about the perceived constraints of technology

adoption by the client system. Further analysis shows that 68 per cent for the
variance was explained by eleven factors viz., contingency management, custom
service, input availability, bio-energy, soil productivity, land tenure, hired labour,
credit and traditional norms.

Shreedhara (1996) found that the lack of knowledge on variety of mulberry,

methods of Uzi control, formalin concentration, degree of planting and fertilizers,
spacing, non-availability of cuttings in time, high cost of fertilizers, lack of irrigation,
labour problem, lack of finance to construct new rearing house, negligence of rearer
and lack of knowledge on diseases and control, are the main constraints for non-
adoption of recommended practices.

Desai et al., (1997) in their study about the constraints faced by contract
farmers in adoption of new technologies found that non-availability of improved
implements, inadequate capital for the purchase of seeds and fertilizers and non-
availability of improved seeds in time were the main constraints pertaining to the
availability of resources. The reason for non application of appropriate doses of
fertilizers was the lack of facility for soil analysis. With regard to the adoption of
crop production technology management, the main constraints were lack of
knowledge about profitable crop rotation and labour shortage for performing timely
operations. In adoption of plant protection measures, non availability of plant
protection appliances and lack of finance for the purchase of chemicals were cited as
the major reasons for non-adoption.

Sharma et al., (1999) revealed that the technological constraints perceived by

the farmers in adoption of improved maize technologies were lack of knowledge
about improved varieties, lack of latest technologies know-how, timely non-
availability of technology at village level, lack of training facilities for acquiring new
technology, inadequate knowledge about fertilizer and lack of knowledge about
insect pests and disease control. Non-availability of improved seeds and farm
implements in time were the major supply constraints. High cost of inputs, lack of
finance, non-availability of money in time and high labour charges were the
economic constraints faced by farmers.

Lakshmanan (1995) reported that lack of awareness and adoption of

traditional practices are the main reasons for non-adoption of recommended
technologies.

Srinivasa et al., (1998) studied about the constraints for adoption of new
sericulture technology in non-traditional area of Karnataka and indicated that lack
of knowledge (81.30%), low prices for cocoon (70.50%) and high cost (63.60%) of
inputs are the main constraints for technology adoption.

Sujatha and Annamalai (1998) reported that lack of adequate guidance, lack
of awareness, high cost of inputs in time and inadequate quality of inputs were the
major constraints as expressed by majority of the marginal, small and big farmers
for better utilization of inputs.

Geetha et al., (2001) found that non availability of inputs, ignorance of

technology and lack of financial support are the reasons for non adoption of
practices. Similar result was observed by Sunildutt and Chole (2002).

Mallikarjuna et al., (2001) reported that the non-availability of credit to the

sericultural enterprise in Mysore district of Karnataka is one of the factors for non-
adoption of technologies to the full scale.
 Andhra Pradesh has a geographic area of 27.51 million ha, which constitutes
8.37% of the total area of the country. It is situated in the tropical zone and lies
between lat.12° 40’ and 19° 50’ N and long.76° 45’ and 84° 40’ E. The state of
Andhra Pradesh is divided into three regions namely Rayalaseema, Telangana and
Coastal Andhra (Map -1 and Table-1).

Table-1: REGION WISE SERICULTURAL AREAS

IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Area (in
Region Area (%)
acres)
Rayalaseema 91,879 75.86

Coastal Andhra 16,703 13.79

Telangana 12,523 10.34

Total 1,21,105 100.00

Physiographically the state can be divided into 3 distinct regions viz. (i) the
mountainous region having Nallamalai and Erramalai Hills of the Rayalaseema and
the Eastern Ghats (ii) the plateau having an altitude of 100m to 800 m and (iii) the
deltas of rivers and the sea coast. Climate of the state is hot and humid with
temperatures ranging from 15° C to 45° C. Annual rainfall ranges from 1,100 to
1,250 mm in the north, reducing to about 500 mm in the south.

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

A study on knowledge and adoption of improved technologies in mulberry

sericulture and yield gap on mulberry and cocoon production was conducted in
Chittoor district of Rayalaseema region in Andhra Pradesh, where sericulture is
intensively practiced under irrigated conditions. The Table-2 shows that out of the 4
districts in Rayalaseema region Anantapur and Chittoor districts have the highest
area under mulberry cultivation. More over Chittoor district is very much
prosperous with sizeable area in both agriculturally as well as sericulturally under
irrigated conditions the rich endowment of resources enables the sericulture and
agriculture on commercial venture too. Further the researcher had been working in
Chittoor district under Central Silk Board for 16 years. Chittoor district was
purposively selected for the study because it is second highest producer of cocoons
in Andhra Pradesh. Different districts in Rayalaseema region viz. Chittoor,
Anantapur, Kurnool and Kadapa have been shown in Map -2 and Table-2.

Table-2: DISTRICT WISE SERICULTURAL AREAS IN

RAYALASEEMA REGION OF ANDHRA PRADESH

District Area (in acres) Area (%)

Anantapur 46,376 50.47

Chittoor 30,866 33.59

Kurnool 91,708 9.98

Kadapa 5,467 5.95

Total 91,879 100.00

3.1.1 Selection of mandals in Chittoor district

Ten mandals were selected randomly and the mandals were alphabetically
arranged, numbered and it was presented in Map - 3 and Table-3. There are 49
mandals in Chittoor district (as shown in map – 4).
 Table-3: SELECTION OF MANDALS IN CHITTOOR DISTRICT
Mulberry acreage
Sl. No Mandal
(As on 31.03.2007)
1 B. Kothakota 363.10

2 Byreddypalle 520.40

3 Kurabalakota 319.38

4 Mulakalacheruvu 461.50

5 Palamaner 543.65

6 Punganur 600.95

7 Ramakuppam 1169.80

8 Santhipuram 1414.77

9 Thambalapalle 480.15

10 V. Kota 831.91

Source: Office of the Joint Director of Sericulture, Chittoor

3.1.2 Topography and Soil

Chittoor district is a part of Rayalaseema and lies in the extreme south of the
state approximately between 12°37' - 14°8' north latitudes and 78°3' - 79°55' east
longitudes. It is bounded on the north by Anantapur and Kadapa districts, on the
east by Nellore and Chengai-Anna districts of Tamilnadu, on the south by North
Arcot Ambedkar & Dharmapuri district of Tamilnadu and on the west by Kolar
District of Karnataka state. The district can be divided into two natural divisions.

Basically, the classification of soils is done on the basis of the colour, clay content
and the sandy particles present in them. Red soils, occupying about 65 percent of
our land area, are formed from granites, gneisses and dharwars as a result of
variations in the mineralogical composition, relief and topography. Red soils are not
so fertile but are present in almost all districts of our state. The two major crops
grown in this soil are groundnuts and horse gram. There are six sub-groups, namely
red sandy soils (8 per cent), red earths with loamy sub-soils (30 per cent), red earths
with clay subsoil (3 per cent), red loamy soils (9 per cent), deep red loamy soils (3
per cent) and red soils with clay base (12 per cent). The major portion of the district
is covered by red soils with portions of alluvial soil in Chittoor and Bangarupalem
erstwhile taluks. The soils in the district constitute red loamy 57%, red sandy 34%
and the remaining 9% is covered by black clay black loamy, black sandy and red
clay.

3.1.3 Climate and Rainfall

The climate of the district is dry and healthy. The upland mandals consist of
31 mandals in Madanapalle division and these are comparatively cooler than the
eastern mandals except Chittoor where the climate is moderate. The district annual
normal Rainfall is 934mms. The district has the benefit of receiving rainfall during
both the south-west and north-east monsoon periods and the normal rainfall
received during these periods is 438.0 mm. and 396.0 mm. respectively.

Table-4: Chittoor district average rainfall month wise during 2003-04,

2004-05 and 2005-06

SL. Rainfall(mm)
NO. Month Normal 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
1 April 18.00 33.00 54.40 10.60

2 May 62.00 198.80 63.20 70.00

3 June 79.00 77.20 40.30 60.40

4 July 102.00 220.80 122.80 131.10

5 August 117.00 121.10 17.20 108.80

6 September 140.00 121.00 198.90 149.00

7 October 163.00 165.80 111.90 345.30

8 November 163.00 13.80 71.60 254.80

9 December 70.00 11.00 0.10 153.30

10 January 8.00 4.30 0.00 0.20

11 February 4.00 1.40 11.60 0.00

12 March 8.00 3.30 13.90 35.20

Total 934.00 1319.70 971.50 706.00

Avg.

Source: Handbook of statistics 2005-06 by Chief planning officer, Chittoor

 The rainfall received from the south-west monsoons is more copious compared
to north-east monsoons in the western mandals and in the central part of the
district, whereas the rainfall received from north-east monsoons is comparatively
copious in the eastern mandals of the district.

The month wise distribution of rainfall during 2003-2006 is given in Table-4.

The rainfall distribution showed an annual average rainfall of 1319.7 mm and 971.5
mm during 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. The rainfall obtained during 2005-06
was 706.0 mm which was less than the normal rainfall of 934mm.

3.1.4 Land use Pattern

The land utilization pattern of Chittoor district was shown in Table-5.

Out of total geographical area of 14.99 hectares in Chittoor district, the area
sown was 4.93 hectares. Out of 2, 47,888 hectares of sown area the net contribution
irrigated area is 1.69 hectare. There are no live rivers existing in the district.
Hence the possibility of major irrigation projects is very limited. In spite of the low
and irregular rainfall and poor soil fertility status, farmers accustomed to ground
nut cultivation. Under wells and tube wells irrigation vast potentialities are
available for agriculture and allied enterprises. The farmers of the district are highly
enterprise oriented to take up new enterprises. There are vast potentialities in the
district for development of floriculture, sericulture, spices, and plantation crops
such as coffee, areca nut.
 Table-5: LAND UTILIZATION PARTICULARS OF THE DISTRICT
(Area in Hectares)

Sl.
Category 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
No.
1 Area under Forest 451345 451345 451345

Barren &
2 164265 164220 164000
uncultivable land

Land put to non

3 142254 142254 142334
Agricultural use

Permanent pastures
4 36527 36502 36291
& other grazing lands

Miscellaneous tree
5 25173 25165 25092
crops & grooves

6 Cultivable waste 39512 43537 42458

7 Other fallow lands 126276 117707 116301

8 Current fallows 161759 114254 105898

9 Net area sown 351674 403774 415043

Total geographical
10 1498778 1498778 1498778
area

11 Total cropped area 390336 443005 457548

Area sown more than

12 36283 39229 42505
once

Source: Handbook of statistics 2005-06 by Chief planning officer, Chittoor

3.1.5 Irrigation Pattern

The irrigation pattern of Chittoor district is shown in Table-6. There are no live
rivers existing in the district. Hence the possibility of major irrigation projects is very
limited. With the low and irregular rainfall and poor soil fertility status, farmers are
accustomed to groundnut cultivation. Under well and tube well irrigation vast
potentialities are available for agriculture and allied enterprises. The farmers of the
district are highly enterprise oriented to take up new enterprises such as cultivation
of aromatic and medicinal plants and protection of forest wealth. The net area
irrigated under crops during 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 were 131393, 126543
and 158806 hectares respectively.

Table-6: IRRIGATED PATTERN IN CHITTOOR DISTRICT DURING 2003-

04, 2004-05 and 2005-06
(Area in Hectares)

Sl. No. Source Irrigated 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

1 Canals 677 45 1702

2 Tanks 15314 19755 45736

Tube wells & Filter

3 67318 70857 75416
points

4 Dug wells 47828 35853 35800

5 Lift irrigation 139 24 79

6 Others sources 117 0 73

7 Net area irrigated 131393 126543 158806

Area irrigated more

8 36283 37340 39264
than once

9 Gross area irrigated 167676 163874 198070

Source: Hand book of statistics 2005-06 by Chief planning officer, Chittoor

3.1.6 Cropping Pattern
Table-7: CROPPING PATTERN IN CHITTOOR DISTRICT DURING 2003-
04, 2004-05 and 2005-06
(Area in Hectares)
Sl. No Crops 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
1 Paddy 44096 42714 81027
2 Jowar 20 56 37
3 Bajra 1123 1545 958
4 Ragi 3687 2788 2523
5 Small millets 0 0 0
6 Total cereals & millets 57499 48221 85095
7 Green gram 228 199 5
8 Horsegram 5 7 59
9 Red gram 54 21 99
10 Other pulses 47 3 4
11 Total food grains 50078 48723 85332
12 Chillies 3148 2692 2545
13 Sugarcane 42034 38361 48771
14 Fruits &veg. 26445 25715 22503
15 Total food crops 121847 115683 159347
16 Cotton 0 0 4
17 Groundnut 30994 32576 24138
18 Sesamum 566 1487 423
19 Castor 0 0 0
20 Total oil seeds 37201 40151 30003
21 Tobacco 2 0 7
Total non-food crops
22 45835 48196 38723
irrigated
Total cropped area
167681 163879 198070
irrigated
Net area irrigated 131393 126543 158806
Source: Hand book of statistics 2005-06 by Chief planning officer, Chittoor
 The major crops in the district are groundnut, paddy and sugarcane. In
Horticulture the mango covers a major area followed by coconut and there is every
possibility of taking up other fruit crops such as sapota, guava, seethaphal and
amla. The farmers of the region are very well accepting sericulture as one of the
important commercial crop which can be taken up in all the season and they can
able to rear silkworm almost 5-6 crops in a year. The cropping pattern of Chittoor
district is shown in Table-7.

3.1.7 Infrastructure facilities

The economy of the district is agro-based with all farming systems in practice.
Occurrence of drought is a regular phenomenon. Dry land agriculture is for
subsistence. Commercial agriculture is being practiced in floriculture and
olericulture. Dairy protects the farmers from the vagaries of drought. Mango crop is
gaining importance. Under limited water resources sericulture is taken up by small
and marginal farmers. Chittoor district is centrally placed and it was also well
connected through good laid roads. Roads are well linked to all the revenue villages
for easy transportation for marketing of cocoons by the sericulturists. Nationalized,
rural and co-operative banks were existing in the district to provide financial
assistance to the sericulturists and agriculturists. Other statutory institutions,
boards and industries are also available in the district along with co-operative and
regulated marketing boards for efficient transaction of major commodities and
products throughout the district. The Department of Sericulture, Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh is providing extension and input supply to the farmers to produce quality
cocoons.

3.1.8 Sericultural situation in Chittoor district

Very important statistics with regard to sericulture activities in Chittoor

district has been indicated in Table-8. Sericulture has been a small farmer’s activity
all along as the rearing of silk worms is highly labour intensive and requires a
quality labour input which only family labour can offer. Further, the scarcity of
irrigation water also acts as a constraint for expanding area under mulberry. When
compared to the other district, the Chittoor district is the second largest producer of
raw silk with the annual production of 749.87 MT during the year 2006-2007. In
this district, nearly 12600 farmers were taken up sericulture activities, which covers
about 11938 acres of mulberry garden and it was also estimated that the annual
cocoon production was16, 100 MT and silk production was 21.348MT during the
year 2006-2007.

Table-8: SERICULTURE SITUATION IN CHITTOOR DISTRICT

DURING 2006-07
Sl. No. Particulars Quantity
Farmers taken up
1 12600
sericulture(number)
2 Marginal farmers(number) 5000
3 Small farmers(number) 6925
4 Big farmers(number) 675
5 Women sericulturists(number) 3150
Area under mulberry(acre)
6 Irrigated (acre) 11938
Rainfed (acre)
7 Technical Service Centres(number) 20
Grainage (i)State government 4
(ii)Center silk Board 2
8
(iii)Private(Licensed seed 6
producers)
9 Cocoon markets(number) 3
10 Cocoon produced(MT) 16, 100
11 Silk Produced (MT) 21.348*

Source: Office of the Joint Director of Sericulture, Chittoor, (DOS)

* Provisional

There are six government grainages and six private grainages (Licensed Seed
Producers) who are the main players in supplying good silkworm eggs to the
farmers. Apart from these few private chawki rearing centres also existing for
quality supply of young age silkworm to the farmers.
 This chapter deals with the methods, which were followed, in conducting the
present study under the following heads.
1) Selection of villages and respondents
2) Instrument used for data collection
3) Collection of data
4) Variables used in the study
5) Yield gap analysis
6) Measurement of dependent variables
7) Measurement of independent variables
8) Statistical analysis of data
9) Definitions of variables

I. SELECTION OF VILLAGES AND RESPONDENTS

From each mandal of Chittoor district, 5 villages were randomly selected.

Villages in each mandal were alphabetically arranged, numbered and 5 villages were
selected using random table from each mandal. Thus a total of 50 villages from
Chittoor district were selected. A list of sericulturists in each village was prepared in
consultation with the Sericultural Service Centres of Central Silk Board and
Technical Service Centres of Department of Sericulture, Andhra Pradesh. From
each village, 2 big, 2 small and 2 marginal farmers were selected purposively based
on their total land holdings. Thus a total of 300 respondents constituted the sample
of the study.

II. INSTRUMENT USED FOR DATA COLLECTION

The interview schedule with the scales for measuring the variables of the
study was first developed and pre-tested with a sample size of 50 sericulturists who
were not included in the sample. Before finalizing the interview schedule, necessary
precautions were taken through pre-testing to ensure that questions in the
schedules were unambiguous, clear, complete and comprehensive. After pre-testing,
necessary changes were incorporated in the formation of items/ questions in the
sequence.
III. COLLECTION OF DATA

Interview was found to be the most appropriate method for collection of data
in the present investigation. Hence, an interview schedule was developed based on
the objectives of the study. Data were collected from the sericulturists who were
included in the sample through personal interview method. The interview was
conducted during 2005-2007 and the questions were explained to the respondents
in the local language i.e. Telugu for easy administration.

IV. VARIABLES USED IN THE STUDY

Dependent and Independent variables were used in the study.

a) Dependent variables
Keeping the objectives in view, the following dependent variables were
selected.
1. Knowledge of respondents on recommended sericultural practices.
2. Adoption of recommended sericultural practices by respondents.
b) Independent variables
Based on review of literature and in consultation with experts, 10 independent
variables were included for this study. These variables are as follows.
1. Age
2. Education
3. Family size
4. Experience in sericulture
5. Total land
6. Social participation
7. Income from sericulture
8. Extension participation
9. Extension contact
10.Mass media participation

V. YIELD GAP ANALYSIS

The following important concepts were used in the present study.

Potential Yield (Yp)
It is the per hectare yield realized at the research station. This yield is
considered to be the maximum absolute production potential of the crop, as the
research stations conducting the trials are equipped with all the requisite resources
including technical input and carried out along scientific procedures.

Potential Farm Yield (Yd)

It is the per acre yield realized on demonstration plots, wherein the agronomic
practices are undertaken by the farmer himself under the supervision of agricultural
extension workers. These demonstration trials are more or less research station
trials conducted by the farmer under the same resource conditions under his own
characteristic agro-climatic conditions. So, the potential farm yield is considered to
be an attainable yield by the average farmers, provided such yield is arrived at by
correct and extensive trials under envisaged weather conditions.

Actual Yield (Ya)

It is the per hectare yield realized by the farmers on their farms with their own
resources, management practices and preferences.

Total Yield Gap (TYG)

It is the difference between the Potential Yield (Yp) and the Actual Yield (Ya).
This total yield gap comprises of Yield Gap-I and Yield Gap-II.
TYG = Yp – Ya … (1)

Yield Gap-I (YG-I)

It is the difference between the Potential Yield (Yp) and Potential Farm Yield
(Yd).
YG-I = Yp – Yd …... (2)
Yield Gap-II (YG-II)
It is the difference between the Potential Farm Yield (Yd) and Actual Yield (Ya).
YG-II = Yd – Ya ……………. (3)
Index of Yield Gap (IYG)
It is the ratio of the difference between the Potential Yield (Yp) and the Actual
Yield (Ya) to the Potential Yield (Yp), expressed in percentage.
IYG = [(Yp – Ya) / Yp] x 100……... (4)

VI. MEASUREMENT OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES

a) Knowledge
The knowledge level of respondents was quantified by using the following
formula as used by Ravi Kumar (1979).

Number of correct responses

Knowledge Index = × 100
Total number of knowledge items

To know the knowledge level of respondents 30 recommended practices of

sericulture (20 practices under mulberry cultivation and 10 practices under
silkworm rearing) were selected. The following scoring pattern was adopted for each
practice.
Correct response = 1 Score; No response = 0 Score
Based on the knowledge index, the respondents were classified into three
categories using mean knowledge score as high, medium and low.

KNOWLEDGE INDEX

Between
Categories Above mean above & Below mean
below mean
High

Medium

Low
b) Adoption
The extent of adoption of respondents at present was considered as the
dependent variables in this study. The improved practices of mulberry cultivation
and silkworm rearing recommended by CSR&TI, Mysore were considered as
dependent variables.
To find out the extent of adoption of respondents, the following scoring pattern
was adopted for each practice.

Adoption level Score

Non adoption 0

Full adoption 1

Partial adoption 2

The extent of knowledge and adoption by the farmers were worked out for each
technology and constraints were identified for non–adoption. The procedure
followed by Sengupta (1967) for calculation of adoption quotient was used to
measure the adoption level of the respondents in this study. The adoption index has
been worked out as,

Number of scores obtained

Adoption Index = × 100
Number of scores that could be obtained

Based on the Adoption Index, the respondents were classified into high,
medium and low as follows

ADOPTION INDEX

Between
Categories Above mean above & Below mean
below mean
High

Medium

Low
VII. Measurement of Independent variables
1) Age
The respondents were told to indicate their actual age in completed years as
on the date of data collection. The farmers were grouped into three categories based
on age as used by Raghavendra (1979) with slight modification. The same was
adopted by Trivedi (1963), Byra Reddy (1974), Ravi Kumar (1979) Aswatha Narayana
(1989), Gopala (1991), Singhvi et al., (1994) and Sreedhara (1996).

Categories Age range (Years) Score

Young Up to 30 1

Middle 31 to 45 2

Old Above 45 3

2) Education
This refers to the amount of formal schooling of respondents. The scores were
assigned as used by Gopala, 1991, Chikkanna et al., 1995 and Sreedhara, 1996.

Education Score
Illiterate 0

Primary education 1

Middle school education 2

High school education 3

Intermediate/ Diploma 4

Degree 5

The scores were used directly for the computation of correlation

coefficients.
3) Family size
The respondents were asked to indicate the total number of persons in their
family.
Based on the score, the farmers were divided into three categories, as adopted
by Zeaul Ahsan (1994).

Categories Score
Low(Less than 3 members) 1

Medium (Between 3 and 6 members) 2

High(More than 5 members) 3

The total scores were used for the computation of correlation coefficients.
4) Experience in sericulture
The respondents were asked to indicate their experience in sericulture and it
was recorded.
The respondents were grouped into 5 categories based on experience in
sericulture as used by Geetha (1993) and adopted by Sunildutt and Chole (2002)
with slight modifications.

Categories (experience in Score

years)

Less than 1 year 1

1-3 years 2

3-6 years 3

6-9 years 4

More than 9 years 5

5) Total land
The respondents were asked to indicate their extent of land holding under
irrigated conditions.
The respondents were grouped into three categories as per their size of land
holding. The method adopted by Trivedi (1963), Byra Reddy (1971), Ravikumar
(1979), Aswatha Narayana(1989), Narayana Swamy and Jalihal (1990), Gopala
(1991) and Srinivasulu (1991) was followed for categorizing the farmers.

Categories Acres

Big farmers More than 5 acres

Small farmers Between 2.5 and 5 acres

Marginal farmers Less than 2.5 acres

The size of the land holdings of the respondents in terms of acres was used in
working out the relationship with adoption.

6) Social participation
This refers to the degree of involvement of an individual in formal
organizations either as a member or an office bearer. The formal organizations like
gram panchayaties, mandal panchayaties, youth associations, sericulture farmer’s
service co-operative society, agriculture and rural development banks, mahila
mandals, regulated cocoon markets etc.
 Name of the organization Regular Occasional Never

Farmer’s Co-operative societies 2 1 0

Milk Co-operative societies 2 1 0

Sericulture Co-operative societies 2 1 0

Self help groups 2 1 0

Local organization(Panchayat,
2 1 0
Zilla Parishad etc)

Rythu mithra 2 1 0

This variable was quantified using the method followed by Trivedi (1963), Byra
Reddy (1971), Ravi Kumar (1979), Aswatha Narayana (1989), Srinivasulu (1991) and
Sreedhara (1996) were adopted with suitable changes in the items and weights. The
items considered for the measurement of the variables and the weightages assigned
were as shown in the above table. By taking into consideration of the total score
obtained by the respondents, they were grouped into three categories namely high,
medium and low with mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.
7) Income from sericulture

Annual income from all sources was recorded and the net income of each
respondent for one acre/ year was calculated by using the following formula

Net return = Gross income – Total expenditure

Expenditure includes the cost incurred on laying, labour, mulberry leaves,

transportation and marketing cost etc. The income from sericulture was also
recorded separately, the respondents were grouped into three categories based on
the total annual net income using mean and standard deviation as a measure of
check.
 Small Marginal
Categories Big farmers
farmers farmers
High
Medium
Low

8) Extension participation
It refers to the extent of participation of the farmer in different extension
activities like group discussions, meetings, sericulturists training, sericulture field
days, sericulture demonstrations, sericulture seminars, sericulture exhibitions,
sericulture field visits and tours etc., conducted during the last one year in the area.
Scores assigned
Pattern of participation
Name of the extension
Regular Occasional Never
activity
Field visit 2 1 0

Group discussion 2 1 0

Demonstration 2 1 0

Film show 2 1 0

Exhibition 2 1 0

Field day 2 1 0

Lectures 2 1 0

Workshops 2 1 0

Seminar 2 1 0

Farmers’ meet 2 1 0

This variable was quantified by following the procedure adopted by Ravi

Kumar (1979), Rame Gowda (1983), Zeaul Ahsan (1994) and Sreedhara (1996) with
slight modifications. A list of 10 extension activities was prepared and respondents
were asked to indicate their extent of participation under each one of them. The
scoring procedure followed was as detailed above.

Based on the scores obtained by the respondents, they were classified into
three categories using mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.

Big
Categories Small farmers Marginal farmers
farmers
High

Medium

Low

9) Extension contact
The farmers were asked to inform the frequency of contact of extension
persons with sericulturists as regularly, occasional and never and was scored as 2,
1 and 0 marks respectively as shown below.

Agency Regular Occasional Never

Department of Sericulture 2 1 0

Central Silk Board 2 1 0

Progressive farmer 2 1 0

Based on the total score of extension person’s contacts, they were grouped
into three categories using mean and standard deviation as a measure of check.
(Scale used by Hirrannaya, 1977 and adopted by Zeaul Ahsan (1994).

Big Small
Categories Marginal farmers
farmers farmers
High

Medium

Low
10) Mass Media Participation
In order to assess the extent of participation of the respondents in mass
media, different mass media sources were listed and the respondents were asked to
indicate as to how far they participated I each of these. The procedure used by
Trivedi (1963) and followed by Ravi kumar (1979), Aswatha Narayana (1989), Gopala
(1991) and Sreedhara (1996) was adopted for measuring mass media participation.
The scores were assigned as detailed below.
Scores assigned
Pattern of participation
Sl.No. Items Regular Occasional Never

1 Radio 2 1 0

2 Television 2 1 0

3 Newspaper 2 1 0
Sericultural
4 2 1 0
magazine
5 Pamphlets 2 1 0

6 Booklets 2 1 0

Based on the score obtained by the respondents, they were grouped into
three categories using means and standard deviation as a measure check.

Big Small Marginal

Categories
farmers farmers farmers
High
Medium

Low
VIII. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA
The data were scored, tabulated and subjected to analysis using suitable
tools. The statistical tests used for analysis of data are chi square, mean,
percentage, frequency, standard deviation, correlation coefficient and multiple
regressions.

Mean
The arithmetic mean is the sum of the scores divided by their number. This
measure was used to categorize the dependent and independent variables into low,
medium and high groups.
Percentage and frequency
Percentage measure was used for simple comparison and also to express the
results of the study. Frequencies and percentages were worked out for making the
presentation easy. The data were presented in frequencies and percentages to
understand the nature of the distribution of farmers and to know the level of
knowledge and extent of adoption among the sericultural farmers.
Standard deviation (SD)
This measure was used to categorize the dependent and independent variables
into low, medium and high groups.
Multiple regression analysis
The effect of various factors on the knowledge and adoption level of farmers
has been studied with the help of multiple linear regressions. The model is
Y = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + ---------------+ bn xn + e
Where x1, x2--------xn are explanatory variables and Y indicates the adoption
score. The term ‘e’ represents random error component. The coefficient b0, b1,
---------bn are the regression coefficients which are estimated from the available data.
Regression analysis was run by using by SPSS package.
The goodness of the model is explained in terms of R2 which should be
between 0 and 1. Higher the R2 value more is the explanatory power of the model.
All calculations were performed by using MS-Excel and SPSS.
IX. DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES
Knowledge: This refers to that behaviour of farmers which emphasize the
remembering either by recognition or by recall of ideas, with regard to recommended
practices of mulberry cultivation and silkworm rearing.
Adoption: Practicing of recommended practices of mulberry cultivation and
silkworm rearing by farmers on their operational holdings.
Full adoption: This refers to the level of adoption of recommended sericulture
practices in full by farmers.
Partial adoption: This refers to the level of adoption less than the recommended
levels of sericulture practices by the farmers.
Non adoption: This refers to the total non practice of recommended sericulture
practices by farmers.
 The results and discussion of the present investigation
are presented under the following headings:

I. Knowledge and adoption level of improved technologies by

sericulturists

1.1 Overall knowledge of sericulturists on the individual

recommended technology practices
1.2 Specific knowledge of sericulturists on the individual
recommended technology practices of mulberry cultivation
1.3 Specific knowledge of sericulturists on the individual
recommended technology practices of silkworm rearing
1.4 Overall adoption of the recommended technology practices by
sericulturists
1.5 Specific adoption of the individual recommended technology
practices of mulberry cultivation by sericulturists
1.6 Specific adoption of the individual recommended technology
practices of silkworm rearing by sericulturists
1.7 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of the selected
recommended technology practices of mulberry cultivation by
sericulturists
1.8 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of the selected
recommended technology practices of silkworm rearing by
sericulturists

II. Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics

of sericulturists and their knowledge and adoption of
recommended technology practices

2.1 Personal and socio-economic characteristics of sericulturists

2.2 Relationship between the overall knowledge and personal and
 socio-economic characteristics of sericulturists
2.3 Relationship between the overall adoption and personal and
socio-economic characteristics of sericulturists
2.4 Factors influencing the socio-economic status of sericulturists
and their adoption

III. Yield gap in mulberry and cocoon production

3.1 K2 – Variety
3.2 V1 – Variety
3.3 Cross breed cocoon production

IV. Constraints encountered by the farmers for bringing

down economically recoverable gaps

4.1Constraints encountered by the farmers for bringing down

economically recoverable gaps in K2 and V1 varieties of mulberry
leaf and Cross breed cocoon production

I. Knowledge and adoption level of improved technologies by

sericulturists

1.1 Overall knowledge of sericulturists on the individual

recommended technology practices
The results show that among the big farmers, 8 % had
high knowledge, 63 % had medium knowledge and 29 % had low level
of knowledge. Among the small farmers, 9 % had high knowledge, 62
% had medium knowledge and 29 % had low level of knowledge.
Among the marginal farmers, 12 % had high level of knowledge, 60 %
had medium and 28 % had low level of knowledge. Marginal and
small farmers compared to the big farmers possess less percent of full
 knowledge on majority of the recommended practices like soil testing,
variety planted in mulberry garden, spacing, compost making, use of
formalin, bleaching powder and chlorine dioxide in disinfection,
maintenance of hygiene, chawki and late age rearing, egg
transportation, sorting of cocoons and practices of relatively high
technical in nature such as temperature and humidity maintenance
during chawki and late age of silkworm rearing.

1.2Specific knowledge of sericulturists on the individual

recommended technology practices of mulberry cultivation

Cent percent of all type of farmers had correct knowledge on

the practices like use of fertilizer. Majority of the farmers had high level
of knowledge on soil testing, variety, spacing, manure and fertilizer.
The reasons for those are simplicity of these practices. The spread of
knowledge relating to these aspects is also easy. The results are
supported by Srinivasa (1989) and Sreedhar (1996).

High level of knowledge on the improved technologies

Majority of the farmers had high level of knowledge on the following

recommended practices.
1. Soil Testing: 84.54 % of big farmers followed by 84.16 % of small
and 73.53 % of marginal farmers.
2. Variety: 94.85 % of big farmers followed by 92.08 % of small and
80.39 % of marginal farmers.
3. Spacing: 84.54 % of big farmers followed by 84.16 % of small and
73.53 % of marginal farmers.
4. Manure: 84.54 % of big farmers followed by 84.16 % of small and
73.53 % of marginal farmers.
5. Fertilizer: 100 % of big farmers followed by 100 % of small and 100
% of marginal farmers.
The main reason might be due to the effective extension work done by
the personnel of state and central departments of sericulture. Other
reasons which contribute are farmers’ education, experience, social
participation, mass media participation, extension participation and
extension contact. Further, profitability of the enterprise might have
made them to learn more about rearing of silkworms. The results are
in conformity to that of Puttaswamy et al., (1978), Srinivasa (1989),
Zeaul Ahsan (1994) and Sreedhara (1996).

Very Low level of knowledge on the improved technologies

Compost making: 29.90 % of big farmers followed by 23.76 % of small

and 23.53 % of marginal farmers.
The reasons for this were found to be complexity of the practice,
lack of knowledge, low mass media and extension participation of
farmers in general.

1.3 Specific knowledge of sericulturists on the individual

recommended technology practices of silkworm rearing

Cent percent of all type of farmers had correct knowledge on the

practices like usage of bed cleaning nets, shoot rearing, bed spacing,
use of bed disinfectants, importance of ventilation, maintenance of
temperature, humidity and transportation of cocoons.

High level of knowledge on the improved technologies

1. Use of Bleaching powder: 85.57 % of big farmers followed by 80.20

% of small and 75.49 % of marginal farmers.
2. Bed cleaning nets: 100 % of big farmers followed by 100 % of small
and 100 % of marginal farmers.
3. Bed spacing: 100 % of big farmers followed by 100 % of small and
100 % of marginal farmers.
4. Bed disinfectants: 100 % of big farmers followed by 100 % of small
and 100 % of marginal farmers.
5. Use of Raksha Rekha: 88.66 % of big farmers followed by 80.20 %
 of small and 63.73 % of marginal farmers.
6. Ventilation: 100 % of big farmers followed by 100 % of small
and100 % of marginal farmers.
7. Maintenance of Temperature and Humidity: 100 % of big farmers
followed by 100 % of small and 100 % of marginal farmers.
8. Transportation of cocoons: 100 % of big farmers followed by 100 %
of small and 100 % of marginal farmers.

Medium level of knowledge on the improved technologies

1. Use of Chlorine dioxide: 75.26 % of big farmers followed by 68.32

% of small and 68.63 % of marginal farmers.
2. Hygiene: 78.35 % of big farmers followed by 80.20 % of small and
68.63 % of marginal farmers.
3. Late age rearing: 74.23 % of big farmers followed by 72.28 % of
small and 66.67 % of marginal farmers.
The reasons for this are obtaining some knowledge through mass
media and also by observing neighbour farmers in the village.

Low level of knowledge on the improved technologies

1. Egg transportation: 67.01 % of big farmers followed by 72.28 % of

small and 58.82 % of marginal farmers.
2. Egg carrying box: 57.73 % of big farmers followed by 35.64 % of
small and 43.14 % of marginal farmers.
The reasons for these are lack of knowledge, low mass media
and extension participation of farmers in general. The results are
slightly in conformity to that of Prakash Kumar (1986), Singhvi et al.,
(1994) and Sreedhara (1996).

Very Low level of knowledge on the improved technologies

1. Use of Formalin for disinfection: 25.77 % of big farmers followed by

15.84 % of small and 16.67 % of marginal farmers.
2. Chawki rearing: 29.90 % of big farmers followed by 23.76 % of
small and 18.63 % of marginal farmers.
3. Sorting of cocoons: 46.39 % of big farmers followed by 15.84 % of
small and 26.47 % of marginal farmers.
The reasons for these are complexity of the practices, lack of
knowledge, low mass media and extension participation of farmers in
general.

1.4 Overall adoption of the recommended technology

practices by sericulturists

The table-2 shows that among the big farmers 2 % have high
adoption, 34 % have medium adoption and 64 % have low level of
adoption. Among small farmers, 3 % have high adoption, 35 % have
medium adoption and 62 % have low level of adoption. Among
marginal farmers, 3 % have high adoption, 34 % have medium
adoption and 63 % have low level of adoption. The findings are in
conformity with the findings of Prakash Kumar (1986) and Sreedhar
(1996).

1.5 Specific adoption of the individual recommended

practices of mulberry cultivation by farmers

1. Soil test: Cent percent of big small and marginal farmers have
not adopted.
2. Soil correction: 14.00 % of big, 10.00 % of small and 6.00 % of
marginal farmers have partially adopted. Remaining farmers
have not adopted.
3. Variety of mulberry: 56.70 % of big farmers 27.72 % of small
farmers and 33.33 % of marginal farmers have partially
adopted. Remaining farmers have not adopted.
4. Spacing: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers have
not adopted.
5. Manure: 65.98 % of big, 65.35 % of small and 50.00 % of
 marginal farmers have partially adopted. Remaining farmers
have partially adopted.
6. Fertilizer application: 65.98 % of big, 65.35 % of marginal
farmers and 50.00 % of big have partially adopted. Remaining
farmers have not adopted.
7. Triacontanol: 10.00 % of big and 8.00 % of small farmers have
partially adopted. Remaining farmers have not adopted.
8. Compost making: 22.00 % of big, 14.00 % of small and 6.00 %
of marginal farmers have partially adopted. Remaining farmers
have not adopted.
9. Vermicompost: 12.00 % of big and 6 % of small farmers have
partially adopted. Remaining farmers have not adopted.
Remaining farmers have not adopted.
10. Green manuring: 10.00 % of big and 6.00 % of small farmers
have partially adopted. Remaining farmers have not adopted.
Remaining farmers have not adopted.
The above findings except chemical fertilizers are in conformity
to that of Aswatha Narayana et al., (1989), Prakash kumar (1986),
Satheesh (1990), Singhvi et al., (1994), Chikkanna et al., (1995),
Shivaraju (1985), Sreedhara (1996) and Sunildutt and Chole (2002).

1.6 Specific adoption of the individual recommended

practices of silkworm rearing by farmers

1. Formalin: Cent percent of big small and marginal farmers have

partially adopted. Whereas remaining farmers have not adopted.
2. Bleaching powder: 67.01 % of big, 75.25 % of small and 59.80 %
of marginal farmers have fully adopted. Whereas remaining
farmers have partially adopted.
3. Chlorine dioxide: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers
have not adopted.
4. Hygiene: 8.25 % of big, 6.93 % of small and 6.86 % of marginal
farmers have fully adopted. 60.82 % of big, 70.30 % of small and
 54.90 % of marginal farmers have partially adopted. Whereas
remaining farmers have partially adopted.
5. Bed cleaning nets: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers
have partially adopted.
6. Shoot rearing: 44.00 % of big, 40.00 % of small and 32.90 % of
marginal farmers have partially adopted. Whereas remaining
farmers have not adopted.
7. Bed spacing: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers have
partially adopted.
8. Chawki: 47.42 % of big, 27.72 % of small and 33.33 % of marginal
farmers have fully adopted. 53.61 % of big, 72.28 % of small and
66.67 % of marginal farmers have partially adopted.
9. Late age: 100.00 % of big, 98.97 % of small and 98.04 % of
marginal farmers have partially adopted. Whereas remaining
farmers have not adopted.
10.Use of bed disinfectants: 100.00 % of big, 98.97 % of small and
88.24 % of marginal farmers have partially adopted. Whereas
remaining farmers have not adopted.
11.Raksha Rekha: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers
have not adopted.
12.Egg transportation: 41.24 % of big, 23.76 % of small and 29.41%
of marginal farmers have fully adopted. 58.76 % of big, 76.24 % of
small and 29.41 % of marginal farmers have partially adopted.
13.Egg carrying box: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers
have partially adopted.
14.Ventilation: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers have
partially adopted.
15.Temperature and humidity maintenance: 38.00 % of big, 32.40 %
small and 28.42 % of marginal farmers have fully adopted.
Whereas remaining farmers have partially adopted.
16.Mounting care: 100.00 % of big, 97.00 % of small and 84.00 % of
marginal farmers have partially adopted. Whereas remaining
farmers have not adopted.
17.Cocoon sorting: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers
have not adopted.
18.Transportation of cocoons: 40.21 % of big, 23.76 % of small and
28.43 % of marginal farmers have partially adopted. 59.79 % of
big, 76.24 % of small and 71.57 % of marginal farmers have not
adopted.
19.IPM: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers have not
adopted.
20.IPM of Uzi fly: Cent percent of big, small and marginal farmers
have not adopted.
The above results are partially in conformity to that of
Rajashekaraiah(1979), Prakash Kumar(1986) Dolli et al., (1993),
Singhvi et al., (1994) and Sreedhara (1996). Most of the farmers have
fully adopted, the practices like Usage of bleaching powder for
disinfection, chawki rearing and egg transportation.
Farmers have partially adopted the practices like rearing area,
ventilation, type of brushing, temperature maintenance during young
age and grading of cocoons than Anantapur farmers.
Many of the farmers have not adopted the practices like soil
testing, soil correction, application of Triacontanol, vermi compost,
green manuring, usage of chlorine dioxide for disinfection, usage of
bed cleaning nets, IPM and IPM of Uzi fly.

1.7 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of the selected

recommended technology practices of mulberry
cultivation by sericulturists:

1. Soil testing: A cursory look at Table 7 reveals that 9.28 % of big,

13.86 % of small and 25.49 % of marginal farmers expressed that
lack of knowledge, 6.19 % of big, 10.89 % of small and 22.55 % of
marginal farmers expressed that the soil test is risky, time taking
process and traditional practice and 4.12 % of big 8.91 % of small
 and 20.59 % of marginal farmers expressed that the lack of
technical guidance were the reasons for partial and non-adoption.
2. Soil correction: Lack of knowledge was the major reason
expressed by big (17.53 %), small (21.78 %) and marginal farmers
(33.33 %) for non adoption. 8.25 % of big, 12.87 % of small and
24.51 % of marginal farmers expressed that the soil test is risky,
time taking process and traditional practice and 10.31 % of big
14.85 % of small and 26.47 % of marginal farmers expressed that
the lack of technical guidance were the reasons for partial and non
adoption.
3. Variety of mulberry: Lack of knowledge was the major reason
expressed by big (5.15 %), small (9.90 %) and marginal farmers
(21.57 %)for non adoption. 11.34 % of big, 15.84 % of small and
27.45 % of marginal farmers expressed that the traditional
practices were the other reasons for partial adoption.
4. Spacing: Further, almost equal number of 4.12 % of big, 8.91 % of
small and 20.59 % of marginal farmer expressed that the lack of
knowledge, 13.40 % of big, 17.82 % of small and 29.41 % of
marginal express that the traditional practice, 12.37 % of big,
16.83 % of small and 28.43 % of marginal farmers expressed that
strong belief on their own ideas and over confidence the scarcity of
sufficient spaces were the reasons for partial adoption of spacing
given at the time of planting.
5. Manure: Lack of knowledge was the major reason expressed by big
(8.25 %), small (12.87 %) and marginal farmers (24.51 %) for non
adoption. 6.19 % of big, 10.89 % of small and 22.55 % of marginal
farmers expressed that lack of money for purchase was the reasons
for partial adoption.
6. Fertilizer application: 6.19 % of big, 10.89 % of small and 22.55
% of marginal farmers expressed that the lack of knowledge on
optimum/ recommended quantity of fertilizers dose applied per
acre, 2.06 % of big, 6.93 % of small and 18.63 % of marginal
farmers expressed that the high cost of fertilizers and 8.25 % of
 big, 12.87 % of small and 24.51% marginal farmers expressed that
strong belief and over confidence on their own ideas were the
reasons for partial/ non adoption of the practices.
7. Triacontanol: Lack of knowledge on optimum/ recommended
quantity of dose applied per acre was the major reason expressed
by big (13.40 %), small (17.82 %) and marginal farmers (29.41 %)
for partial/ non adoption of the practices. 3.09 % of big, 7.92 % of
small and 19.61 % of marginal farmers expressed that the high
cost and 5.15 % of big, 9.90 % of small and 21.57% marginal
farmers expressed that strong belief and over confidence on their
own ideas and 2.06 % of big, 6.93 % of small and 18.63 % of
marginal farmers expressed that the lack of money for purchase
were the reasons for partial/ non adoption of the practices.
8. Compost making: 6.19 % of big, 10.89 % of small and 22.55 % of
marginal farmers expressed that the lack of knowledge and 2.06 %
of big, 6.93 % of small and 18.63 % of marginal farmers expressed
that negligence of rearer were the other reasons for partial
adoption.
9. Vermiculture: Lack of knowledge was the major reason expressed
by big (12.37 %), small (16.83 %) and marginal farmers (28.43 %)
for non adoption. 10.31 % of big, 14.85 % of small and 26.47 % of
marginal expressed that technical problems and only 11.34 % of
big, 15.84 % of small27.45 % of marginal farmers expressed that
the vermiculture process is practically difficult and time taking.
15.46 % of big, 19.80 % of small and 31.37 % of marginal farmers
expressed that non availability of inputs were the reasons for non-
adoption of this practice.
10. Green manuring: 10.31% of big, 14.85 % of small and 26.47 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of knowledge about
advantages,12.37 % of big, 16.83 % of small and 28.43 % marginal
farmers expressed that negligence of rearer were the reasons for
partial adoption of green manuring.
Table 7 reveals that majority of partial/ non adopters in big,
 small and marginal farmers expressed the reason of lack of
knowledge on the practices viz., soil testing, soil correction,
variety, spacing while planting the mulberry, manure, fertilizer
application, triacontanol, compost making, vermicompost
making, green manuring for partial/ non adoption.

1.8 Reasons for partial and non-adoption of the selected

recommended technology practices of silkworm rearing
by sericulturists:

1. Formalin: Table – 8 shows that 13.40 % of big, 17.82 % of small

and 29.41 % marginal farmers expressed that the lack of
knowledge, 4.12 % of big, 8.91 % of small and 20.59 % of marginal
farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance was reason for
partial and non adoption.
1. Bleaching powder: Lack of knowledge was the major reason
expressed by big (9.28 %), small (13.86 %) and marginal farmers
(25.49 %) for non adoption. 2.06 % of big, 6.93 % of small and
18.63 % of marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical
guidance were the reasons for partial adoption.
2. Chlorine dioxide: 13.40 % of big, 17.82 % of small and 29.41 %
of marginal farmers expressed that lack of knowledge and 6.19 %
of big, 10.89 % of small, and 22.55 % of marginal farmers
expressed that lack of technical guidance and 6.19 % of big, 10.89
% of small and 22.55 % of marginal farmers expressed that lack of
skill were the reasons for partial adoption of the practice.
3. Bed cleaning nets: Lack of knowledge was the major reason
expressed by big (10.31%), small (14.85%) and marginal farmers
(26.47%) for non adoption. 8.25% of big, 9.90% of small and
27.45% of marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical
guidance were the reasons for partial adoption.
4. Hygiene: Lack of knowledge was the major reason expressed by big
(12.37 %), small (16.83 %) and marginal farmers (28.43 %) for non
adoption. 4.12 % of big, 8.91 % of small and 20.59 % of marginal
farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance and 9.28 % of
big, 13.86 % of small and 25.49 % marginal farmers expressed
that lack of awareness of improved technologies were the reasons
for partial and non adoption of hygiene.
5. Shoot rearing: Lack of knowledge was the major reason expressed
by big (9.28 %), small (13.86 %) and marginal farmers (25.49 %) for
non adoption. 8.25 % of big and 12.87 % of small, 24.51 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance were
the reasons for partial / non adoption of the practice. 7.22 % of
big, 11.88 % of small and 23.53 % of marginal farmers expressed
that it is a risky job and 6.19 % of big, 10.89 % of small and 22.55
% of marginal farmers expressed that lack of skill were the reasons
for partial and non adoption of the practice.
6. Bed spacing: 10.31 % of big, 14.85 % of small and 26.47 % of
marginal farmers expressed that the lack of knowledge and 8.25
% of big and 12.87 % of small, 24.51 % of marginal farmers
expressed that lack of technical guidance were the reasons for
partial / non adoption of the practice. 2.06 % of big, 6.93 % of
small and 18.63 % of marginal farmers expressed inadequate
space for rearing and 13.40 % of big, 17.82 % of small and 29.41
% of marginal farmers expressed that strong belief on traditional
practice were the reasons for partial and non adoption of the
practice.
7. Temperature and humidity in Chawki: Lack of knowledge was
the major reason expressed by big (13.40 %), small (17.82 %) and
marginal farmers (29.41 %) for non adoption. 2.06 % of big and
6.93 % of small, 18.63 % of marginal farmers expressed that lack
of technical guidance were the reasons for partial / non adoption of
the practice. 15.46 % of big, 19.80 % of small and 31.37 % of
marginal farmers expressed that strong belief on traditional
 practice and 12.37 % of big, 16.83 % of small and 28.43 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of skill were the reasons for
partial and non adoption of the practice.
8. Temperature and humidity maintenance in Late age: 15.46 % of
big, 19.80 % of small and 31.37 % of marginal farmers expressed
that lack of knowledge, 3.09 % of the big, 7.92 % of small and
19.61 % of the marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical
guidance and 21.65 % of big, 25.74 % of small and 37.25 % of
marginal farmers expressed that strong belief on traditional
practice were reasons for partial adoption of this practice.
9. Bed disinfectants: Lack of awareness of improved methods was
the major reason expressed by big (6.19 %), small (10.89 %) and
marginal farmers (22.22 %) for non adoption. 8.25 % of big, 12.87
% of small and 24.51 % of marginal farmers expressed lack of
technical guidance was the reason for partial adoption of the
practice.
10. Raksha Rekha: 13.40 % of big, 17.82 % of small and 29.41 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of knowledge, 5.15 % of the
big, 9.90 % of small and 21.57 % of the marginal farmers
expressed that lack of technical guidance were the reasons for
partial and non adoption of this practice.
11. Egg transportation: Lack of knowledge was the major reason
expressed by big (8.25 %), small (12.87 %) and marginal farmers
(24.51 %) for non adoption. 2.06 % of the big, 6.93 % of small and
18.63 % of the marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical
guidance and 6.19 % of big, 10.89 % of small and 22.55 % of
marginal farmers expressed that strong belief on traditional
practice were reasons for partial and non adoption of this practice.
12. Egg carrying box: 7.22 % of big, 11.88 % of small and 23.53 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of knowledge, 4.12 % of the
big, 8.91 % of small and 20.59 % of the marginal farmers
expressed that lack of technical guidance and 12.37 % of big,
16.83 % of small and 28.43 % of marginal farmers expressed that
 strong belief on traditional practice were reasons for partial and
non adoption of this practice.
13. Ventilation: 15.46 % of big, 19.80 % of small and 31.37 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of knowledge, 5.15 % of the
big, 9.90 % of small and 21.57 % of the marginal farmers
expressed that lack of technical guidance and 13.40 % of big,
17.82 % of small and 29.41 % of marginal farmers expressed that
strong belief on traditional practice were reasons for partial and
non adoption of this practice.
14. Temperature and humidity: 28.87 % of the big, 32.67 % of small
and 44.12 % of the marginal farmers expressed that lack of
knowledge and 8.25 % of big, 12.87 % of small and 24.51 % of
marginal farmers expressed that technical guidance were reasons
for partial and non adoption of this practice.
15. Mounting care: 20.62 % of big, 24.75 % of small and 36.27 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of awareness of improved
methods, 9.28 % of the big, 13.86 % of small and 25.49 % of the
marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance and
9.28 % of big, 13.86 % of small and 25.49 % of marginal farmers
expressed that lack of skill were reasons for partial and non
adoption of this practice.
16. Cocoon sorting: 20.62 % of big, 24.75 % of small and 36.27 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of awareness of improved
methods, 3.09 % of the big, 7.92 % of small and 19.61 % of the
marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance and
21.65 % of big, 25.74 % of small and 37.25 % of marginal farmers
expressed that negligence of the rearer were reasons for partial and
non adoption of this practice.
17. Cocoon Transportation: 17.53 % of big, 21.78 % of small and
33.33 % of marginal farmers expressed that lack of awareness of
improved methods, 3.09 % of the big, 7.92 % of small and 19.61 %
of the marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance
were reasons for partial and non adoption of this practice.
18. IPM: 27.84 % of big, 31.68 % of small and 43.14 % of marginal
farmers expressed that lack of awareness of improved methods,
10.31 % of the big, 14.85 % of small and 26.47 % of the marginal
farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance were reasons for
partial and non adoption of this practice.
19. IPM of Uzi fly: 25.77 % of big, 29.70 % of small and 41.18 % of
marginal farmers expressed that lack of awareness of improved
methods, 10.31 % of the big, 14.85 % of small and 26.47 % of the
marginal farmers expressed that lack of technical guidance and
21.65 % of big, 25.74 % of small and 37.25 % of marginal farmers
expressed that lack of training facility were reasons for partial and
non adoption of this practice.
The findings relating to the some of the above reasons
were in conformity to that of Puttaswamy et al., (1978),
Rajashekaraiah(1979), Siddappaji et al., (1987), Sarkar(1988),
Satheesh (1990), Srinivasulu(1991), Anjaneya gowda (1993),
Singhvi et al., (1994), Zeaul Ahsan (1994), Chikkanna et al.,
(1995), Sreedhara (1996), Geetha et al., (2001) and Muni
Krishnappa et al., (2002).

II. Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics

of sericulturists and their knowledge and adoption of
recommended technology practices

2.1 Personal and socio-economic characteristics of

sericulturists

1. Age: Data in Table 9 reveal that 39 % of big, 22 % of small and 43

% of marginal farmers belong to middle age group.
2. Education: Majority of 40 % of big farmers had high level of
education, while 38 % of small and 50 % of marginal farmers had
medium level of education.
3. Family size: Majority of 52 % of big, 47 % of small and 63 % of
marginal farmers had medium family size(3-6 members)
4. Experience in sericulture: Majority of 72% of big, 82% of small
and 85% of marginal farmers had medium experience in
sericulture.
5. Total land: Majority of 44 % of big, 48 % of small and 18 % of
marginal farmers had medium acreage.
6. Social participation 30 % of big farmers, when compared to 34 %
of small and 32 % of marginal farmers had medium social
participation. 52 % of big farmers, 58 % of small and 65 % of
marginal farmers had low social participation.
7. Income from sericulture: 30 % of small and 28 % of marginal
farmers had proved their slight superiority and have high income
from sericulture when compared to22 % of big farmers. Majority of
44 % of big, 54 % of small and 50 % of marginal farmers had
medium income from sericulture.
8. Extension participation: Majority of 59 % of big farmers had
high, 34 % of small farmers had medium extension participation,
while majority of 75 % of small farmers and 41 % of marginal
farmers had low extension participation.
9. Extension contact: Majority of 47 % of big farmers, 21 % of small
farmers had medium extension contact and 80 % of marginal
farmers had low extension contact.
10. Mass media participation: Majority of 73 % of big farmers, 77 %
of small and 74 % of marginal farmers have medium mass media
participation. Majority of 29 % of big farmers,21 % of small
farmers and 25 % of marginal farmers had low mass media
participation.
2.2Relationship between the overall knowledge and personal
and socio economic characteristics of sericulturists:

The correlation coefficients (r) between knowledge score and

different socio economic factors were worked out per each group of
farmers and the results were presented in table -10. The table shows
that out of 10 independent variables, variables namely education,
experience in sericulture, total land and mass media participation in
respect of big and small farmers had a positive and highly
significant relationship with their overall knowledge level. In case of
marginal farmers, only 3 variables namely education, experience in
sericulture and mass media participation had a positive and
significant relationship with their overall knowledge level.

However, other characteristics viz., age, family size, total land

and income from sericulture were found to have non significant
relationship with the knowledge level of small and marginal farmers.
The findings relating to age and family size were in agreement with the
findings of Srinivasa (1989). The findings relating to extension
participation and total land of small farmers and income from
sericulture in all type of farmers were in conformity that of Sreedhara
(1996).

The possible reason for highly significant relationship between

education and knowledge level of big, small and marginal farmers was
that, the educated farmers were more exposed to reading printed
matter i.e bulletins, pamphlets and have more contact with
Government agencies. The findings of the study were in agreement
with the findings of Kantharaj (1980), Aswatha Narayana (1989),
Satheesh (1990), Gopala (1991), Srinivasa (1996) and Sreedhara
(1996).
There was a positive and significant relationship between
knowledge level and experience in sericulture of big, small and
marginal farmers. The possible reason could be the long experience in
sericulture which might have helped to gain more knowledge. More
years of experience could have influenced knowledge and vice versa.
The findings were in conformity with the findings of Geetha (1993) and
Geetha et al., (2001).

There was positive and significant relationship between

knowledge level and social participation of big, small and marginal
farmers. The reason for this was social participation normally
develops more personal contacts with others; as a result knowledge
also increases. The findings were in agreement with the findings of
Ramegowda (1988), Prakash kumar (1986), Aswath Narayana (1989),
Srinivasa (1989), Srinivasulu (1991), Anjaneya Gowda (1993), and
Sunildutt and Chole (2002).

There was positive and highly significant relationship between

knowledge level and material possession of big farmers. This might be
due to the fact that a greater possession of materials tends to acquire
more knowledge by farmers. The findings are in conformity with the
findings of Sreedhara (1996).

There was a significant relationship between knowledge level

of small and marginal farmers and extension participation. The
reason for this was extension participation or activities like group
discussions, meetings, field visits, demonstrations etc. had direct
effect on gain in the knowledge level over improved practices of
sericulture. The findings were in conformity with the findings of
Aswatha Narayana (1989), Srinivasa (1989), Satheesh (1990),
Sreedhara (1996) and Munikrishnappa et al., (2002).

There was a significant relationship between knowledge level of

small and marginal farmers and extension contact. The reason for
this was contact of extension persons i.e. Demonstrator, Inspector,
Extension Officer, Technical Assistant, Senior Technical Assistant,
Assistant Director etc, with sericulturists have direct effect on gain in
the knowledge level on improved practices of sericulture and also
transfer of improved technologies from lab to land there by increasing
the knowledge level. The findings were in conformity with the findings
of Srinivasa (1989), Geetha (1993), Prakash Kumar (1996), Srinivasa
(1996), Geetha et al., (2001) and Sunildutt and Chole (2002).

2.3Relationship between the overall adoption and personal

and socio economic characteristics of sericulturists:

The correlation coefficients (r) between adoption score and

different socio-economic factors have been worked out per each group
of farmers and the results are presented in Table-11. The table
indicates that education, experience in sericulture, total land, social
participation, were significantly related, whereas mass media
participation was highly significantly related with their adoption level
of big, small and marginal farmers.

In case of small and marginal farmer’s education, extension

contact and mass media participation had high significance in
relation. Experience in sericulture, income from sericulture and
extension participation had significant relation with their adoption
level. Remaining variables were not related to their adoption level.

The possible reason for significant relationship between

education and adoption level of big, small and marginal farmers was
that education facilitates individuals to learn about new agricultural
and sericultural technologies, which in turn lead to adoption of
technology. The findings of the present study were in agreement with
the findings reported by Aswatha Narayana (1989), Satheesh (1990),
Gopala (1991), Srinivasa (1996) and Sreedhara (1996) and Sunildutt
and Chole (2002).

Experience in sericulture of big, small and marginal farmers

was found to be significantly related to their adoption level.
Experience in recommended practices of sericulture increased the rate
of adoption among sericulturists. Through experience farmers gain
more knowledge which leads to adoption of various technologies in
sericulture. The above findings are in conformity to that of Geetha
(1993) and Geetha et al (2001).

Social participation of big farmers was found to be significantly

related to their adoption level. Social participation normally develops
more personal contacts or interaction with outsiders who might have
influenced the farmers to adopt improved recommended practices of
sericulture. The present findings are in agreement with that of
Aswatha Narayana (1989), Srinivasa (1989), Srinivasulu (1991),
Anjaneya Gowda (1993), Chikkanna et al., (1995), Sreedhara (1996)
and Sunildutt and Chole (2002).

There was a positive and highly significant relationship between

mass media participation and adoption level of big, small and
marginal farmers. It was natural that mass media carry more
information on improved methods of mulberry cultivation and
silkworm rearing. It has overcome the barrier of literacy and also
timely and repeated advice to sericulturists through mass media
(radio, TV, Newspapers etc.,) helped them to gain more knowledge
and in adopting the practices accordingly. It motivates the farmers
to learn and accept new ideas. If farmers were exposed adequately to
mass media they would get influenced by it. The findings of this
study are in conformity with the findings of Kantharaj (1980), Budihal
(1981), Shivaraju (1985), Aswatha Narayana (1989), Satheesh (1990),
Gopala (1991), Singhvi et al., (1994), Srinivasa et al., (1996) and
Sreedhara (1996).

Extension participation of small and marginal farmers was

found to have a positive significant relationship. Increased
participation of farmers in extension activities makes them to be more
confident about the technology and have direct effect on decision of
farmers whether to adopt or reject the technology. Extension
activities like group discussions, meetings, field visits etc. might have
influenced in gaining better adoption of recommended practices.

The above findings were in conformity to that of Aswatha

Narayana (1989) Satheesh (1990) and Sreedhara (1996). There was a
positive and significant relationship between adoption level and
extension contact of both small and marginal farmers. It is natural
that the farmers who are having contacts with extension staff like
Demonstrator, Inspector, Senior Research Officer, Assistant Director
etc., gain more information and adopt various new recommended
technologies.

The findings were in agreement with the findings of Kantharaj

(1980), Budihal (1981), Prakash Kumar (1986), Geetha (1993), Singhvi
et al., (1994), Chikkanna et al., (1995), Srinivasa et al., (1996), Geetha
et al., (2001) and Sunildutt and Chole (2002). Total land of big
farmers was found significantly related to their adoption level. The
possible reason for significant relationship is that, farmers with high
material possession will be prone to adopt the improved practices. The
findings were in conformity with the findings of Gangadharappa
(1979), Sreedhara (1996), Dube and Sawarkar (1990), Sreedhara
(1996) and in contrast to that of Shivaraju (1985).

Income from sericulture of small and marginal farmers

was significantly related with their adoption level. The possible reason
could be due to high turn over within short gestation period enables
the farmers to adopt improved sericulture practices.

2.4 Factors influencing the socio-economic status of

sericulturists and their adoption:

It was observed that factors like education, experience in

sericulture, total land holding, social participation and mass media
participation have influence over socio-economic status and adoption
of various recommended practices in sericulture of big farmers.
Education, land holding, experience in sericulture, income from
sericulture, extension participation, extension contact and mass
media participation have influence over the socio- economic status
and adoption of various recommended practices in mulberry
cultivation and silkworm rearing of small and marginal farmers and
their level of adaptability to various recommended sericulture
practices.
The results were supported by findings of Aswatha Narayana
(1989), Satheesh (1990), Gopala (1991), Srinivasulu (1991),
Srinivasa(1995), Sreedhara (1996), Geetha et al., (2001)
Munikrishnappa et al., (2002) and Sunildutt and Chole (2002).

III. Yield gap in mulberry and cocoon production

Inadequate and improper usage of inputs coupled with partial

adoption of technology remains one of the reasons for the existence of
yield gap in crop production. Hence, the gap in input use in mulberry
production as well as the output through production and productivity
throws a challenge to accomplish.

Mulberry production, the feed source of silkworm (B. mori) is

one of the major crops in a diversified crop enterprise mix in the farm
production system of Andhra Pradesh, mulberry being a long standing
crop with short gestation period ensures quick returns. The
technology needs no sophistication and simple to adopt, for the
reason, which the farmers’ tend to adopt the disseminated
technologies without any problems.

Despite the improvement in the technology, there was a

continuous decline in mulberry area. The area under mulberry in IX
plan (1997-98) to that of X plan (2002-03) has decreased around 30%
in the traditional sericultural belt of India. In Andhra Pradesh alone
the mulberry area has come down to 39,533 hectares during 2006-07
from 52,225 hectares during 2001-02.

Inspite of the decline in the area under mulberry with the

continued thrust on R&D activities, the productivity in mulberry got
an enormous boost. The productivity per hectare under a normal
farmers’ garden increased two to three folds than what was actually in
the previous decade. The newly introduced variety V1 showed
significant improvement in the yield which otherwise compensated the
decline in the area under mulberry.

Availability of quality of leaves for feeding silkworm is one of the

pre requisites for increasing the cocoon production and improving the
quality. Hence, it is mandatory to produce good quality leaves to
achieve higher silk cocoon production. It is therefore calls upon for a
sustainable production of mulberry leaves of a good quality. In this
regard, the introduction of K2, S36 and V1 varieties at the farmers’
level has come handy for the production of quality of cocoon.

Constraints in mulberry production have been the major set

backs in the environmental condition, which are hindering the
potential growth of mulberry sericulture. Despite the improvement in
mulberry production system, there still exists a considerable gap in
the production of quality mulberry leaves. These can be attributed to
various physical, biological, environmental and socio-economic
factors. It is therefore, imperative to analyze the magnitude of the
gaps in attainable yields and explore the possibilities of relaxing
existing constraints in order to bridge the attainable yield gaps.

Andhra Pradesh being the second largest silk producing state in

the country, the average productivity level of the cocoon is
65.09kg/100 Dfls as against the laboratory yield of above 80 kg/ 100
Dfls in new silkworm hybrids, which was achieved by a few
progressive farmers. Currently, the problem concerned to all is that
even though the production level has increased there is a gap between
potential and actual yield. The general belief was that the farmers
were not fully exploiting their resources in order to achieve high yield.
As a result, the production cost increases and makes Indian Silk cost
prohibitive. It was therefore, imperative to analyze the magnitude of
the gaps in attainable yields and explore the possibilities of relaxing
existing constraints in order to bridge attainable yield gaps.

It was revealed from the study that, seed rate, FYM, fertilizer,
plant protection, chemicals, labour, age, education level were the
factors having significant influence on potential yield realization by
Jayaram (1988).

The yield performance of the K2 and V1 mulberry varieties were

presented in the Table-1 and Table-2. The comparison of the average
of the experiment station yield, the demonstration yield and the
average farmers’ yield were presented below.

3.1 K2 – Variety

The average of experiment station yield was 14,000 kg/ha/year

vis-à-vis that of the demonstration farmers’ yield of 9600kg/ha/year.
 Thus estimated yield gap between experimental station yield and
demonstration farmers yield were 31.429 kg/ha. This gap was
referred to as yield gap-I.

The estimated yield gap between average big farmers’ yield

and that of the demonstration farmers’ yield was 8.376 kg/ha.
Further, it was observed from the table that, the yield gap between the
average small farmers’ and demonstration farmers’ was 27.991kg/ha
and yield gap between marginal farmers’ and demonstration farmers’
was 9.865kg/ha respectively, which was referred to as yield gap-II.

The Total yield gap between the demonstration farmers yield and
the average of overall big farmers was 37.172 kg/ha which was less
than the yield gap between small farmers 50.623 kg/ha and marginal
farmer yield gap of 38.193 kg/ha respectively.

3.2 V1- Variety

The average of experiment station yield was 27273.6

kg/ha/year vis-à-vis that of the demonstration farmers’ yield of
14,000 kg/ha/year. Thus estimated yield gap between experimental
station yield and demonstration farmers yield were 48.668 kg/ha.
This gap was referred to as yield gap-I.

The estimated yield gap between average big farmers’ yield and
that of the demonstration farmers’ yield was 19.941 kg/ha. Further, it
was observed from the table that, the yield gap between the average
small farmers’ and demonstration farmers’ was 37.729 kg/ha and
yield gap between marginal farmers’ and demonstration farmers’ was
22.395 kg/ha respectively, which was referred to as yield gap-II.

The Total yield gap between the demonstration farmers yield

and the average of overall big farmers was 58.905 kg/ha which is less
than the yield gap between small farmers 68.035 kg/ha and marginal
farmer yield gap of 60.164 kg/ha respectively.

3.3 Cross breed cocoon production

The yield performance of the cross breed cocoon production has

been presented in the Table 15. The comparison of the average of the
experiment station yield, the demonstration yield and average farmers
yield have been presented here below.

The average of experiment station yield was 65.09 kg/crop vis-

à-vis that of the demonstration of big and marginal farmers’ yield of
80 kg/crop and demonstration of small farmers’ yield of 78 kg/crop.
Thus estimated ‘yield gap’ between experimental station yield and
demonstration of big and marginal farmers yield were 22.907 kg/crop
and 19.834 kg/crop. This gap is referred to as yield gap-I.

The estimated yield gap between average big farmers’ yield and
that of the demonstration farmers’ yield was 25.954 kg/crop. Further,
it is observed from the table that, the yield gap between the average
small farmers’ and demonstration farmers’ was 44.006 kg/crop and
yield gap between marginal farmers’ and demonstration farmers’ was
26.838 kg/crop respectively, which is referred to as yield gap-II .

The Total yield gap between the demonstration farmers’ yield

and the average of overall big farmers was 8.992 kg/crop which is less
than the yield gap between small farmers 32.9 kg/crop and marginal
farmer yield gap of 10.079 kg/crop respectively.
IV. Constraints encountered by the farmers for bringing
down economically recoverable gaps

Though there was slight increase in cocoon production in the

recent past, the yield gap exists between what was actually achieved
and what could be achieved. The aim of the researcher was to
understand clearly about the yield difference not only between
research station and farmers’ fields, but also among farmers’. Hence,
the yield gap between experimental station yield and actual farmers’
yield was further divided into two distinct components by including an
intermediate yield level representing the potential farm yield or yield
obtained in farmers’ fields when new technologies were adopted.

For K2 variety, the estimated yield gap between average big

farmers’ yield and that of the demonstration farmers’ yield was 8.376
kg/ha. Further, it was observed from the table that, the yield gap
between the average small farmers’ and demonstration farmers’ was
27.991kg/ha and yield gap between marginal farmers’ and
demonstration farmers’ was 9.865kg/ha respectively, which was
referred to as yield gap-II. The Total yield gap between the
demonstration farmers yield and the average of overall big farmers
was 37.172 kg/ha which was less than the yield gap between small
farmers 50.623 kg/ha and marginal farmer yield gap of 38.193 kg/ha
respectively.

For V1 variety, the estimated yield gap between average big

farmers’ yield and that of the demonstration farmers’ yield was 19.941
kg/ha. Further, it is observed from the table that, the yield gap
between the average small farmers’ and demonstration farmers’ was
37.729 kg/ha and yield gap between marginal farmers’ and
demonstration farmers’ was 22.395 kg/ha respectively, which is
referred to as yield gap-II. The Total yield gap between the
demonstration farmers yield and the average of overall big farmers
was 58.905 kg/ha which was less than the yield gap between small
farmers 68.035 kg/ha and marginal farmer yield gap of 60.164 kg/ha
respectively.

With respect to Cross breed cocoon production, the total yield

gap between the demonstration farmers yield and the average of
overall big farmers was 8.992 kg/crop which was less than the yield
gap between small farmers 32.9 kg/crop and marginal farmer yield
gap of 10.079 kg/crop respectively.

Compared to the overall average yield of farmers, the variation

in yield among the farmers’ them selves indicated that, in K2 variety
small farmers achieved higher yield. But in V1- variety large farmer
achieved higher production. Similarly, small farmers could achieve
higher yield than the large farmers, in cross breed cocoon production.
These are the inherent qualities of the respective mulberry varieties
and this do not pose any serious limitation as the farmers’ may
have their reasons for taking such specific variety for cultivation.

It was observed from the result that a higher potential

realization of yield in both the case of cocoon production and
mulberry leaf production was associated with major biological and
socio-economic constraints. In the case of mulberry leaf production,
it was observed that certain factors have acted as constraints on the
realization of potential yield such as area, farm yard manure,
fertilizer, irrigation and variety. Due to the drastic reduction of cattles
in the village, there was acute shortage of farm yard manure. The
tendency of the farmer normally to give preference in application of
farm yard manure to the other crops rather than for mulberry
cultivation was also found as a major constraint. Fertilizer was not
made available in time; in certain season, there was scarcity of water,
so it was also found constraint. Majority of the farmers have K2
variety and only a few farmers’ have V1 variety. Due to less leaf
production in K2 variety, farmers could not take up more dfls
compared with the V1 variety, thereby yield gap was observed.

In the case of cross breed cocoon production it was observed

that the biological constraints such as mulberry leaf, dfls,
disinfectants, rearing materials, mountages, transport and marketing
had a significant effect on the potential realization of yield.
Sericulture being an agro-based activity is ultimately suffering in most
of the villages for want of labour force. Low wages paid in the
sericulture labourer is also the other factor to be considered. In
demand season, generally non availability of quality dfls is often found
to be a major constraint. Even though there are some Sericultural
Service Units/ Sales Counters in different areas, seed distribution
centres are the need of the hour in the cluster level. The most
important factor for the success of the crop harvest is use of
disinfectants, which again is inadequate in the sericulture villages and
it was found as constraint. Coming to the materials such as rearing
stands, trays, feeding stand, etc., and also mountages were other
factors, which are inadequate particularly during the spinning stage
was found another major constraint. Further farmers’ were facing
difficulties in transportation of cocoons from their villages to the
market and marketing of cocoon was also major constraint.

While considering all the above factors on the non- realization

of potential yield, farmers experienced difficulty in obtaining
disinfectants, dfls, technology guidance, mountages and non-
availability of inputs in time which was served as major constraints
in the realization of the potential yield in mulberry leaf production
and cross breed cocoon production. The results were in conformity
with that found in other agricultural crops conducted by Rao and
Prasad (1982), Madhavaswamy (1987), and Singh and Jain (1988).
They identified certain constraints, which have served for the
realization of the potential yield. Based on the constraints perceived
by both small and large farmers’, it was observed that the constraints
faced by the small farmers’ were on the higher side when compared
with the large farmers. This is because of the socio-economic factors
and also the fact that small farmers’ expect support from the
government and other agencies. So the yield gap were found to be
influenced by the socio-economic conditions of the farmers, which had
to be considered seriously and accordingly the extension services need
to be modulated and implemented.

One of the impediments in sericulture development is related to

inadequate training on the latest technologies and extension
methodologies for manpower involved in sericulture extension. The
State Training Schools are to be improved and practical oriented
curriculum is to be developed for training on improved sericulture
practices and extension methodologies. The problems in sericulture
development are area specific (Panda, 1996). The study also revealed
that there is a lot of scope to improve the productivity in the state.
Sericulture has become the most promising allied agricultural activity
in rural areas for the reasons of minimum gestation period, less
investment, maximum employment potential and quick turnover for
the investment.
CONCLUSION

 Results of the present investigation indicated that sericulture

was more profitable than any other crop which also can create a
unique whole family job opportunity.
 Sericulture generates direct and indirect employment in various
ways.
 Mulberry cultivation creates employment on farm.
 Cocoon production, which uses mulberry leaves as an input,
creates large-scale employment for the family labour of the
mulberry growers.
 There are, instances of non mulberry growers taking up cocoon
production alone as a full-time occupation. They buy leaves
from mulberry growers and use them as raw material for cocoon
production.
 Reeling activity is also undertaken in rural areas or semi-urban
areas and the employment generated there would help
reduction of the rural unemployment in a significant way.
 Sericulture as a whole, by its very nature of activity, creates
large-scale employment and income generation opportunities in
the rural and semi-urban areas accelerating the economic
growth of these areas.
 It is not just enough to increase the cocoon yield per 100 dfls to
improve the raw silk production but it is required to increase
the cocoon production per unit area of mulberry. Systematic
efforts should be taken up to increase the yield levels of
mulberry and cocoon by strengthening of extension system,
developing infrastructure facilities such as chawki rearing
centres, cocoon markets and establishing training centres
especially in non-traditional areas and intensifying need based
training and demonstrations.
 Most of the schemes financed by the Government cover big
farmers rather than small and marginal farmers. The schemes
 by the Government should help the small and marginal farmers
than big farmers.
 As sericulture is popularized in Andhra Pradesh in different
regions having varying agro-climatic, environmental and socio-
economic conditions, area specific issues need to be identified
and on-farm research should be assigned priority.
 State Government should ensure providing remunerative and
lucrative cocoon prices. The present findings would help the
policy makers, scientists and extension workers to formulate
and develop effective programmes in future for the overall
development of sericulture farmers.