See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318491456

Farmers’ Perception towards Effectiveness of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs): A

Study in Uttarakhand, India

Article in International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences · March 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 2,001

1 author:

A P Verma
Banda University of Agriculture and Technology, Banda-210001 (Uttar Pradesh)
57 PUBLICATIONS 314 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by A P Verma on 18 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 6 Number 3 (2017) pp. 878-890
Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com

Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.603.103

Farmers’ Perception towards Effectiveness of

Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs): A Study in Uttarakhand, India
Rupesh Ranjan1*, M.A. Ansari2, A.P. Verma3, S. Shekhar1 and S. Rashit4
1
Krishi Vigyan Kendra (ICAR-NRRI-CRURRS) Koderma, Jharkhand 825324, India
2
Department of Agricultural Communication, College of Agriculture,
Pantnagar, 263145, India
3
Dairy Extension Division, ICAR- National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, 132001, India
4
Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi-110012, India
*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted in the state of Uttarakhand, with two purposively selected
KVKs Dhakrani representing the plains region of Garhwal division and Bageshwarre
Keywords presenting the hill region of Kumaon division. A simple random sampling technique
Performance, was used to select 160 respondents from eight villages from both KVK. Finding of the
Perception, study revealed that, majority of the beneficiaries had middle age group, educated up to
Effectiveness, higher secondary, medium family size, marginal land holding, medium media
Krishi Vigyan ownership, extension contact, information seeking behaviour and social participation.
Kendras (KVKs). Findings regarding effectiveness revealed favourable perceptions towards training
Article Info programmes, teaching & subject matter/ quality of scientists, physical facilities,
advisory services & supplies and other supporting activities. However, unfavourable
Accepted: perceptions towards front line demonstration (FLD) and on farm trail (OFTs) was
15 February 2017 found. Over all farmers’ perceptions towards effectiveness of KVKs was medium
Available Online: (47.00%). Performance of training programmes and FLDs of KVK Bageshwar was
10 March 2017
found better as compared to KVK Dhakrani, whereas performance in respect of OFTs
and other extension activities of KVK Dhakrani was found better as compared to
KVK Bageshwar.

Introduction
Agriculture is the principal engine of of Agricultural Research (ICAR) introduction
economic growth in India as more than half of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs)as grassroots
the population of the nation depends on it. vocational training centre, it has emerged
Poverty and unemployment are the major focal point of technology transfer through its
areas of concern for the rural society. The diverse activities like OFT (On farm trail),
government and non-government agencies FLD (Front line demonstration), capacity
have started numerous programmes for building, updating knowledge & skills of
motivation and training of farmers, extension personnel and farmers. KVKs are
farmwomen and rural youth. Indian Council grassroots level organizations meant for

878
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

application of technology through assessment, KVKs, nine are under GBPUAT, Pantnagar,
refinement and demonstration of proven and two are under the Uttarakhand
technologies under different ‘microfarming’ University of Horticulture & Forestry,
situations in a district (Das, 2007). Since the Bharsar, and the remaining two are under an
establishment of the first KVK at Pondicherry ICAR-VPKAS, Almora. Out of 13 Krishi
in 1974, the number of KVKs has grown to Vigyan Kendra, two KVKs - KVK Dhakrani,
641 plus. Studies have indicated limited of Dehradun district (Garhwal division) and
success of KVKs in terms of impact. The KVK Sinduri Baskhola of Bageshwar district
Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on (Kumaon division) were selected
Agriculture (1995) reported that no realistic, purposively for the present study because
technical and economic analysis was ever performance evaluation of only those KVKs
conducted to evaluate the implementation and can be done which have been in existence for
adoption technology transferred by the KVKs. a reasonable period of time (5 years for the
It suggested that performance evaluation of present study). Eight villages were selected
the trainings organized by the KVKs should from each KVKs- four villages within the
be conducted to identify the constraints and radius of 05km and the other four beyond
impacts (Anonymous, 2002). Further, it radius of 05km for each KVK. Thus total 16
observed that there is shortfall in training villages and 10 respondents were randomly
courses conducted for practicing farmer/rural selected from each of the selected villages.
youth and extension personnel. The objective Thus total 160 respondents were selected.
of testing developed technologies, identifying Farmers perception about effectiveness of
constraints and formulating recommendations Krishi Vigyan Kendra was measured with the
by conducting on farm trail (OFTs) were not help of Likert type scale which were rated on
being achieved fully by KVKs. Consequently, a five point continuum, namely Strongly
there is no mechanism to ensure that the agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and
information on latest crop varieties released Strongly disagree with a score of 4, 3, 2, 1
and technologies developed by ICAR and and 0, respectively for positive statement and
other organizations were disseminated to vice-versa. Based on the score assigned to the
KVKs for conducting FLDs (Performance respondents, the mean and standard deviation
Audit of Agricultural Extension Activities in were calculated and categorized into three
ICAR, Report No. PA 2 of 2008). As the categories. Structured and pre-tested
number of KVKs continues to grow, the interview schedule was personally
quality of performance becomes the prime administered to collect primary data for the
concern to understand factors which study. Appropriate statistical tools like
contribute to the success or failure of KVKs, frequency, percentage, t test and multiple
Thus, keeping in view of the above fact, this regression analysis were used to draw the
study was undertaken to evaluate the meaningful interpretation.
performance of Krishi Vigyan Kendra
(KVKs) and to find out the farmers’ Results and Discussion
perceptions about effectiveness of KVKs.
Socio-economic, communication and
Materials and Methods psychological characteristics of KVK’s
beneficiaries (respondents)
The study was conducted in the state of
Uttarakhand. Thirteen KVKs have been set Finding of the study revealed [Table 1] that
up at each of the district headquarters in majority of the beneficiaries were male
Uttarakhand. Out of thirteen established
879
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

(63.00%), middle aged (55.00%), had respondents was found medium favourable
educational qualification up to higher perception towards teaching and subject
secondary (49.00%) and medium family size matter/ quality of scientists (47.00%),
(40.00%). Majority of the beneficiaries were followed by 34.00 per cent medium and only
from joint family (69.00%) and belonged to 19.00 per cent had high favourable
general caste (45.00%). Beneficiaries mainly perception. Table 2 revealed that majority of
relied on farming for livelihood (38.00%), respondents had favourable perception
had land up to one acre (54.00%). Results towards physical facilities (52.00%) followed
revealed that majority of the beneficiary were by high favourable perception 28.00 per cent
from Above poverty line (71.00%). It was and only 19.00 per cent had low favourable
also found that majority of beneficiaries had perception on existing facilities. Result on
medium level of media ownership (50.00%), advisory and Supplies services revealed that
mass media exposure (77.00%), extension 45.00 per cent had medium favourable
agency contact (68.12%) and information perception (Improved seed, planting material
seeking behaviour (65.62%). It depicts that and insecticide etc.) followed by 32.00 per
[Table 1] majority of the beneficiaries had cent high favourable perception and only
low level of social participation (59.37%). 22.00 per cent had low favourable perception.
The findings of this study are in line in case It is observed that majority of respondents had
of education with Goswami (2008), Singh and medium favourable perception on other
Kumar (2012)and Mandve (2013). Results of supporting activities (48.00%). It depicts from
the present study are in conformity with table 2 that majority of the beneficiaries had
respect of family size with Singh and Kumar unfavourable perceptions (49.00%) towards
(2012) and Gangwar (2014). Similar findings front line demonstration followed by 42.00
reported by Tomar et al., (2016) and Verma et per cent had medium favourable perception
al., (2016) in respect of extension agency and only 15.00 per cent had high favourable
contact, information seeking behaviour and perception towards front line demonstration.
social participation. About 59.00 per cent respondents had low
favourable perception towards on-farm trials
Farmers’ perceptions about effectiveness of followed by medium perception (24.00%) and
KVKs only 17.00 per cent had high favourable
perception towards on farm trial. From the
Result revealed that [Table 2] majority of the above it can concludes that farmers’ had
KVK beneficiaries had favourable unfavourable perception towards FLD and
perceptions towards training programmes OFTs and FLDs techno effectiveness was
(50.00%), followed by low (34.00%) and least favourable due to not demonstrating
only15.00 per cent respondents had high production potential of newly released
favourable perception. Findings of Ahmad et varieties and proven technologies of
al., (2012) revealed that majority of agriculture and allied sectors from KVKs in
respondents (63.42%) reported that training the farmers’ fields.
programme was fully based on their needs
and problems followed by those (23.44%) Many farmers even did not know what is OFT
reporting that it was partially need based. and even the knowledge and experience of the
Senthilkumar (2014) also revealed that KVK scientists conducting OFTs was doubted.
training was perceived as most effective by Thus, due importance needs to be given to
the respondents as reflected from their find out farmer’s interests and needs, and then
perception score of 67.73.Majority of accordingly conduct the trials. With seeking

880
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

participation of farmers in conducting OFTs value of Coefficient of Determination (R2)

may enhance the learning outcomes besides was 0.37 and 0.40 which means that
increasing adoption of the latest technology. characteristics included in the study
collectively contributed to the extent of 37.14
Multiple regression analysis of selected and 40.29 only.
characteristics of farmers and their
perceptions about effectiveness of KVKs Multiple regression analysis revealed [Table
3] that out of 14 variables; only gender,
The results revealed that [Table 3] the value education, caste, family type, occupation,
of ‘F’ statistic 7.81(Training programme), mass media exposure, information seeking
5.65(OFTs) was significant at 5% probability behaviour and social participation had
level where as the value of ‘F’ statistic 1.4321 significant effect on farmer’s perceptions
(FLDs), were not significant. This indicates about effectiveness of KVKs training
that selected characteristics of the respondents programmes. This study reiterated the
were the factors that influence the farmer’s importance of variables such as gender,
perception towards KVK trainings, OFTs and education, caste, family type, occupation,
FLDs. However, the value of Coefficient of mass media exposure, information seeking
Determination (R2) was 0.43, 0.12 and 0.35 behaviour and social participation in
which means that characteristics included in determining the farmer’s perceptions about
the study collectively contributed to the extent effectiveness of KVKs.
of 43.01, 12.14 and 35.30 per cent only. The
remaining unexplained variation could be due Performance of Training and
to other variable/factors not included in the Developmental Activities of KVKs from
sample. The ‘F’ statistic 4.13 (Teaching and 2009- 2014
subject matter/ quality of scientist),
5.07(Physical facilities) and 3.76 (Advisory The findings revealed [Table 6] that
services and supplies) was significant. This performance of KVK, Dhakrani in respect of
indicates that selected characteristics of training programmes organized against the
respondents were the factors that influence targets was satisfactory as its achievement
the farmer’s perception towards Teaching and was 82.71 per cent during the period under
subject matter/ quality of scientist, Physical study. On the other hand, performance of
facilities, Advisory services and supplies. The KVK Bageshwar was 90.67 per cent.
value of Coefficient of Determination (R2) Comparative analysis of the study revealed
was 0.28, 0.32 and 0.26 which means that that performance of KVK Bageshwar was
variables included in the study collectively better as compared to KVK Dhakrani.
contributed to the extent of 28.52, 32.88 and Achievement of Front Line demonstrations
26.65 only. The remaining unexplained (FLDs) against the targets set by the KVK
variation could be due to other variable/ Dhakrani was found less as compared to
factors not included in the sample. The value corresponding achievement by the KVK
of ‘F’ statistic 6.12 (other supporting Bageshwar. The findings of the study are in
activities) and 6.98 (overall effectiveness of conformity with Singh and Singh (2010)
KVKs) was significant. This indicates that revealed that ICAR- KVKs had better
selected independent variables were the performance than NGO & SAU- KVKs.
factors which influenced the farmer’s While contradictor findings observed by
perception towards other supporting activities Ahmad et al., (2012) that KVKs working
and overall effectiveness of KVKs and the under NGOs have performed better in

881
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

providing benefits to the farmers (44.65%) target, performance of KVK Dhakrani was
followed by SAUs (37.03%) and ICAR better (93.54%) as compared to KVK,
institute (18.32%).Out of 91 Frontline Bageshwar (80.00%). Out of 31 OFTs
demonstrations planned; KVK Bageshwar planned, KVK Dhakrani conducted only 29.
achieved 93.40 per cent during 2009-2014. However, KVK Bageshwar conducted 28
Therefore, performance of KVK Bageshwar OFTs against the set target of 35. Thus, the
in respect of FLDs was found to be better as performance of KVK Dhakrani was found to
compared to KVK Dhakrani. Regarding On be better in terms of OFTs as compared to
Farm Testing (OFTs) achieved against the set KVK Bageshwar.

Table.1 Socio-economic, communication and psychological characteristics

of KVKs beneficiaries

Sl No. Particulars of Variables Beneficiaries

N-160
Frequency %
1. Age
(i) Young (up to 30 year) 25 15.00
(ii) Middle (31 to 50years) 88 55.00
(iii) Old (above 50 years) 47 29.00
2. Gender
(i) Male 101 63.00
(ii) Female 59 37.00
3. Education
(i) Illiterate 21 13.12
(ii) Can read and write 2 1.25
(iii) Primary Education 16 10.00
(iv) Secondary Education 24 15.00
(v) Higher Secondary Education 78 48.75
(vi) Diploma 2 1.25
(vii) Graduate and above 17 10.63
4. Caste
(i) General 72 45.00
(ii) OBC 44 27.00
(iii) SC 24 15.00
(iv) ST 20 12.00
5. Family type
(i) Nuclear 49 30.00
(ii) Joint 111 69.00
6. Family size
(i) Small (up to 4) 37 23.00
(ii) Medium (5 to 8) 65 40.00
(iii) Large (above 8) 58 36.00
7. Annual income
(i) Above poverty line (>Rs. 27,000 per annum) 114 71.00
(ii) Below poverty line (<Rs. 27,000 per annum) 46 29.00

882
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

8. Size of land holding

(i) Landless 8 5.00
(ii) Marginal (Up to 1 ha) 87 54.00
(iii) Small (1 to 2 ha) 48 30.00
(iv) Semi-medium (2 to 4 ha) 11 7.00
(v) Medium (4 to 10 ha) 6 4.00
(vi) Large (>10 ha) 0 0.00
9. Occupation of head of the household/Family
(i) Labour 24 15.00
(ii) Caste occupation 6 4.00
(iii) Business 36 22.00
(iv) skill profession 7 4.00
(v) Cultivation/Farming 61 38.00
(vi) Service 26 16.00
10. Media Ownership
(i) Low (upto2) 72 45.00
(ii) Medium (3 to 4) 80 50.00
(iii) High (above 4) 8 5.00
11. Mass media exposure
(i) Low (upto11) 22 14.00
(ii) Medium (12-21) 123 77.00
(iii) High (above 21) 59 37.00
12. Extension agency contact
(i) Low (upto12) 32 20.00
(ii) Medium (13 to 21) 109 68.00
(iii) High (above 21) 19 12.00
13. Information seeking behavior
(i) Low (upto23) 42 26.00
(ii) Medium (24 to 30) 105 65.00
(iii) High (above 30) 13 8.00
14. Social participation
(i) Low (upto6) 95 59.00
(ii) Medium (7 to 10) 42 26.00
(iii) High (above 10) 23 14.00

883
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

Table.2 Farmers’ perceptions about effectiveness of KVKs (N=160)

Sl No. Perceptional Factor Dimension Degrees of perception of

beneficiaries
Frequency %
1. Farmer’s perceptions towards training programmes
(i) Low (up to 42) 55 34.00
(ii) Medium (43-55) 81 50.00
(ii) High (Above 55) 24 15.00
2. Farmer’s perceptions towards front line demonstration
(i) Low (up to 7) 78 49.00
(ii) Medium (8-14) 67 42.00
(ii) High (Above 14) 15 9.00
3. Farmer’s perceptions towards on-farm trials
(i) Low (up to 5) 95 59.00
(ii) Medium (6-14) 38 24.00
(ii) High (Above 14) 27 17.00
4. Farmer’s perceptions towards teaching and subject matter/
(i) quality of scientist
(ii) Low (up to 16) 55 34.00
(iii) Medium (17 to 23) 75 47.00
High (Above 23) 30 19.00
5. Farmer’s perceptions towards physical facilities
(i) Low (up to 25) 31 19.00
(ii) Medium (26 to 35) 84 52.00
(iii) High (Above 35) 45 28.00
6. Farmer’s perceptions towards advisory services and supplies
(i) Low (up to 19) 36 22.00
(ii) Medium (20 to 28) 72 45.00
(iii) High (Above 28) 52 32.00
7. Farmer’s perceptions towards other supporting activities
(i) Low (up to 12) 65 40.00
(ii) Medium (13 to 21) 78 48.00
(iii) High (Above 21) 17 10.00
8. Over all farmer’s perceptions towardseffectiveness of
(i) KVKs
(ii) Low effectiveness (up to 132) 58 36.00
(iii) Medium effectiveness (133 to 178) 75 47.00
High effectiveness (Above 178) 27 17.00

884
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

Table.3 Multiple regression analysis of selected characteristics on different dependent variables

Training programmes FLDs OFTs Teaching and subject matter/

quality of scientist
Variables Coeff. SE “t” stat. Coeff. SE “t” stat. Coeff. SE “t” stat. Coeff. SE “t” stat.
(β) (β) (β) (β)
Age 0.054 0.032 1.652 NS 0.004 0.020 0.206 NS 0.022 0.022 0.987 NS 0.006 0.015 0.444NS
Gender 6.877 1.077 6.383** -0.367 0.659 -0.557 NS 1.855 0.746 2.486* 2.014 0.506 3.977**
Education -0.073 1.009 -0.072 NS -0.036 0.618 -0.059 NS 0.769 0.699 1.100 NS 1.264 0.474 2.665**
Caste 0.271 0.844 0.320 NS 1.181 0.517 2.284* -0.638 0.584 -1.091 NS -0.428 0.397 -1.078NS
Family type 1.942 0.968 2.005* -0.155 0.593 -0.262 NS 0.931 0.670 1.388NS -0.422 0.455 -0.928NS
Family size 0.156 0.152 1.031 NS -0.154 0.093 -1.663 NS -0.028 0.105 -0.270 NS 0.073 0.071 1.034NS
Annual income 4.96
-6.8E-0 8.1E-0 -0.836 NS -7.2E-0 E-0 -1.461 NS 3.61E-0 5.61E-0 0.644 NS 4.82E 3.81E 1.266NS
Occupation -1.234 0.621 -1.985* -0.643 0.380 -1.690 NS -0.431 0.430 -1.002 NS 0.197 0.292 0.676NS
Size of land holding -0.321 0.210 -1.527 NS 0.191 0.129 1.482 NS 0.059 0.145 0.407NS 0.153 0.099 1.547NS
Media ownership 1.100 0.560 1.964* -0.325 0.343 -0.948 NS -0.543 0.388 -1.399 NS -0.082 0.263 -0.312NS
Mass media exposure -0.497 0.134 -3.694** 0.095 0.082 1.160 NS -0.178 0.093 -1.918* -0.083 0.063 -1.321NS
Extension agency
contact 0.191 0.119 1.602 NS -0.094 0.073 -1.289 NS 0.084 0.082 1.017 NS 0.094 0.056 1.683NS
Information seeking
behaviour 0.275 0.129 2.124* 0.165 0.079 2.088* 0.217 0.089 2.421* 0.019 0.060 0.324NS
Social participation -0.399 0.197 -2.016* 0.091 0.121 0.756 NS -0.424 0.137 -3.097* -0.318 0.093 -3.428**
β o = 40.362, R2 = 0.430βo = 7.144, R2 = 0.121βo = 7.959, R2 = 0.353; βo = 18.777, R2 = 0.285
F stat = 7.816*F stat = 1.432F stat = 5.652*Fstat=4.133*df=Regression (14) +Residual (149)=159
SE= Standard Error
* Significant at 0.05 level of probability
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability

885
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

Table.4 Multiple regression analysis of selected characteristics on different dependent variables

Physical facilities Advisory services and Other supporting activities, Overall effectiveness of
supplies KVKs
Variables Coeff. SE “t” stat. Coeff. SE “t” stat. Coeff. SE “t” stat. Coeff. SE “t” stat.
(β) (β) (β) (β)
Age 0.050 0.024 2.018* 0.018 0.022 0.814NS -0.001 0.020 -0.083NS 0.155 0.102 1.518NS
Gender 0.894 0.809 1.104NS 1.834 0.726 2.524* 1.688 0.678 2.488* 14.074 3.348 4.202**
Education 0.696 0.758 0.918NS -1.300 0.680 -1.910* -0.289 0.635 -0.456NS 0.828 3.137 0.264NS
Caste -1.360 0.634 -2.143* -0.936 0.569 -1.643 NS -0.680 0.532 -1.278NS -2.731 2.625 1.040NS
Family type -0.164 0.727 0.226NS 0.799 0.653 1.224 NS 2.293 0.609 3.759** 4.624 3.010 1.536NS
Family size -0.187 0.114 1.636NS -0.053 0.102 -0.520NS 0.156 0.095 1.632NS 0.033 0.472 0.070NS
Annual income 9.86E 6.08E 1.621NS 0.000 5.46E 2.251* 5.94E 5.1E-0 1.164NS 0.000 0.000 0.971NS
Occupation 0.625 0.467 1.338NS 1.169 0.419 2.790** -0.145 0.391 -0.372NS -0.004 1.932 0.002NS
Size of land holding 0.325 0.158 2.053* -0.208 0.142 -1.465 NS -0.067 0.132 -0.511NS 0.232 0.655 0.354NS
Media ownership 0.782 0.421 1.857* -0.099 0.378 -0.264 NS -0.556 0.352 -1.575NS 0.515 1.742 0.295NS
Mass media exposure -0.207 0.101 -2.056* -0.086 0.090 -0.947 NS -0.161 0.084 -1.910* -1.110 0.418 -2.654**
Extension agency contact -0.057 0.089 0.644NS 0.098 0.080 1.220NS 0.084 0.075 1.125NS 0.331 0.370 0.894NS
Information seeking
behaviour 0.090 0.097 0.925NS 0.149 0.087 1.707 NS 0.224 0.081 2.752** 1.119 0.402 2.781**
Social participation -0.528 0.148 -3.550** -0.129 0.133 -0.970 NS 0.064 0.124 0.517NA -1.588 0.615 -2.582*
β o = 31.207, R2 = 0.328 βo = 19.233, R2 = 0.266 βo = 9.924, R2 = 0.371 βo =134.514, R2 =
0.402
F stat = 5.075*
F stat =3.764*F stat = 6.120
F stat = 6.988*
df=Regression(14)+Residual(149)=159
SE= Standard Error
* Significant at 0.05 level of probability
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability

886
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

Table.5 Multiple regression analysis of selected characteristics of the farmer’s and their perceptions about effectiveness of KVKs

Other supporting activities, Overall effectiveness of KVKs

Variables Regression Standard error “t” Value Regression Standard error “t” Value
coefficients coefficients (β) values
(β) values
Age -0.001 0.020 -0.083NS 0.155 0.102 1.518NS
Gender 1.688 0.678 2.488* 14.074 3.348 4.202**
Education -0.289 0.635 -0.456NS 0.828 3.137 0.264NS
Caste -0.680 0.532 -1.278NS -2.731 2.625 -1.040NS
Family type 2.293 0.609 3.759** 4.624 3.010 1.536NS
Family size 0.156 0.095 1.632NS 0.033 0.472 0.070NS
Annual income 5.94E 5.1E-0 1.164NS 0.000 0.000 0.971NS
Occupation -0.145 0.391 -0.372NS -0.004 1.932 -0.002NS
Size of land holding -0.067 0.132 -0.511NS 0.232 0.655 0.354NS
Media ownership -0.556 0.352 -1.575NS 0.515 1.742 0.295NS
Mass media exposure -0.161 0.084 -1.910* -1.110 0.418 -2.654**
Extension agency contact 0.084 0.075 1.125NS 0.331 0.370 0.894NS
Information seeking behaviour 0.224 0.081 2.752** 1.119 0.402 2.781**
Social participation 0.064 0.124 0.517NA -1.588 0.615 -2.582*
βo= 9.924R2 = 0.371 βo = 134.514R2 = 0.402
F stat = 6.120F stat = 6.988*
* Significant at 0.05 level of probability
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability

887
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

Table.6 Performance of Training and Developmental Activities of KVKs from 2009- 2014

Training Programme Front Line Demonstrations(FLDs) On Farm Trials (OFTs)

KVK Dhakrani KVK Bageshwar KVK Dhakrani KVK Bageshwar KVK Dhakrani KVK Bageshwar
Year T A % T A % T A % T A % T A % T A %

April 2009-March 2010 135 98 72.6 100 88 80 135 98 72.6 100 88 80 10 10 100 10 5 50

April 2010-March 2011 121 121 100 101 93 92.1 121 121 100 101 93 92.1 7 7 100 5 5 100

April 2011-March 2012 50 60 120 101 88 87.1 50 60 120 101 88 87.1 4 4 100 7 7 100

April 2012-March 2013 95 45 47.4 64 70 109 95 45 47.4 64 70 109 4 2 50 5 4 80

April 2013-March 2014 85 78 91.8 95 79 83.1 85 78 91.8 95 79 83.1 6 6 100 8 7 87

Total (Overall 486 402 82.71 461 418 90.67 486 402 82.7 461 418 90.67 31 29 93.54 35 28 80
Achievement) 1
(Source: Performance ofactivities of KVKsevaluated on the basis ofAction plan and Annual reports of KVK from 2009-2014)

888
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

It may be conclude that through secondary GBPUAT, Pantnagar, 263145 Uttarakhand,

data and supplemented by in-depth interview especially Dr. M.A. Ansari, and Dr. B. Kumar
and observation from the two KVKs, the for their enormous support and cooperation to
achievements of KVK in respect of training carry out the study smoothly.
programmes, FLDs and OFTs varied year to
year. It may due to differences in local References
training needs, availability of infrastructure,
availability of fund, vehicles, staff etc. Byin- Anonymous. 2002. Report of the committee
depth observation, the researcher noted that on streamlining the functioning of
different types of demonstration units have KrishiVigyanKendras in the Country.
not yet been completed even after 11 years of Division of Agricultural Extension,
establishment of KVK Dhakrani but in KVK Indian Council of Agricultural
Bageshwar multiple numbers of Research, New Delhi, India.
demonstrations unit were existing. Another Ahmad, N., Singh, S.P. and Parihar, P. 2012.
reason could be the lack of clear guidance Farmers Assessment of KVK Training
regarding short and long term training as it Programme. Economic Affairs, 57(2):
creates lots of confusion among the trainers of 165-168.
KVKs. So, there is a need to organize Das, P. 2007. As quoted from: ‘Proceedings
different types of vocational trainings and of the Meeting of DDG (AE), ICAR,
demonstrate the potential of newly released with Officials of State Departments,
varieties/technology over traditional ICAR Institutes and Agricultural
practices by KVKs with adequate facilities. Universities, NRC Mithun, Jharnapani
on 5th October 2007, Zonal
The conclusion drawn from the present study Coordinating Unit, Zone-III, Barapani,
was majority of the beneficiaries were male, Meghalaya, India.
middle aged, medium family size, joint Gangwar, R. 2014. Attitude of rural youth
family, relied on farming for livelihood, towards agriculture as a means of
marginal, medium level of media ownership, livelihood: A study in the terai
mass media exposure, extension agency region of Uttarakhand, Thesis, M.Sc.
contact, information seeking behaviour and GBPUAT, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand,
low level of social participation. Over all India.
farmers’ perceptions towards effectiveness of Mandve, R.P. 2013. Impact of Front Line
KVKs was medium. Performance of both Demonstration on Adoption of Seed
KVKs was good in respect of training Treatment in Soybean. Indian Res. J.
programmes organized while performance of Extension Education, 13(2): 72-77.
KVK Bageshwar in respect of FLDs was Goswami, A. 2008. Impact of KVK training
found to be better as compared to KVK on advance dairy farming Practices
Dhakrani. (AFPS. in changing knowledge and
attitude of Prani-bandhu. J. Dairying,
Acknowledgement Foods & H.S, 27(1): 43-46.
Singh, C.H. and Kumar, R. 2012. Role
The authors express their deep sense of Perception of the Trainers of Krishi
gratitude to all farmers, scientist of ICAR- Vigyan Kendras. Indian Res. J.
VPKAS, Uttarakhand University of Extension Education, 12(1): 83-86.
Horticulture & Forestry and the Faculty of Senthilkumar, K., Devaki, K. and
Department of Agricultural Communication, Subramanian, R. 2014. Assessment of

889
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(3): 878-890

Effectiveness of Training Programmes of ICTS for Seeking Market

through Perception of KrishiVigyan Information by the Farmers of Udham
Kendra Trainees. Indian Res. J. Singh Nagar District of Uttarakhand.
Extension Education, 14(1): 96-98. Int. J. Agri. Sci., 8(41): 1838-1840.
Singh, B. and Singh, B. 2010. Impact of Verma, A.P, Ansari, M.A., Ranjan, R., Bhatt,
training programmer imparted by A., Raghuvanshi, R. and Patel, D. 2016.
KrishiVigyanKendras in Rajasthan. Int. Farmers’ Attitude towards E-Choupal:
J. Agri. Sci., 6(1): 213-215. A Critical Investigation in Gonda
Tomor, A., Verma, A.P., Ranjan, R., District of Uttar Pradesh. Int. J. Agri.
Parameswaranaik, J., Bharwdaj, N. and Sci., 8(49): 2076-2078.
Bhatt, A. 2016. Assessing Extent of Use

How to cite this article:

Rupesh Ranjan, M.A. Ansari, A.P. Verma, S. Shekhar and Rashit, S. 2017. Farmers’
Perception towards Effectiveness of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs): A Study in Uttarakhand.
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 6(3): 878-890. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.603.103

890

View publication stats