Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Laggards 16%
Time
Studies whether the change in well-being are indeed due to the program intervention and not to other factors. Problem of assessing counterfactual (A beneficiarys outcome in the absence of the intervention) Different evaluation methods:
Randomized evaluations (experiments) Propensity Score Matching Double difference methods Instrumental variable method Regression discontinuity and pipeline methods etc
17 51 17 51 10 51
2.9 (0.9) 4.5 (0.8) 4.2 (0.9) 4.1 (1.1) 4.6 (0.7) 4.1 (1.2)
16 75 16 57 31 66
2.0 (1.0) 4.3 (0.9) 4.1 (0.9) 3.7 (1.4) 4.0 (0.7) 3.8 (1.4)
0.03 [0.01] 0.08 [0.21] 0.58 [0.72] 0.14 [0.32] 0.03 [0.03] 0.30 [0.66]
Source of data: field trials conducted in Punjab and Haryana (2009-10 season) (Jat ML and the hub staff). *p-value from parametric t-test [from non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis rank test]
Some findings
It is observed that farmers of all sizes are using the technology including marginal and small farmers Cost per acre on average is around Rs 500 per hour inclusive of driver and diesel Average Time taken to level is about 1 -2 hrs per acre Most of the farmers in the sample had got it done in 2009: A recently expanding technology Private service providers are the most common source of laser land leveller; in Punjab some get from cooperative society as well On average, yield differential in laser levelled land and traditionally levelled land was reported to be around 2 qtls/acre in rice and 1 qtl/acre in wheat. Water saving: Each irrigation takes about 1 hours less per acre than before Not much change in the use of other inputs like fertilizer
Information constraints
CA contradicts so much of the knowledge a farmer has learned. CA principles and concepts are counterintuitive and contradict the common tillage-based farming experience. CA improves its performance over time. Hence practical experience with CA is directly correlated with positive attitude towards the technology. Least experienced farmers anticipated more hurdles with CA (Study among European and American farmers by Tebrugge and Bohrnsen, 2000). Public knowledge about CA is much lower than other ways of agriculture like organic farming.
Pre-requisite
Identify farmers present information networks and their information needs that help them to mitigate production and market risk. Identify existing ICT based innovations in the agriculture sector, key players and the institutional arrangements. Characterization of current formal and informal risk management strategies employed by the rural poor in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP).
Results from Survey- Demographic and economic characteristics of the surveyed farmers
Unit: no. of Farmers All Surveyed States 135 443 404 217 42 146 235 673 146 436 361 237 135 31 5 3 1.75 Uttar Pradesh 36 64 80 60 44 44 30 138 28 132 59 33 14 2 3 3 1.2 West Bengal 22 86 103 29 42 19 71 126 24 168 57 15 0 0 2 5 0.45 Variable Age Category (Years) less than 25 26 to 40 41-55 more than 55 Mean Age Education level (Years) Illiterate Primary schooling Secondary & high school Graduate & above Land-holdings Marginal (less than 2.47 acres) Small (2.47-4.94 acres) Semi medium (4.94-9.88 acres) Medium (9.88-24.7 acres) Large(more than 24.7 acres) Mean size of land holdings (acres) Average no of plots Average plot size (acres) Bihar 11 100 80 48 45 11 32 141 56 80 81 58 20 1 4 4 1.1 Haryana 20 93 87 40 43 34 41 146 19 32 55 76 62 15 10 2 4 Punjab 46 100 54 40 40 38 61 122 19 24 109 55 39 13 7 1 5
Notes: Only 6 females were reported in survey of 1200 interviewed farmers. Sample covers 240 farmers from each state Source: Own Computation from CIMMYT survey 2011
Information need Pre sowing Input supply Input prices Sowing Agronomy and farm practices Harvesting Packaging and storing Marketing No response ( number of Farmers)
Wheat 23.44 38.04 12.49 12.47 5.09 1.66 6.18 0.63 132
Maize 20.99 21.48 17.53 12.47 10.99 1.60 11.85 3.09 1040
Other farmers are still the most useful and timely available source of information Farmers rank television as amore useful source in comparison to mobile phones but for timeliness mobile phones are ranked better. In the sample of 1200 farmers only 41 % farmers are suing mobile phones for agricultural information. As this percentage increase, we expect that usefulness of mobile phones for delivering agricultural information to increase.
Get better connected to markets 99.2 99.4 77.8 69.7 65.9 87.2
Note: This percent of farmers is from the 41% of farmers, who are using mobile phone to access agricultural information (CIMMYT survey 2011), Farmers have multiple responses
Voice (IKSL) Costlier than SMS Rate of technical failure is more Cant be stored, need to call back to retrieve information Timely delivery not assured
SMS (RML) Literacy Localised language Clarity of information- too short Compatibility with mobile handsets
Case Studies
Thank You
s.mittal@cgiar.org