Agricultural diversification and enhancing farm income: Learning from grassroots


282 / 262 / 61

Authors

  • D BARDHAN ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh 243 122, India image/svg+xml
  • S R K SINGH ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
  • A A RAUT ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
  • DEEPSIKHA SINGH ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
  • PRASHANT SINORIYA ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
  • U S GAUTAM Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi image/svg+xml

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v94i3.148636

Keywords:

Agro-climatic zones, Farm household, Farmers income, Socio-economic status

Abstract

Enhancing the income of farmers is a national priority to address the agrarian issue of distress and improving farmers’ welfare. In this context, a network of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) was engaged to make interventions on farmers’ field. This study carried out in Madhya Pradesh, presents the quantitative assessment on the impacts of KVKs’ initiatives in terms of different interventions made to contribute in farmers' income (doubling farmers income, DFI). The structured sampling method was followed using multi-stage random sampling. This has covered selecting 11 agro-climatic regions of the state and 25% of KVKs from each region. Further, 2 treatment (DFI) and 2 control (non-DFI) villages were taken. Finally, from each village, a total of 20 farm households were taken. The results indicated that average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), which is the difference between matched DFI and non- DFI households after accounting for counterfactual, was positive and significant. The value of ATT implies that net income of DFI households was more than that of non-DFI households by 111%. The net income of DFI households has increased by 156% during 2016–17 (the year of launch of KVKs' DFI scheme) to 2020–21. Households with male heads, without any other source of income, owning smaller livestock and land holdings were observed to get benefit from participation in the interventions on DFI made by the KVKs. Recognition and response to the heterogeneity treatment effect can help in optimizing resource allocation, enhancing programme effectiveness and maximizing the potential impact of the KVKs’ DFI initiatives. Agricultural diversification shifted to high value crops (e.g., like vegetables, dairying, etc.), has been crucial in enhancing income of DFI households.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aweke C S, Hassen J Y, Wordofa M G, Moges D K, Endris G S and Rorisa D T. 2021. Impact assessment of agricultural technologies on household food consumption and dietary diversity in eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 4(2021): 100141. https://doi/10.1016/j. jafr.2021.100141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100141

Card D and Krueger A B. 1994. Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review 84(4): 772–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w4509

JSTOR 2118030

Government of India. 2019. Agriculture Census (2015–16): All India report on number and area of operational holdings. Agriculture Census Division, Department of Agriculture, Co- operation and Farmers’ Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.

Jena A, Chander M and Bardhan D. 2022. Assessing the impact of training programmes for dairy farmers by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Farm Science Centre, India. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 32(6): 1569–579.

Kothari C R. 2004. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd edn. New Age International Publishers.

Kumar A, Singh A K, Saroj S, Madhavan Misha M and Joshi P K. 2019. The impact of India’s Farm Science Centers (Krishi Vigyan Kendras) on farm households’ economic welfare: Evidence from a National Farmers Survey. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01832. https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/api/collection/p15738coll2/id/133226/download

Hagos B G. 2016. Impact of agricultural technology adoption of small holder farmers on wheat yield: Empirical evidence from Southern Tigrai state of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 8(10): 211–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2016.0786

National Sample Survey. 2021. Situation assessment of agricultural households and land and holdings of households in rural India, 77th Round, 2019. National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.

Sarma P K. 2021. Adoption and impact of super granulated urea (guti urea) technology on farm productivity in Bangladesh: A Heckman two-stage model approach. Environmental Challenges. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100228 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100228

Singh S R K, Bardhan D and Raut A A. 2021. Reshaping agricultural economy in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh: Key indicators and future strategy. ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Zone IX, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, pp. 100.

Singhal S and Vatta L. 2017. Impact of Krishi Vigyan Kendra on adoption of improved agricultural production practices. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology 6(2): 993–1000.

Varadhan R and Seeger J D. 2013. Estimation and reporting of heterogeneity of treatment effects. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User's Guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, United States.

Submitted

2024-02-17

Published

2024-05-08

How to Cite

BARDHAN, D. ., SINGH, S. R. K. ., RAUT, A. A. ., SINGH, D. ., SINORIYA, P. ., & GAUTAM, U. S. . (2024). Agricultural diversification and enhancing farm income: Learning from grassroots. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 94(3-1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v94i3.148636
Citation