Perspectives of Stakeholders On Precision Farming PDF

PERSPECTIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS ON
PRECISION FARMING
By
S.R.PADMA, M.Sc.(Ag.)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY

CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
COIMBATORE – 641 003
2013
PERSPECTIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS ON PRECISION FARMING
Thesis submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore
S.R.PADMA, M.Sc (Ag.)

I.D. No. 10-604-003
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY

CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
COIMBATORE – 641 003
2013
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “PERSPECTIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS

ON PRECISION FARMING” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION to

the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, is a record of bonafide research work
carried out by Mrs. S.R.PADMA under my supervision and guidance and that no part of this
thesis has been submitted for the award of any degree, diploma, fellowship or other similar
titles. However, part of the thesis work has been published in peer reviewed scientific journal
of national/international repute (copy enclosed).
Place: Coimbatore Dr.T.RATHAKRISHNAN

Date : Chairman
Approved by
Chairman: (Dr.T.RATHAKRISHNAN)
Members: (Dr. V. RAVICHANDRAN)
(Dr. K.MANI)
(Dr. N.K.PRABHAKARAN)
External Examiner
Date:
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.
I INTRODUCTION
II THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Title
No. No.
1 List of independent and dependent variables and their measurement
procedure
2 Final Items selected to measure the attitude of farmers towards
Precision Farming
3 Age
4 Educational Status
5 Landholding Size
6 Area under Precision Farming
7 Experience in Precision Farming
8 Farming Experience
9 Irrigation Potentiality
10 Annual Income from Farming
11 Annual Income from Precision Farming
12 Orientation with Research Station
13 Participation in Research Station Activities
14 Innovativeness
15 Risk-bearing Ability
16 Extension Participation
17 Economic Motivation
18 Credit Orientation
19 Access to Credit Facilities
20 Leadership Potential
21 Leadership Potential Status
22 Employment Generation
23 Availability of Agro-inputs
24 Status of Availability of Agro inputs
Table Page
Title
No. No.
25 Attitude towards Precision Farming
26 Rotated component matrix of attitude of Precision Farmers towards
Precision Farming
27 Information Seeking Pattern
28 Information Sharing Pattern
29 Information Sharing Pattern Status
30 Decision Making Pattern
31 Overall status of Decision Making Pattern
32 Level of aspiration
33 Technological Utilization Pattern
34 Technological Utilization Pattern status
35 Intervention of Stakeholders as Perceived by the farmers
36 Perceived Effectiveness
37 Status of Perceived Effectiveness
38 Market Assessment and Assistance
39 Status of Market Assessment and Assistance
40 Activities of Precision Farmers Association
41 Status of Activities of Precision Farmers Association
42 Commodity Transportation
43 Status of Commodity Transportation
44 Market Infrastructure
45 Status of Market Infrastructure
46 Status of Market associated activities
47 Correlation and multiple regression analysis between the profile of
the sample and Technological Utilization Pattern
the sample and Perceived Effectiveness
Table Page
Title
No. No.
the sample and Market Assessment and Assistance
the sample and Activities of Precision Farmers Association
the sample and Commodity Transportation
the sample and Market Infrastructure
the sample and Market Associated Activities
54 Strengths of Precision Farming as perceived by farmers
55 Weaknesses of Precision Farming as perceived by farmers
56 Opportunities of Precision Farming as perceived by farmers
57 Challenges of Precision Farming as perceived by farmers
58 Intervention of stakeholders as perceived by them
59 Management Skills
60 Facilitating Skills
61 Rotated component matrix of Stakeholders skills
62 Analysis of Variance of Management skills
63 Analysis of Variance of Facilitation skills
64 Strengths of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders
65 Weaknesses of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders
66 Opportunities of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders
67 Challenges of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Title
No. No.
1&2 Map showing the study area
3 Conceptual Model
4 Orientation with Research Station
5 Participation of farmers in Research station activities
6 Extension Participation
7 Leadership potential
8 Employment Generation
9 Availability of agro inputs
10 Rating of availability of agro inputs
11 Prices of agro inputs
12 Reliability of agro inputs
13 Attitude towards Precision Farming
14 Information Seeking Pattern
15 Information sharing Pattern
16 Decision Making Pattern
17 Technological Utilization Pattern
18 Intervention of Stakeholders as Perceived by Farmers
19 Marketing Assessment & Assistance
20 Activities of Precision Farmers Association
21 Mode of transport
22 Availing transport facilities
23 Reliability of the conveyance
24 Place of disposal
25 Storage units
26 Need for Market Infrastructure
27 Cost of Market Infrastructure
28 Empirical Model
29 Strategies for strengthening Precision Farming
APPENDICES
Appendix
Details
No.
I. Judges opinion
II (A) Attitude Statements with Equal appearing Intervals , Scale values and Q values
II.(B) Selected Attitude Statements with Scale values and corresponding Q values
III Interview schedule
IV (A) District details-Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri
IV (B) District details- Erode
IV (C) District details-Coimbatore

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am much privileged to express very great appreciation to my chairman
Dr. T. Rathakrishnan, (Director Students Welfare) as a mentor for his valuable and
constructive suggestions during this research work. His willingness to give his time so
generously has been very much appreciated. What I learn from him is not just how to
proceed with a research problem and to write a thesis to meet the doctoral requirement,
but how to view this world from new perspective. The simple phrase “THANK YOU”
cannot tell how much his mentoring means to me.
I extend my profound thanks to Dr.V.Ravichandran, Professor (Agricultural

Extension), Dr. K. Mani, Professor (Agricultural Economics) and Dr.N.K.Prabhakaran,
Professor (Agronomy) for being the members of the advisory committee, extended their
support by placed confidence on my work by giving freehand with guidance and
suggestions as and when approached .
I gratefully acknowledge SHASTRI Indo Canadian Institute, New Delhi for

providing me the opportunity to work in the International collaborative Research Project
and particularly my heartfelt thanks to Dr. B.Prithiviraj, Associate Professor
(Environmental Science), NSAC campus, Dalhousie University, Canada and Canadian
Coordinator for the assistance granted and also the enthusiasm shown by him in the
progress of research.
I am very much privileged to learn from Dr.J. Vasanthakumar, Professor and

Head (Agricultural Extension), Annamalai University, Chitambaram for being the
discussant for the doctoral research proposal and consistently extended his research
expertise throughout my work and I owe a lot to him for this.
It is my pleasure to place on record the support and guidance extended by

Dr.H.Philip (Professor and Head, Training), Directorate of Extension Education, TNAU
during my research.
I wish to acknowledge the timely help provided by Mr. K. Prabaharan, Assistant

professor (Agricultural Statistics),AC&RI, Madurai and Dr. P. Sethuraman Sivakumar, Senior
Scientist(Extension and Social Sciences) Central Tuber Crops Research Institute,
Thiruvanathapuram, while performing the statistical analysis for this research.
I express my sincere thanks to Mr.M.Maruthachalam, Agricultural Supervisor, TNAU,

offered his time and helped a lot to design the models for the report preparation.
I extend my wholehearted thanks to the staff in Directorate of Students welfare for their
kindness and timely assistance at all times.
I offer my sincere appreciation for the learning opportunities attained in the due
course of study period and thank God for moulding me to pass over the tough times.
I would like to thank my family for all their love and encouragement and their
help at every stage of my personal and academic life, and longed to see this achievement
come true. I would like to offer my special thanks to my daughter S. Shamini for her
unconditional love and affection which drives me to move further.
Above all, I praise the Almighty God for granting me the wisdom, health and
strength to undertake this research task and enabling me to its completion.
(S R PADMA)
ABSTRACT
By
S. R. PADMA, M.Sc. (Ag.)
Degree : Doctor of Philosophy (Agriculture) in

Agricultural Extension
Chairman : Dr. T. RATHAKRISHNAN, Ph.D

Director Students Welfare
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Coimbatore-641 003
2013
The study entitled “Perspectives of Stakeholders on Precision Farming” aimed to

assess the technological utilisation pattern, perceived effectiveness, market associated
activities and stakeholders intervention in Precision Farming. Besides, an attitude scale was
developed to measure the attitude of farmers towards Precision Farming. Further, the study
focuses in identifying the associating and contributing variables towards the dependent
factors. SWOC on Precision Farming was also carried out as perceived by Precision
Farmers and Stakeholders.
Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri districts in the North western zones, Coimbatore and

Erode districts in Northern zones were the study area. Simple random sampling
procedure was followed to arrive 200 Precision Farming practitioners @ 25 from each
block thus covering eight blocks of four districts and 50 Stakeholders viz., Researchers/
Extension personnel, Input dealers, Drip marketers, Produce marketing personnel and
Agri clinics personnel @ 25 from each zone. The data were analyzed by using appropriate
statistical tools and presented logically. The salient findings of the study are given here under.
Majority of the sample (83 per cent) possessed medium level of experience in
farming followed by 16 per cent under low experienced category. Nearly two-thirds
(62.50 per cent) earned the income upto 4.5 lakhs. Upto 5.5 lakhs were earned by 16 per cent
of the total sample.
More than half of the sample recorded their moderately favourable attitude
towards Precision Farming. Joint decision was taken with the members of Precision
Farmers Association regarding association activities (56.50 per cent) and for obtaining
credit (43.50 per cent). Joint decision with stakeholders were taken while planning and
initiating the Precision Farming activities.
Moderate to high level technological utilisation was observed with more than
90 per cent of the sample. Except Remote Sensing Technology, the rest eight
technologies were adopted by the sample. Among them three technologies were followed
by cent per cent of the sample.
Researchers, Extension personnel, Officials of State Department of Agriculture,

Horticulture were frequently intervened in the PF activities as stated by 76 per cent of the
sample. Input dealers, Produce marketing personnel were occasionally intervened sources as
stated by more than 60 per cent. The intervention of drip marketers was rare (48 per cent).
Increased income was expressed by the majority of the sample (93.30 per cent).
They were able to increase their standard of living (72.50 per cent) and provided higher
education for their children(61.50 per cent). Got social recognition (70.50 per cent),
increased outside contact (44.50 per cent), increased sharing and consultation with fellow
farmers, become an effective communicator (37 per cent) and increased opportunities to
know about development activities (31 per cent) were the personal changes occurred
among the sample as a result of the adoption of Precision Farming.
Forecasting market price of commodities was from moderate to high level

(74.50 per cent) followed by market tie-up (66.00 percent), market trend and choice of
crops (51.50 per cent) and information on demand based production(47.50 per cent).
The association activities were good in the bulk Purchase of inputs (42.50 per cent),
Sharing of farm related information and Sharing of responsibilities to the tune of
38.00 per cent and 31.00 per cent. The availability of commodity transportation facilities
was moderate to high level (84.00 per cent) of the sample and the rest 16 percent found
under low level. Commercial markets (66.00 per cent) were the major source of disposal
of farm produce. Traditional market (45.00 per cent), to a certain extent mobile markets
were also exploited by the sample for marketing their produce.
Land holding size, area under Precision Farming, experience in Precision Farming ,
annual income from Farming , annual income from Precision Farming, innovativeness, risk
bearing ability, extension participation, credit orientation, leadership potential, attitude
towards Precision Farming, decision making pattern and level of aspiration were the
most contributing variables on the dependent variables.
The analysis on SWOC resulted with surface and ground water conservation,
uniform water distribution, economised use of water and decreased human health risks as
perceived strengths whereas selectivity in the usage of PF technologies, difficulty in
intercultural operations, no initiative for assessing in-field variation, damage of drip lines
by rats and rodents were the weaknesses.
Stakeholders possessed high level of strategic skills closely followed by

implementation skill, influencing skill and leadership skill whereas the personal factors was
observed to be low among the stakeholders. The stakeholders’ skill on presentation and
relationship were high and they were on par in those skills whereas the skills on learning
environment management and continuous learning attitude were almost in the same level.
High cost of water soluble fertilisers, under developed market infrastructure,

unstableness of government policies were the challenges articulated by the stakeholders.
The strategies formulated from the salient findings of the study such as strengthening
of Precision Farmers Association (PFA), stakeholders intervention, market tie-up with
agro inputs production units, developing market infrastructure and processing zones
would undoubtedly increase the livelihood security of the Precision Farm practitioners.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Precision Farming has been the buzzword of agricultural research around the
globe in recent times. It is based on the philosophy of heterogeneity within homogeneity and
requires precise information on the degree of variability within field management. The aim is
to vary the agricultural inputs in response to the varying conditions within the field.
The term "Precision Farming" (PF) means carefully tailoring the soil and crop
management to fit the different conditions found in each field. It is defined as the
application of technologies and principles to manage spatial and temporal variability
associated with all aspects of agricultural production (Pierce and Nowak, 1999). It is also
referred as “prescription farming", "site specific farming" or "variable rate technology.”
The various attempts that have been made to operationalise Precision Farming in
the West involve the use of intelligent devices like the yield mapper (comprising of a
harvester, yield measuring sensor and a Global Positioning System (GPS), Variable Rate
Technology (VRT) and the satellite imagery to supplement the information on the crop
variability at a good spatial resolution as well as temporal resolution. Geographic
Information System (GIS) integrates the information from all these devices, which
culminates into Precision Farming. This mapping and agricultural machinery are together
called the agricultural positioning system. In India also, there has been a lot of discussion
about the adoption of this novel technology. Precision Farming also features as one of the
main research agenda since the tenth five-year plan. But the question which needs to be
answered is the feasibility of such a technology in a developing country like India where
the average size of operational land holding is only 1.57 hectares and nearly 30 percent of
the population lives below the poverty line. The cost of full-fledged agricultural
positioning system is around ten to fifteen lakh rupees, which is too prohibitive for any
type of farmer in the country. Also there needs to be a substantially big landholding for
easy movement of big machinery, which is not the case. This ground reality makes the
scene just too dismal for any major development at least in the nearfuture.
Applications of agricultural inputs at uniform rates across the field without due
regard to in-field variations in soil fertility and crop conditions does not yield desirable
results in terms of crop yield. The management of in-field variability in soil fertility and
crop conditions for improving the crop production and minimizing the environmental
impact is the crux of Precision Farming. Thus, the information on spatial variability in
soil fertility status and crop conditions is a pre-requisite for adoption of Precision
Farming. Space technology including GPS and GIS holds good promise in deriving
information on soil attributes and crop yield, and allows monitoring seasonally- variable
soil and crop characteristics, namely soil moisture, crop phenology, growth, evapo
transpiration, nutrient deficiency, crop disease, weed and insect infestation, which, in
turn, help in optimizing inputs and maximizing crop yield and income.
By catering to this variability, called Precision Farming, one can improve the
productivity or reduce the cost of production and diminish the chance of environmental
degradation caused by excess use of inputs (Pierce and Nowak, 1999). Thus, mapping
and analysis of within field variability is an essential input for precision crop
management. Thus, PF involves acquiring the variations in crop or soil properties,
mapping, and analyzing the variations, adopting suitable management techniques to
maximize the yield. Farmers have been applying fertilizers based on recommendations
emanating from research and field trials under specific agro-climatic conditions, which
have been extrapolated to a regional level. Since soil nutrient characteristics vary not only
between regions and between farms but also from plot to plot (Ladha et al., 2000), and
within a field or plot, there is a need to take into account such variability while applying
fertilizers to a particular crop. Consideration of in-field/plot variations in soil fertility and
crop conditions and matching the agricultural inputs like seed, fertilizer, irrigation,
insecticide, pesticide, etc. in order to optimize the input or maximizing the crop yield
from a given quantum of input, is referred as Precision Farming or precision agriculture
or precision crop management.
The information for variability map can be obtained from soil tests for nutrient
availability, yield monitors for crop yield, soil samples for organic matter content,
information in soil maps, or ground conductivity meters for soil moisture (Mulla, 2000).
Generally, the fields are manually sampled along a regular grid and the analyzed results
of the samples are interpolated using geo statistical techniques. These techniques are time
consuming, labour intensive and in many cases destructive especially, for agricultural
situation in India. With small size of landholdings and low income of farmers, the
adoption of this methodology in its present form is not feasible.
PRECISION FARMING SYSTEM IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD
Farmers in developed countries typically own large farms (10-1000 ha or more)

and crop production systems are highly mechanized in most cases. Large farms may
comprise several fields in differing conditions. Even within a relatively small field (<30 ha),
the degree of pest infestation, disease infection and weed competition may differ from
one area to another.
In conventional agriculture, although a soil map of the region may exist, farmers
still tend to practise the same crop management throughout their fields; crop varieties,
land preparation, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are uniformly applied in spite of
variation. Optimum growth and development are thus not achieved; furthermore, there is
inefficient use of inputs and labour. The availability of information technology since the
1980‟s provides farmers with new tools and approaches to characterize the nature and extent
of variation in the fields, enabling them to develop the most appropriate management strategy
for a specific location, increasing the efficiency of input application.
During the last century, numerous changes have taken place in the major
components of agriculture, both in the positive as well as in negative direction. Over last
few decades, the impact of science and technology on society and ecosystem has
intensified the deterioration of the ecosystem, leading to depletion of biological
resources. The agriculture of the forties, which was eco-friendly, has now become fully
chemicalized with new farming technologies and commercialization of agriculture.
The advent of Precision Farming that occurred in the developed world about two
decades ago involved application of advanced and innovative technologies. Precision
Farming in developed countries continued in that direction and today it is more
sophisticated and complex than before. Interestingly, there are a number of definitions
and concepts that can be found in literature pertaining to Precision Farming. The one that
is most commonly cited and used by practitioners consists of several “R”s of Precision
Farming. Robert et al. (1994) proposed three “R”s, the Right time, the Right amount and
the Right place. Later, the International Plant Nutrition Institute added another “R” to
that list, “the Right Source”, and more recently, Khosla (2008) proposed an additional
“R”, the Right manner. For example, in precision nutrient management, “Right manner”,
refers to the method of placement of nutrient in the soil, (i.e.) broadcast versus banding,
dribbling, injecting, etc. The “right manner” aspect may not be very important for
agriculture practiced in the developed world, however, it is of great importance for global
precision farm practices.
The concept of “R”s does not mandate utilization of advanced technologies to

practice Precision Farming. While the scale of farming is certainly contrasting in the two
scenarios, both scenarios involved and implemented the “five R”s to identify and manage
spatial and temporal variability, and hence would fall under precision farm practices.
Much of the recent research particularly in precision nutrient management has

focused on the spatial and temporal aspects (i.e., right place and right time). Agricultural
industry has been proactive in providing the innovative tools to realize the spatial and
temporal management aspects of precision nutrient management.
There is no doubt that significant progress has been made in managing nutrients
more precisely across crop fields. However, there are still a number of challenges
associated with precision nutrition management. For the ease of understanding, these are
categorized on the basis of the four “R”s used in Precision Farming.
The right source
The right source of nutrient is not of grave concern since that has been identified
and established for a long time. However, in the dynamic world of precision nutrient
management, where the machine based decision is made in “real-time” it becomes
imperative that we must realize the limiting nutrient(s) and adequately address the need
with the correct source.
The right place
Since inception of precision agriculture “the right place” aspect has received the
most attention by scientists and practitioners. There are a number of sampling techniques
and designs that allow us to characterize and quantify the scale and pattern of spatial
variability in fields, such as grid soil sampling, site-specific management zones, smart
sampling, soil electrical conductivity measurements, etc. However, we still need an
economically feasible technique of quantifying the spatial variability in soil and crop
properties at a scale that exists in the heterogeneous fields.
The right time
Availability of „active remote-sensors” that can be mounted on high clearance

fertilizer applicators has coupled the technology of “mapping variability in the crop
canopy” and “variably applying fertilizer” simultaneously in “real-time”.
The right amount
After the advent of precision technologies, the right amount of nutrient to be

applied across spatially variable fields was initially accomplished by utilizing existing
nutrient recommendation algorithms developed by the research and academic institutions
/ Universities.
There are opportunities for adoption of precision farm techniques around the
globe. The form of precision practices may be different from one place to another place,
depending upon the creative mindset of farmers, practitioners, scientists and consultants
local to the area of interest.
In order to make sound management decisions good information is required. Precision

Farming is simply a way to employ powerful information tools to gather data, quickly analyze
this data, and develop a strategy that will help to meet the performance goals.
It is also important that a site-specific approach does not necessarily need to be a

high-tech approach. Each farmer should take the time to decide what Precision Farming
tools will work best for him or her. Both farmers and extension personnel must carefully
evaluate the potential of this technology before they decide for or against adoption.
Precision Farming is for decision makers within companies who need to stay on
top of farmers current and evolving needs, practices and expectations with respect to
adoption of Precision Farming. This includes:
 Companies who manufacture and / or market and provide advice on crop inputs,
including crop protection, fertilizer, seed.
 Precision Farming consultants
 Crop input retailers
 Equipment manufacturers
 Equipment dealers
 GPS and guidance technology manufacturers and marketers
 Companies who develop and / or market crop management software
 Manufacturers and marketers of remote sensing and imagery technology
 Any organization that needs to know farmers‟ current stage of adoption of
Precision Farming technology.
PRECISION FARMING PROCESS
Precision Farming process involves collecting accurate spatial data on crops, and
using this to manage a farming operation more efficiently, and hence more profitably.
One way of determining why yields vary is to take samples from the land in a 100m x 100m
grid pattern to test for nutrient levels, acidity and other factors. The results can then be
combined with the yield map to see if application levels need to be adjusted for more
effective yet more economical placement that produces higher crop yields. A simpler
approach to input management is to divide the field into high-, medium-, and low-yield
zones and take a sample from each. This is less time-consuming and costly than
grid-sampling, but does not, of course, provide as much detail (Joubert 2012).
PF is a process where a large field is divided into a finite number of sub-fields,

allowing variation of inputs in accordance with the data gathered. Ideally this will allow
maximization of return on investment, whilst minimizing the associated risks and
environmental damage.
There are number of factors which determine the yield of a particular crop on a
particular field, these are:
Weather (No control)
With a climate as variable and little predictability as to how the season will turn
out, the weather may have a profound impact on both quantity and quality of the yield.
Soil (Little or no control)
The farmer has only limited control over the soil, e.g. he cannot change the
inherent fertility of his soil such as the soil structure, water logging, but has some control
over fertility, which he can achieve.
Husbandry (Full control)
The farmer has full control over the husbandry of his crops. He can choose
whatever he prefers to plant on his field and how he prefers to treat the individual crops
for the conditions he may encounter. He has full control over the methods used, the
timing and efficiencies of application.
Plant (Full control)
The farmer has full control over his crop choices. He can choose a particular crop and
for a particular crop he also can choose a particular variety suited to his particular
circumstances. For a particular crop he can also choose row spacing and intra row spacing.
COMPONENTS OF PRECISION FARMING
A) Information or Database
1. Soil : Soil texture, Structure, Physical condition, Soil moisture; Soil nutrients, etc.
2. Crop: Plant Population; Crop Tissue Nutrient Status, Crop Stress, Weed patches
(weed type and intensity); Insect or fungal infestation (species and intensity),
Crop Yield, Harvest etc.
3. Climate : Temperature, humidity, rainfall, solar radiation, wind velocity, etc.
In-fields variability, spatially or temporally, in soil-related properties, crop
characteristics, weed and insect-pest population and harvest data are important
databases that need to be developed to realize the potential of Precision
Farming.(Subrata et al., 2013)
B) Technology
1. Remote Sensing
2. GIS
3. DGPS
4. Variable rate Applicator
1. Remote Sensing (RS)
This is for Data acquisition of the farms to find the soil, vegetation and other
parameters that are amenable for remote sensing. Remote sensing techniques play an
important role in Precision Farming by providing continuous acquired data of agricultural
crops. Remote sensors image vegetation, which is growing on different soil types with
different water availability, substrate, impact of cultivation, and relief. These differences
influence the state of the plants and cause heterogeneous regions within single fields.
Hence, the heterogeneous vegetation acts as an interface between soil and remote sensing
information, because vegetation parameters describing the state of the plants can be
deduced from remote sensing imagery. The analysis of the variability occurring within
the field was carried out by measuring soil and plant parameters through conventional
methods as well as through spectral techniques using ground truth spectro radio meter
(350-1800 nm) and satellite data.
2. Information System (GIS)
The Geographic Information System (GIS) contributes significantly to Precision

Farming by allowing presentation of spatial data in the form of a map. In addition, GIS
forms an ideal platform for the storage and management of model input data and the
presentation of model results, which the process model provides.
3. Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)
„Do the right thing, in the right place and in right time’ This is where GPS
comes into picture. In addition, the accuracy, which is the important factor in PF,
demands for DGPS (Differential Global Positioning System). GPS makes use of a series
of military satellites that identify the location of farm equipment within a meter of an
actual site in the field. The value of knowing a precise location within inches is that:
1. Locations of soil samples and the laboratory results can be compared to a soil map,
2. Fertilizer and pesticides can be prescribed to fit soil properties (clay and organic
matter content) and soil conditions (relief and drainage),
3. Tillage adjustments can be made as one finds various conditions across the field, and
4. One can monitor and record yield data as one goes across the field.
The Global Positioning System (GPS) technology provides accurate positioning

system necessary for field implementation of variable rate technology (VRT).
The Internet makes possible the development of a mechanism for effective farm
management using remote sensing.
4. Variable Rate Applicator
The variable rate applicator has three components:
1. Control computer
2. Locator and
3. Actuator
The control computer coordinates the field operation. It has a map of desired
activity as a function of geographic location. It receives the equipment‟s current location
from the locator, which has a GPS in it, and decides what to do based upon the map in its
memory or data storage. It then issues the command to the actuator, which does the input
application (Ravi and Jagadeesha, 2002).
STEPS IN PRECISION FARMING
I. Identification and Assessment of Variability
a) Grid soil sampling
Grid soil sampling uses the same principles of soil sampling but increases the
intensity of sampling compared to the traditional sampling. Soil samples collected in a
systematic grid also have location information that allows the data to be mapped.
The goal of grid soil sampling is to generate a map of nutrient/water requirement, called
an application map.
b) Yield map
Yield mapping is the first step to determine the precise locations of the highest
and lowest yield areas of the field, and to analyze the factors causing yield variation.
One way to determine yields map, is to take samples from the land in a 100m x 100m
grid pattern to test for nutrient levels, acidity and other factors. The results can then be
combined with the yield map to see if application levels need to be adjusted for more
effective yet more economical placement that produces higher crop yields.(Joubert, 2012)
c) Crop scouting
In-season observations of crop conditions like weed patches (weed type and
intensity); insect or fungal infestation (species and intensity); crop tissue nutrient status; also
can be helpful later when explaining variations in yield maps.
d) Use of precision technologies for assessing variability
Faster and in real time assessment of variability is possible only through advanced
tools of precision agriculture.
II. Management of Variability
a) Variable rate application
Grid soil samples are analyzed in the laboratory, and an interpretation of crop
input (nutrient/water) needs is made for each soil sample. Then the input application map
is plotted using the entire set of soil samples. The input application map is loaded into a
computer mounted on a variable-rate input applicator. The computer uses the input
application map and a GPS receiver to direct a product-delivery controller that changes
the amount and/or kind of input (fertilizer/water), according to the application map.
b) Yield monitoring and mapping
Yield measurements are essential for making sound management decisions.

However, soil, landscape and other environmental factors should also be weighed when
interpreting a yield map. Used properly, yield information provides important feedback in
determining the effects of managed inputs such as fertilizer amendments, seed, pesticides
and cultural practices including tillage and irrigation. Since yield measurements from a
single year may be heavily influenced by weather, it is always advisable to examine yield
data of several years including data from extreme weather years that helps in pinpointing
whether the observed yields are due to management or climate induced.
c) Quantifying on farm variability
Every farm presents a unique management puzzle. Not all the tools described
above will help determine the causes of variability in a field, and it would be
cost-prohibitive to implement all of them immediately. An incremental approach is a
wiser strategy, using one or two of the tools at a time and carefully evaluating the results
and then proceeding further.
d) Flexibility
All farms can be managed precisely. Small-scale farmers often have highly detailed
knowledge of their lands based on personal observations and could already be modifying
their management accordingly. Appropriate technologies here might make this task easier or
more efficient. Larger farmers may find the more advanced technologies necessary to collect
and properly analyze data for better management decisions (Joubert, 2012).
INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
“Agriculture is the backbone of the Indian Economy”- said Mahatma Gandhi

five decades ago. Even today, as we enter the new millennium, the situation is still the
same, with almost the entire economy being sustained by agriculture, which is the
mainstay of the villages. Not only the economy, but also every one of us looks up to
agriculture for our sustenance too. Therefore, it is no surprise if agriculture gets the
celebrity status in the name of Precision Farming (PF). In recent times, the researchers in
the field have been busy in formulating methodologies and fabricating new implements
for Precision Farming. It is here the challenge arises considering the implementation of
the technology at various levels in the Global community. The need of the hour is not
application of the technology but the utilization of appropriate technology, which would
suit the particular level of the global community. In India, the farming practices are too
haphazard and non-scientific and hence need some forethought before implementing any
new technology.
The green revolution has not only increased productivity, but it has also several
negative ecological consequences such as depletion of lands, decline in soil fertility, soil
salinization, soil erosion, deterioration of environment, health hazards, poor sustainability
of agricultural lands and degradation of biodiversity. Indiscriminate use of pesticides,
irrigation and imbalanced fertilization has threatened sustainability.
On the other hand, issues like declining use efficiency of inputs and dwindling
output–input ratio have rendered crop production less remunerative. According to
Consultative Group on International Agricultural research (CGIAR), „Sustainable
agriculture is the successful management of resources to satisfy the changing human
needs, while maintaining or enhancing the quality of environmental and conserving
natural resources‟.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, ‘everything can wait but not the agriculture’.
Therefore, agricultural research seeks the generation of new technologies to reorient the
current and future needs and constraints. The new technology should be highly
productive, cost-effective and ecologically sustainable. In the present context,
maintenance of ecological balances through precise and site-specific management is most
desirable. Planners have long recognized that an accurate and timely crop production
forecasting system is essential for strengthening the food security.
Precision Farming (PF) can be classified into two categories, namely 'soft' and
'hard' PF. 'Soft' PF mainly depends on visual observation of crop and soil and
management decision based on experience and intuition, rather than statistical and
scientific analysis. Whereas 'hard' PF utilizes all modern technologies like GPS, RS,
VRT etc. (Nowak, 1997).
In future, agriculture will face formidable challenges to provide adequate nutrition

for people. Therefore, it is the right time to take decisions, how to increase agricultural
productivity, as the developing countries have the lowest productivity for most of the
food crops. It is obvious that unless the latest tools of science and technology are applied
for sustainable and equitable distribution of natural resources of our country, poverty and
hunger will persist. The new technology may be able to harness several newer
possibilities in managing the farm sector precisely.
These vignettes are not science fiction, but real, and developed countries reaped
benefits from it. These technologies should be used to complement the traditional
methods for enhancing productivity and quality, rather than to replace conventional
methods. In the light of today‟s urgent need, there should be an all out effort to use new
technological inputs for the development of our society, as well as to make the ‘Green
Revolution’ an ‘Evergreen Revolution’. Now what we require is the development of a
symbiotic relationship between man and nature to harmonize the ecological balance.
Land fragmentation is considered as main obstacle for large scale agricultural

mechanization in India. But these fragmented lands are cultivated in family responsibility
system and all small farmers followed consciously or unconsciously 'soft' PA technology
for centuries. By huge adoption of High Yielding Variety (HYV) crops, India at present
producing nearly 200 MT of food grain which made India self sufficient in food
production. But only quantity cannot meet the need of globalized agricultural market.
Quality as well as productivity will be key factor to compete with others.
The concept of PF may be appropriate to solve these problems, though it looks

unsuitable to Indian conditions; but it is not impossible to adopt. Research efforts are
needed to find out its applicability in the Indian agricultural scenario.
PRECISION FARMING SYSTEM IN INDIA
Whether Precision Farming is feasible for small-scale farms is a leading issue for
agricultural scientists and politicians. It should be noted that Precision Farming is
characterized by variable management. A key point in Precision Farming is understanding
variability in the field. There are at least two types of variability. One is within-field
variability; the other is between-field or regional variability. Within-field variability
focuses on a single field, and the one plant variety being cultivated. Between-field
variability considers each field as a unit on a map. Although various researcher has been
studied the PF adoptability in large agriculture farms, but the application in small farms is
also gaining importance. Asian country like India, Sri Lanka, China, Korea, Bangladesh
and others where the average land holding is less than 4 ha, substantial improvements
takes place towards the adoptability of PF. Indian Agriculture is characterized by small
and marginal operational holdings. About 85% of total cultivated land has been
fragmented into less than 10-hectare land. About 60% of farmland is less than 4 hectare
in size. The average size of land holdings is very small (less than 4 hectares) and is
subject to fragmentation due to land ceiling acts, and in some cases, family disputes.
Such small holdings are often over-manned, resulting in disguised unemployment and
low productivity of labour. Some reports claim smallholder farming may not because of
poor productivity, since the productivity is higher in China and many developing
economies even though China smallholder farmers constitute over 97 percent of its
farming population (FICCI, 2012). Chinese smallholder farmer is able to rent his land to
larger farmers, China's organized retail and extensive Chinese highways are able to
provide the incentive and infrastructure necessary to its farmers for sharp increases in
farm productivity. Adoption of modern agricultural practices and use of technology is
inadequate, hampered by ignorance of such practices, high costs and impracticality in the
case of small land holdings.
The general perception is that PF cannot be applied for small-scale farms of

developing countries. If only „hard PF‟ is considered, this concept is true. Searching for
the „„appropriate Precision Agriculture (PA) technology‟‟ for small farms is a real
challenge faced by scientists and engineers. A number of options for the application of
the PF philosophy in these countries have been discussed by Cook et al. (2003). PF can
be implemented through improved agronomic decision making on the same spatial scale
by increasing the number of decisions per unit time and by using some DSS tool.
(Mcbratney et al., 2005). The old saying „„Better information gives better decisions” is
very true for GIS. GIS is currently being adapted for use on small Asian farms, in Japan,
the Republic of Korea and in the Taiwan Province of China, where government programs
are developing the use of web-based GIS systems. The concept is to encourage farmers to
use the Internet and to obtain free information on the soil properties of their farms,
including soil fertility and nutrient levels. In Indonesia, GIS is being used to re-evaluate
appropriate agricultural land use. The system can be used to identify which areas are
suitable for arable land, and it is also used to identify the best crop for a particular region
(Mondal Pinaki, 2009)
Steps to be taken for implementing Precision Farming in India
In the present existing situation, the potential of Precision Farming in India is

limited by the lack of appropriate measurement and analysis techniques for
agronomically important factors (National Research Council, 1997). High accuracy
sensing and data management tools must be developed and validated to support both
research and production. The limitation in data quality/availability has become a major
obstacle in the demonstration and adoption of the precision technologies. The adoption of
Precision Farming needs combined efforts on behalf of scientists, farmers and the
government. The following methodology could be adopted in order to operationalise
Precision Farming in the country.
1. Creation of multidisciplinary teams involving agricultural scientists in various

fields, engineers, manufacturers and economists to study the overall scope of
Precision Farming.
2. Formation of farmer‟s co-operatives since many of the Precision Farming tools

are costly (GIS, GPS, RS, etc.).
3. Government legislation restraining farmers using indiscriminate farm inputs and

thereby causing ecological/environmental imbalance would induce the farmer to
go for alternative approach.
4. Pilot study should be conducted on farmer‟s field to show the effectiveness of

Precision Farming.
5. Creating awareness amongst farmers about consequences of applying imbalanced

doses of farm inputs like irrigation, fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides.
The next step would be to generate detailed-level information on soil resources

addressing potentials and limitations of individual fields except for states like Punjab,
Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra where fields size is quite large, practically
individual field could be treated as a homogenous management unit for the purpose of
precision farming.
Precision Farming is undoubtedly relevant to Indian agriculture in the context of

improving agricultural production and Stakeholders income and minimizing environmental
impact. Geo information technology offers immense potential for deriving information on
soil fertility, crop conditions and crop yield, crop simulation models enable estimating
potential crop yield and the decision support system to facilitate developing appropriate
prescription for improving crop production while minimizing the cost of inputs.
Agriculture has continued to be the cornerstone of Indian economy. In the years to

come, Precision Farming may help the Indian farmers to harvest the fruits of frontier
technologies without compromising the quality of land and produce. The adoption of
such a novel technique would trigger a techno-green revolution in India which the need
of the hour.
Commercialization of Precision Farming
Any technological development does not provide a total solution for the user until
and unless it is commercialized for extensive use as a service mode. The interest in PF
and its introduction has resulted in a gap between the technological capabilities and
scientific understanding of the relationship between the input supplies and output
products. Development of PF has been largely market- driven, but its future growth needs
collaboration between private and public sectors. The private sector has to take up the
responsibility of market development, product credibility and customer satisfaction
whereas, the public sector needs to coordinate the activities involved in developing and
implementing PF, by providing support programmes to achieve the objectives.
Linkages between government, university and corporate sectors are essential to

facilitate the transfer and acceptance of technology by end-users. The potential of this
technology has already been demonstrated, but in practice, meaningful delivery is
difficult as it needs large scale commercial application to realize the benefits.
Benefits to farmers
Precision Farming (PF) covers a research area with goals to optimize agricultural
production systems in both time and spatial dimensions. The concept of PF technologies
has been proposed as a solution to manage spatial and temporal variability to more
efficiently apply agricultural inputs for the purpose of improving crop performance and
environmental quality.
In practice, PF changes the way a farmer works:
 Fruit yields are not only harvested but also mapped using a combination of
sensors, digital photography techniques, and Differential Global Positioning
System (DGPS) /Geographic Information System (GIS).
 Soil sensing systems provide information on the variability in soil productivity status.
 Crop sensing technology provides information about canopy characteristics.
 Fertilizers are allocated more efficiently by exploiting spatial variations in soil

fertility levels according to local demand.
 Agrochemicals can be sprayed site-specifically on as-needed basis.
 New techniques, such as Variable Rate Technologies (VRT) including sprayers,

spreaders, sensors, controllers, Electro Magnetic Induction (EMI) method, DGPS,
GIS, ultrasonic sensor systems, remote sensing, etc., can be used.
 Information technology supports decision making in the field based on the

information collected via PF technologies.
Practical problems in Indian agriculture
Precision Farming has been mostly confined to developed countries. Reasons of

limitations while implementation in developing countries like India are:
a. Small land holdings,
b. Heterogeneity of cropping systems and market imperfections,
c. Lack of technical expertise knowledge and technology (India spends only 0.3% of
its agricultural Gross Domestic Product in Research and Development)
d. High cost.
In India, major problem is the small field size. More than 58 percent of
operational holdings in the country have size less than 1ha. Only in the states of Punjab,
Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat more than 20 per cent of agricultural lands have operational
holding size of more than four hectare. There is a scope of implementing Precision Farming for
crops like, rice and wheat especially in the states of Punjab and Haryana. Commercial as well
as Horticultural crops shows a wider scope for Precision Farming.
In India, broadly two types of agriculture viz., high input agriculture characterized
by the provision of assured irrigation and other agricultural inputs, and subsistence
farming, which is confined mostly to rain-fed, or dry land regions, are prevalent. Nearly
two-third arable land in India is rain-fed. The crop yields are very low (1 t /ha) and very
good potential exists for increasing productivity of rain-fed Cropping systems.
Adoption of Precision Farming technologies - A strategic approach
The plan of getting involved into Precision Farming should be approached in a

holistic and futuristic way, thereby necessitating the strategic approach. Farmers
considering venturing into the world of Precision Farming have to shift their management
levels to a higher level of sophistication to be able to use the information available, and
approach the technology strategically. This strategic approach entails an 11 step process
that farmers or potential adopters have to engage in as an approach to analyse the suitable
technology for a particular farming situation.
This provides insight knowledge into the farming operation, in terms of physical,
technical, economical and financial capabilities. Opportunities, threats, strengths and
weaknesses of the business can thus be identified, and the intervention role of Precision
Farming in reducing threats or exploiting opportunities can be determined. The strategic
approach as proposed by Nell and Napier (2005) will involve the evaluation of the
mission, vision, values and culture of the farming operation. Secondly, critical analysis of
the external environment, the macro as well as the business will be conducted. This is
followed by strategic analysis and identification of competitive advantage. Long-term
goals will then be considered, as well as the main strategy that will ensure the realisation
of the long-term goals. Short-term goals that are aligned to the long-term goals, and the
corresponding functional tactics for their implementation will follow. Policies necessary
for the implementation, the implementation process, and control of the implementation
will conclude this strategic process.
Thus, Precision Farming has taken "agriculture into the space age". Farmers have
services available that involve satellites collecting data, transmitting location information,
or providing data from a variety of sources. Farmers can analyze this satellite information
or they can rely on companies to do this service for them for a fee.
Though widely adopted in developed countries, the adoption of Precision Farming
in India is yet to take a firm ground primarily due to its unique pattern of land holdings,
poor infrastructure, lack of farmers‟ inclination to take risk, socio-economic and
demographic conditions.
The Government is focusing on scientific approaches such as promotion of crop

diversification, intercropping, adoption of Integrated Farming System, improving water
holding capacity of the sub basins, adoption of System of Rice Intensification, promotion
of Precision Farming and micro Irrigation etc., to improve the Water Use Efficiency and
double the production and triple the income of the small, marginal farmers.
In Tamil Nadu, Precision Farming is being successfully implemented from 2008

onwards. It is seen that there is a spectacular increase in productivity (to the tune of 30%
to 50% increase) due to adoption of high yielding / hybrid seeds, Micro Irrigation and
fertigation in vegetables, turmeric and banana. This component has received great
response from farmers, and during 2011-2012, it was implemented at an expenditure of
600.18 lakhs covering 2858 Ha with 50% subsidy limited to 20,000 per Ha. During 2012-13,
PF was implemented in 6000 Ha at an outlay of 1260 lakhs with a cafeteria of
technologies such as appropriate cropping systems, transplantation of seedlings in
irrigated millets, promotion of micro irrigation and Precision Farming in millets
especially maize, use of farm machineries such as chisel plough, etc., were advocated for
intensifying millets cultivation to increase the production and productivity of millets.
Also to enhance the crop productivity and to improve the livelihood of the dry
land farmers, adoption of Precision Farming technologies viz., summer ploughing,
compartmental bunding, broad bed furrow, sowing with the seed drill, intercultural
operation, seed hardening and seed treatment, micronutrient etc., were recommended.
Tamil Nadu Precision Farming Project is a State sponsored mega demo project
implemented through Turn Key mode has also spread over to 53,885 ha. Doubling of
crop yield and high quality of farm output has created a revolution in vegetable cultivation.
The state government initiatives towards targeted production and income of

farmers could only be envisaged with the dedicated involvement and intervention of
stakeholders in all the activities of Precision Farming programmes. If this is achieved,
will be exhibited through the major components like, utilisation of technologies and
Analysis of SWOC on PF. The situation narrated hitherto at all levels bearing in mind,
this research was performed with the following specific objectives in the Western and
North Western zones of Tamilnadu.
Specific objectives
1. To study the socio-psychological determinants of the Precision Farm

practitioners.
2. To assess the Technological Utilization Pattern of Precision Farm practitioners.

3. To analyse the effectiveness of Precision Farming as perceived by the
Precision Farm practitioners.
4. To study the market associated activities performed by the practitioners of
Precision Farming.
5. To analyse the intervention of stakeholders viz., Researchers/ Extension
personnel, Input Dealers, Drip Marketers, Produce Marketing Personnel,
and Agri Clinics consultants in Precision Farming.
6. SWOC on Precision Farming as perceived by farmers and stakeholders.
Scope and importance of the study
This study focuses on the technological utilisation pattern, perceived effectiveness,

market associated activities and stakeholders intervention in Precision Farming in the
Western and North western zones of Tamil Nadu. The study also attempted to analyse the
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges (SWOC) of Precision Farming as
perceived by precision farm practitioners and the stakeholders involved in this activity.
The findings emerge from the investigation will show the extent of utilisation of
Precision Farming technologies and the constructive contribution made through the
intervention of stakeholders who are the active as well as passive actors in this approach.
Further, the SWOC analysis on Precision Farming, will give a comprehensive idea for
further strengthening of PF activities. The results as a whole will help to the planners,
administrators and policy makers in formulating appropriate strategies to promote this
approach throughout the state in all crops.
The outcome of this research will also serve as an input in formulating new
research areas and to device appropriate extension strategies to motivate the farming
community and make conviction on this Site Specific Crop Management Technology.
Limitations of the Study
The main focus of the study was the intervention of stakeholders in promoting the
Precision Farming activities. They are occupying various hierarchical cadres of different
sectors including the extension personnel of State Department of Agriculture,
Horticulture, Agricultural Marketing. As the personnel had been engaged in multifacet
activities of their areas concerned and on mobility throughout their jurisdiction, the
researcher found it difficult to meet and organise them under one umbrella for
stakeholders meet on a specified date in a specified time.
Also the practitioners were busily engaged in farm and market activities throughout the
day, the researcher experienced constraints in the data collection process. The members of
Precision Farmers Association (PFA) used to meet in a specific day after 7 pm in any one of
the members home in the village. It is an another hardship encountered during the research.
The researcher covered two major agro climatic zones with a possible number of
farmers and other stakeholders despite, the findings stands good for further spread of the
technology in other zones of Tamil Nadu.
In spite of these limitations, every effort was made by the researcher to keep this
study as objective as possible by deliberately following all the principles of scientific
research.
Organization of the study
The study is organized under the following five chapters:
Chapter I : Introduction – Explains the importance of the topic, objectives, scope

and limitations of the study.
Chapter II : Theoretical orientation – Deals with the theoretical background of

the concepts covered in the study and the results of the researches
conducted in the similar line.
Chapter III : Research Methodology – Describes the study area, the research
design, the sampling design, selection and measurement of variables,
tools for data collection and statistical tools used.
Chapter IV : Findings and discussion – Deals with the interpretation of the results
with relevant discussion to draw specific meaningful inferences.
Chapter V : Summary and conclusion – Briefly summarises the activities

performed and highlights of the findings. Draws the implications in
line with the outcome of the research.
Glossary of some Precision Farming terms
Application map - Map that shows the different application rates over a field.
The variable rate controller to meter out the appropriate chemicals uses the application map.
GIS (Geographic Information Systems) - Software that imports, exports, and processes
data that are spatially and temporally distributed.
GPS (Global Positioning Systems) - A set of 24 satellites in earth orbit that send out
radio signals that can be processed by a ground receiver to determine the receiver‟s
position on earth.
Grid sampling - A method of breaking a field into square grids that generally range from
1 to 2.5 acres, and sampling soils within those grids to determine appropriate application rates.
Management zone – A sub-field area defined by some common characteristic or set of

characteristics such as soil type.
“On-the-go” sensing - Sensors that measure soil, plant, or pest properties as the tractor
travels over the field.
Precision Farming - Farm management strategy, which utilizes precise information and
information gathering technology to increase profit and reduce environmental impact.
Remote sensing - A sensor that measures the characteristics of a field (soil or plant)
without having contact with the characteristic being sensed (includes aerial photographs,
satellite imaging, and other non-intrusive sensing methods).
Spatial resolution - The spacing between points in a field, such as the spacing between
soil sampling points. The closer the points are to one another, the higher the spatial resolution.
VRT (Variable Rate Technology) – Application equipment that includes the controllers
used to vary fertilizer, pesticide and lime outputs as prescribed by an application map or
the measurement made by an “on-the-go” sensor.
Yield map - Map created using yield monitor and GPS data to reveal the spatial variation
in yield within a field.
Yield monitor - A device on harvesting equipment used to measure crop yield and field
position during harvest.
Abbreviations used in this study
CGIAR-Consultative Group on International Agricultural research
DGPS-Differential Global Positioning System
EMI- Electro Magnetic Induction
FICCI-Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
GIS- Geographic Information System
GPS- Global Positioning System
HYV-High Yielding Variety
PA- Precision Agriculture
PF- Precision Farming
PFA-Precision Farmers Association
RS- Remote Sensing
SDSS- Spatial Decision Support Systems
SWOC-Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges
TNPFP- Tamil Nadu Precision Farming Project
VRT-Variable Rate Technology

CHAPTER II
THEORITICAL ORIENTATION
A well defined theoretical framework on the topic under investigation would
provide a deep insight into the subject which is inevitable for rigorously performing the
research study. Review of literature helps to acquire broad and general background in the
given field of discipline. An acquaintance with earlier pertinent studies has been felt
necessary to develop good understanding to the research study and to formulate
appropriate research methodology. The systematic presentation of the relevant aspects
drawn from various literatures not only provides strong base for the empirical
investigation but also facilitates to arrive at a proper understanding of the different
components of the problem under study. Keeping in view the objectives of the study, an
attempt was made to review the literature which had meaningful relation to the study and
are presented under the following sub heads.
2.1 Precision Farming conceptualisation
2.2 Profile of the Precision Farming practitioners
2.3 Technological Utilization Pattern of Precision Farmers
2.4 Perceived effectiveness on Precision Farming
2.5 Market associated Activities of the Precision Farm practitioners
2.6 Relationship of profile of precision farm practitioners with Technological

Utilization Pattern
2.7 SWOC on Precision Farming
2.8 Stakeholders intervention in Precision Farming
2.1 PRECISION FARMING CONCEPTUALISATION
The term “Precision Farming” describes the integration of geographic information

system (GIS) and global positioning system (GPS) tools, to provide extensive and detailed
information on crop growth, health, and yield, as well as water absorption, nutrient levels,
topography and soil variability. This information provides mechanisms to manage areas
within fields differently, according to soil and crop characteristics (Blackmore,1994).
Conventional agronomic practices follow a standard management option for a
large area, irrespective of the variability occurring among and within fields. For decades
now, farmers have been applying fertilizers according to recommendations from research
and field trials under specific agro-climatic conditions. Soil-nutrient, characteristics vary
not only from one region to another, but also from field to field (Ladha et al., 2000).
Even within a field, there is a need to take into account such variability while applying
fertilizers to a particular crop. Optimizing the input or maximizing the crop yield from a
given quantum of input is referred to as Precision Farming, Precision Agriculture, or
Precision Crop Management.
Precision agriculture is a comprehensive approach to farm management, and has

the goals and outcomes of increased profitability and sustainability, improved product
quality, effective and efficient pest management, energy, water and soil conservation,
surface and ground water protection (Grisso et al., 2002), reduced costs, erosion, and
environmental impact of chemicals, and the better management of large farms
(Blackmore et al., 2004).
From the farmersʼ perspective, precision agriculture is primarily driven by

economic return, but, in many cases, site-specific management also provides a positive
environmental impact. Soil and water quality can benefit from reduced or targeted
application of input such as nutrients, pesticides, and irrigation water. When used to
precisely control where equipment travels in a field, precision agriculture can also reduce
soil compaction and erosion (Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2004).
Precision Farming (PF) refers to a suite of technologies (Yield monitor, Geographical

Positioning System (GPS), Variable Rate Applicator (VRT) and Geographical Information
System (GIS) which promote improved management of agricultural production by
accounting for variations in crop performance in space. Also sometimes called “Precision
Farming”, “Site-Specific Management” or “Information-Intensive Farming”.
2.1.1 Definitions of Precision Farming
The National Research Council (1997) defines precision agriculture as “a

management strategy that uses information technologies to bring data from multiple
sources to bear on decisions associated with crop production”.
Arnholt et al (2001) defined Precision Farming is an emerging technology with
substantial promise to aid both farmers and society. It is an information technology that
allows the manager to apply inputs based on the specific conditions found at each site
with in a field.
According to Grisso et al. (2002) Precision Farming is a comprehensive approach to

farm management and has the following goals and outcomes, increased profitability and
sustainability, improved product quality, effective and efficient pest management, energy,
water and soil conservation, and surface and ground water protection.
Sukumar (2003) stated that Precision Farming is the system of matching of

resource application and agronomic practices with soil attributes and crop requirements
since they vary across a field.
Sanjay Arora (2005) opined that precision agriculture can address both economic
and environmental issues that surround production agriculture today. It is clear that many
farmers are at a sufficient level of management that they can benefit for precision
management.
As observed by Harshal et al. (2006) Precision Farming is a form of agriculture

where site specific management practices are adopted giving due considerations to the
spatial variability of land in order to maximize crop production and minimize the
environmental damage.
2.1.2 Precision Farming System (PFS)
Precision Farming System (PFS) is based on the recognition of spatial and

temporal variability in crop production. Variability is accounted for in farm management
with the aim of increasing productivity and reducing environmental risks. In developed
countries, farms are often large (sometimes 1000 ha or more) and comprise several fields.
The spatial variability in large farms, therefore, has two components: within-field
variability and between-field variability.
The PFS within a field is also referred to as Site-Specific Crop Management

(SSCM). According to the Second International Conference on Site-Specific Management
for Agricultural Systems, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in March 1994, SSCM refers
to a developing agricultural management system that promotes variable management practices
within a field according to site or soil conditions (National Research Council, 1997). The
application of exact quantities at the appropriate time reduces the cost of agrochemical
inputs in crop production. However, according to Batte and VanBuren (1999), SSCM is
not a single technology, but an integration of technologies permitting:
 collection of data on an appropriate scale at a suitable time

 interpretation and analysis of data to support a range of management
decisions
 implementation of a management response on an appropriate scale and a
suitable time.
In a study of PFS in developed countries, Segarra (2002) highlights some of the

advantages to farmers:
• Overall yield increase
The precise selection of crop varieties, the application of exact types and doses of
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and appropriate irrigation meet the demands of
crops for optimum growth and development. This leads to yield increase, especially in
areas or fields where uniform crop management practices were traditionally practised.
•Efficiency improvement
Advanced technologies, including machinery, tools and information, help farmers

to increase the efficiency of labour, land and time in farming. In the United States, a mere
2 hours are sufficient to grow 1 ha of wheat or maize.
• Reduced production costs
The overall high yield reduces the cost per unit of output.
• Better decision-making in agricultural management
Agricultural machinery, equipment and tools help farmers acquire accurate

information, which is processed and analysed for appropriate decision making in land
preparation, seeding, fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide application, irrigation and
drainage, and post-production activities.
• Reduced environmental impact
The timely application of agrochemicals at an accurate rate avoids excessive

residue in soils and water and thus reduces environmental pollution.
• Accumulation of farmers’ knowledge for better management with time
All PFS field activities produce valuable field and management information and
the data are stored in tools and computers. Farmers can thus accumulate knowledge about
their farms and production systems to achieve better management.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
2.2 PROFILE OF PRECISION FARM PRACTITIONERS
2.2.1 Age
Darren Hudson and Diane Hite (2001) found that average age of Precision
Farming beneficiaries were 42 to 50 years.
Batte et al. (2003) revealed that average age of Precision Farming beneficiaries
were 55 years and 3.5 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries were under 35
years of age followed by 18 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries were under
the age category of 65 years.
The study of Mankai (2005) revealed that 36.00 per cent of vegetable growers
were belonged to middle age category followed by old age (35.00 per cent) and young
age categories (29.00 per cent).
Floralavanya (2007) indicated that 50.00 per cent of drip users belonged to old age
category, which was higher than the non-adopters (26.60 per cent) of drip irrigation.
There were 41.70 per cent of adopters who belonged to middle age category where as
63.40 per cent of non-adopters were belonged to the same category. Five per cent of adopters
belonged to young age category that were less than the non- adopters (10.00 per cent).
Sudha (2008) reported that 52.50 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
were found in the old aged category followed by 33.30 per cent in middle aged category
and only 14.20 per cent in young age category.
Thangaraja (2008) reported that 56.67 per cent of the Precision Farming
beneficiaries were found in the old aged category followed by 34.44 per cent in middle
and only 8.89 per cent comes under young age category.
Rakesh (2010) indicated that 48.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
were found in the middle aged category followed by 35.30 per cent in the old age
category and only 16.70 per cent in young age category.
According to Kavitha (2011) Majority (50.00%) of the respondents involving in

hi-tech nursery management were found to be young aged followed by middle (30.00%)
and old aged (20.00%) categories.
2.2.2 Education
Darren Hudson and Diane Hite (2001) found that 42.79 per cent of the Precision
Farming beneficiaries had high school, diploma or less, 44.71 per cent had college degree
and remaining 12.5 per cent had a graduate or professional degree.
According to Anand (2003) 26.66 per cent of banana growers had education upto
secondary level followed by middle education (20.83 per cent), primary education
(19.16 per cent), illiterates (12.5 per cent), functionally literate (11.66 per cent) and
collegiate education (9.16 per cent).
Saravanapriya (2005) indicated that 88.00 per cent of the vegetable growers were
in the category ranging from primary to collegiate education and a meagre per cent of the
vegetable growers fall under the functionally literate category and 11.68 per cent there
were no illiterates.
Rajeshkanna (2006) observed that 93.00 per cent of the respondents had education
of middle school and upwards.
Sudha (2008) indicated that 52.00 per cent of Precision Farming beneficiaries
were educated upto secondary level followed by college education (17.50 per cent),
primary education (13.40 per cent) and middle education (11.00 per cent). She also
observed that 4.10 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries were functionally
literate followed by illiterates (two per cent).
Thangaraja (2008) noticed that 27.78 per cent of Precision Farming beneficiaries
were educated up to middle level followed by high school education (24.44 per cent),
primary education (17.78 per cent) and higher secondary education (15.55 per cent).
About 7.78 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries were collegiate followed by
illiterates (6.67 per cent).
The study conducted by Sangeetha (2009) corroborated that 90.00 per cent of the
Precision Farming beneficiaries were found literates and ten per cent were found
illiterates. The Precision Farming beneficiaries under primary to middle education were
about 50.90 per cent, whereas only 32.74 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
were with secondary to collegiate education.
Rakesh (2010) indicated that 38.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
were educated upto secondary level followed by functionally literates (18.00 per cent)
and middle education (16.00 per cent).12.00 per cent of Precision Farming beneficiaries
come under primary and collegiate level. Only four per cent of the Precision Farming
beneficiaries were found to be illiterate.
Kavitha (2011) revealed that more than one- third (37.50%) of the respondents
were educated up to the primary level followed by 36.66 per cent who were functional
literates. The rest (18.34%) were illiterates. Secondary education constituted a very
meager percentage (7.50%).
2.2.3 Land Holding size
Daberkow et al. (1998) expressed that early adopters operated significantly more
acreage, were more specialized in producing cash grains, and made more money from
sales than non-adopters.
Pedersen et al. (2000) noted that 100 percent of US farmers used precision
practices for corn production, and 87 percent had used them for soybean production.
In Denmark and the UK, 91 percent and 95 percent respectively use precision practices
on wheat, as well as on barley, oilseed, rape, grass seed, peas and tubers like Sugar Beets
and Potatoes.
Senthilkumar (2001) revealed that majority of the banana growers were big
farmers (45.00 percent), followed by marginal farmers (28.33 percent) and small farmers
(26.67 percent).
Sujaivelu (2002) elucidated that more than two-fifth of the respondents

(41.66 percent) had less than 2.5 acres of land, followed by respondents with more than 5 acres
of land (33.33 percent). Exactly one-fourth of the respondents had 2.6 to 5.0 acres of land.
Desingurajan (2005) found that 35.00 percent of medicinal plant cultivators were
found to be small farmers followed by 31.67 percent as medium farmers. The rest were found
distributed between big (20.83 percent) and marginal farmers (12.50 percent) categories.
Sudha (2008) noticed that almost an equal proportion of the precision farmers
were found to operate small (35.80 %) and medium (32.50 %) level of farm holdings.
Almost 26.00 per cent were big farmers.
Two- thirds of the respondents (75.00%) belonged to the marginal farm category
and their farm size holding might not be sufficient to meet their family requirements for
the whole year. And 20.84 per cent of the respondents were observed to operate small
farms. Very few (4.16%) were found to be from big farm families as mentioned in the
study of Kavitha (2011) on Hi-tech community nursery.
2.2.4 Area under Precision Farming
Pedersen et al. (2000) reported that the average area under Precision Farming in
Denmark is about 46 hectares, compared to about 67 hectares in the UK and 350 hectares
in United States.
In comparison, an average farm area under Precision Farming in Denmark is

about 50 ha (Danish Agricultural Council, 2000) and the average farm holding in the USA is
about 178 ha, while in the State of Indiana the average is about 102 ha (USDA, 2002).
Darren Hudson and Diane Hite (2001) found that average farm size under
Precision Farming was 2,832 acres in Missisipi state.
Jayashree (2004) found that majority of the respondents (82.50 percent) allocated
more than 65.00 percent of their total farm holding for paddy cultivation. This was
followed by medium (10.00 percent) and small farm size (7.50 percent).
The study of Andhari (2005) revealed that majority of the respondents
(56.66 percent) allocated more than 65.00 percentage of their total farm holding for
paddy cultivation. This was followed by medium (33.34 percent) and small farm size
(10.00 percent).
Sudha‟s study (2008) resulted that majority (85.00 %) of the precision

farm practitioners were having farm holdings up to 1 ha followed by more than 1 ha
(15.00 %) under Precision Farming.
Thangaraja (2008) reported that more than half (52.22 %) of the respondents
were having cultivated area of 1.10 to 2.00 ac followed by up to 1.00 ac (21.11 %) of
farm holding under Precision Farming .Only 21.11 per cent of the respondents had
cultivated tomato under Precision Farming with the area of more than 2.00 ac.
2.2.5 Experience in Precision Farming
Pedersen et al. (2000) expressed that fifty percentile line, for example, shows half
of Danish respondents had used precision practices almost 3 years, half of Nebraska farmers
had used them almost 4 years, and half of UK farmers had used them almost 5 years.
Ilayaraja (2001) found that more than fifty percent of the grape growers
(52.50 per cent) had medium level of experience in grape cultivation, followed by high
(27.50 percent) and low (20.0 per cent) levels.
Fountas et al. (2002) stated that among new users, 50 percent had been practicing
Precision Farming for one to two years in minnasotta state.
Sorensen et al. (2002) revealed that 15 percent of the Minnesota farmers had used
Precision Farming for 1 to 2 years, 44 percent for 3 to 4 years, and 41 percent for 5 years
or more.
Ganesha Moorthy (2005) elucidate that 70.00 percent of the respondents possessed
medium level of experience in turmeric cultivation and low level was found among only
18.34 percent of the respondents. The rest (11.67 percent) possessed high level of
experience in turmeric cultivation.
Mankai (2005) inferred that majority of the respondents had high level of farming
experience (91.00 %) in vegetable cultivation.
The results of Sudha (2008) on Precision Farming revealed that 52.50 per cent of
the respondents possessed medium level experience, followed by 20.00 per cent of the
respondents had low level experience. The rest 27.50 per cent of the respondents
possessed high level of experience in Precision Farming.
Thangaraja (2008) reported that nearly half (48.90 %) of the respondents

possessed up to 1 years and 1.10 to 2 years was found among 37.80 per cent of the
respondents followed by 13.30 per cent of the respondents possessed above 2 years of
experience in Precision Farming.
Sangeetha (2009) revealed that more than half (61.82 per cent) of the respondents
had 2 years of experience in Tomato cultivation, followed by 20.92 per cent of the
respondents with above 2 years and 17.27 per cent of the respondents with up to one
year of experience in tomato cultivation under Precision Farming.
2.2.6 Farming experience
Namboothiripad (2000) revealed that majority of respondents were under low

level of farming experience followed by high level of farming experience in vegetable
cultivation.
Anand‟s (2003) study resulted that 48.33 per cent of the banana growers had low
level of farming experience in banana cultivation, which ranged from one to ten years.
This was followed by medium (36.66 per cent) and high levels (15.00 per cent).
Mankai (2005) inferred that majority of the respondents had high level of
farming experience (91.00 per cent) in vegetable cultivation.
Sudha (2008) quoted that 52.50 per cent of the respondents possessed medium
level of farming experience followed by 20.00 per cent of the respondents had low level
of farming experience. The rest 27.50 per cent of the respondents possessed high level of
experience in Precision Farming.
Thangaraja (2008) concluded that 48.90 per cent of the respondents possessed up
to one year and one to two years were found among 37.80 per cent of the respondents
followed by 13.30 per cent of the respondents possessed above two years of experience in
Precision Farming.
The results of Sangeetha (2009) revealed that 61.82 per cent of the Precision
Farming beneficiaries had two years of experience in tomato cultivation followed by
20.92 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries with above two years and 17.27 per cent
of the Precision Farming beneficiaries with upto one year of experience in tomato
cultivation under Precision Farming.
Rakesh (2010) reported that 42.70 per cent of the respondents had experience of
up to two years and more than two years in Precision Farming. Low level of experience
was observed with 15.30 per cent of the respondents who had experience up to one year.
According to Kavitha (2011), more than half of the respondents (53.34%) had
less than 10 years of farming experience followed by 11 to 20 years (35.00%). Little
more than one tenth (11.66 %) were having more than 20 years of experience.
2.2.7 Irrigation intensity
Kavitha (1999) in her study on Socio-technological analysis of drip irrigation

proclaimed that majority of the respondents had higher irrigation intensity.
Floralavanya (2007) opined that 38.34 percent of adopters 30.00 percent of non
adopters of drip irrigation had higher irrigation intensity followed by 35.00 percent of
adopters and 30.00 percent of non adopters with medium and 40.00 percent of adopters
and 26.66 percent of non adopters with low level of irrigation intensity.
Sudha (2008) opined that 70.00 per cent of adopters had higher irrigation
intensity, followed by low (10.00 per cent) and medium level (20.00 percent) of irrigation
intensity in Precision Farming technologies.
2.2.8 Annual income from Farming
Venkattakumar (1997) stated that majority (87.61 %) of the respondents

possessed low to medium level of annual income and only a meagre proportion (12.39 %)
had high level of annual income.
Elizabeth (2001) in her study observed that 42.78 per cent of the respondents fell
under low level of annual income category, followed by 33.89 per cent under high and
23.33 per cent under medium level of annual income category.
Rosaiah (2002) found that more than two-third (72.22 %) of the farmers were having
low income, followed by medium (18.89 %) and high (8.89 %) levels of annual income.
Johnson (2002) observed in his study that a large proportion of the respondents
(42.22 %) had medium level of annual income. A similar proportion (38.89 %) of the
respondents had low level of annual income and just 18.89 per cent of them had high
level of annual income.
Beulah (2004) observed from her study on potentialities and prospects of medicinal
plants cultivation that majority of the medicinal plant growers (53.33 %) belonged to low
income category, followed by medium (26.67 %) and low (20.00 %) levels.
Ramya (2005) found that 44.44 per cent of the respondents had medium level of
annual income and a similar proportion of the respondents (43.34 %) had low annual income
level. High level of income was found with only 12.22 per cent of the respondents.
According to Rakesh (2010) more than half of the precision farmers (60.00 per cent)
comes under high income category followed by medium (32.00 per cent) and low
(6.67 per cent) categories.
2.2.9 Annual Income from Diversified/ Non-conventional Farming
Integrated farming offered scope for increasing significantly the income of the
poor Malaysian subsistence farmers (Alsagoff et al., 1990).
Rangasamy et al. (1990) recorded an additional income through integration of

dairy-biogas-silviculture over cropping alone under gardenland condition and cropping-goat
farming over conventional cropping under rainfed situation in the Western agro-climatic
zone of Tamil Nadu.
The mean gross income from the integrated farming system was reported to be
more than that from conventional cropping (Rangasamy et al., 1994).
Das et al. (1993) reported that under rainfed conditions of alfisol, agri-horticulture
system recorded the highest Benefit Cost ratio of 2.16 when compared with 1.95 with
annual cropping, 1.69 with agro forestry and 1.52 with agri silviculture.
Deoghare and Bhattacharya (1993) reported that goat and sheep provided the
most valuable source of income in semi-arid tropics and the sale of goat contributed
30.10 per cent of the total farm income in India.
Wimalasuriya et al. (1993) reported that in Sri Lanka, with minimal disturbance
to the socio-economic environment, the farmers with crop-livestock integration could
earn an average of 88.00 per cent more income than farmers with no livestock.
According to Arun (1994), integrated farming system was reported to be a

feasible option in small and medium sized farms, offering scope for higher income and
high productivity from different enterprises.
Rangasamy et al. (1995) reported that integrated farming systems consisting of

cropping, silviculture, dairying, biogas and mushroom production recorded three times
higher net return than conventional cropping activity.
Santhi et al. (1996) reported that highest Benefit Cost ratio with crop-livestock
integration compared to cropping alone. IFS with crops and animal component recorded a
mean net income of Rs.5666/ha/year over conventional cropping system alone which had
a net income of Rs. 1919/ha/year.
Among the main occupation of households, the average net income per household
per year from livestock and crop farming was 26.60 and 73.30 per cent respectively
(Deoghare, 1997).
Omore et al. (1997) highlighted that crop cum dairy farming systems was superior
in generating higher net return at central Kenya.
It was found that mean figures between 40.00 per cent and 60.00 per cent of rural
household incomes deriving from non-farm activities and transfers were common and the
mean proportion is often around 60.00 per cent (Reardon, 1997), (Ellis, 2000) and
(Barrett and Reardon, 2001).
Devendra (1998) reported that the 60.00 per cent of goat and 20.00 per cent of
sheep population found in Asia were the additional source of income to the dryland farmers.
Kandasamy (1998) reported higher income (Rs. 6099/ha/yr) in dairy and poultry
based farming system than cropping (Rs.1902/ha/yr).
According to Gajja et al. (1999), the Benefit Cost ratio was higher (1.67) under
hortipasture system followed by silvipasture system (1.57).
Bos et al. (2000) opined that in mixed farming systems it could be possible to
realize a higher income without any deterioration to environment.
Jaiswal et al. (2001) found that cereal-pulse intercropping system recorded higher
return besides reducing the risk of complete failure of monoculture due to uncertain
weather and climatic hazards in dryland farming.
Saadullah (2002) found that goat rearing was an appropriate intervention in a

capital scarce situation and that could contribute significantly to household income.
Thirumurugan (2002) in his study on whole farm approach for sustainable dryland
production revealed that, the highest gross income of Rs. 1,62,616 and Rs. 2,06,942 was
obtained under cumbu + soybean grain, maize + cowpea fodder and Cenchrus ciliaris +
Stylosanthes scabra fodder system by integrating goat, rabbit and pigeon component in
the first and second year, respectively, than the other farming systems. He further
observed the highest net return by integrating the goat, rabbit and pigeon with crop
component in the same farming system with a net return of Rs. 80,924 and Rs.1,25,250 in
first and second year respectively.
A study on agricultural diversification in by Chi et al. (2003) showed that off-farm

and non-farm activities contributed an important part to the household income (53.30 %).
In addition, the study reported that rice made up 30.90 per cent income of the household,
followed by income from husbandry and fishery (10.20 %).
Ramasubramanian (2003) in his study on, “Developing strategies for sustainable

dry farming” observed that 42.00 per cent of the dryland farmers belonged to an income
level of Rs.10,000 – 15,000. Twenty eight per cent of the respondents had income in the
range of Rs.15,000 – 20,000. He further stated that cumulatively these two income levels
were prevalent (44.50 + 25.00) among 68.50 per cent of the respondents. The Analysis of
Variance indicated that crop + dairying + goat rearing category got the maximum mean
value of Rs.19.45 thousands/year followed by crop + dairying (Rs.17.50 thousands/year)
and crop + goat rearing (Rs.16.25 thousands/year) categories. The crop alone category was
the least among four categories in terms of mean income level (Rs.13.25 thousands/year).
According to Ellis (2004), there was a strong positive correlation between the
proportion of household income obtained from non-farm sources and overall household
income per capita has been found in numerous studies. He also reported that higher
non-farm earnings resulted in higher agricultural yields and improving natural environments.
The study by Hill (2004) revealed that farmers earned an average of £84 per hectare,
compared with £200 in 2003-04. But earnings from non-farming activities were found
rising. Mark Hill, head of the Deloitte Food & Agriculture Group said: "For a 400 hectare
farm, net farm income over three years had swung from £17,000 to £80,000 and back to
£33,600." Income from non-food production, such as tourism and property letting, had
risen by £35 per hectare, according to the 2004 results.
An analysis at household level by Central Research Institute for Dry land

Agriculture (CRIDA, 2009) indicated that the incomes were more diversified for small
farmers compared to large farmers although the latter earned more. The contribution of
crop production to total household income was higher (98.00 %) for large farmers
compared to small farmers (59.00 %).
According to Narayanareddy (2009), a small farmer with 4.2 acres of irrigated land in
Bangalore rural district was producing food crops like cereals, beans, cooking oil, vegetables
and fruits. Apart from this, he also produced 10,000 coconuts, 8 tonnes of sapota, 5 tonnes of
papaya, 2 tonnes of avocado, 2 tonnes of soyabean, 10 tonnes of various seasonal vegetables
and other fruits for the market. He possessed 8 cows, 12 goats and 25 native chickens. On the
farm borders and edges, he had 300 various fodder, green manure and timber trees since
15 years. He reared 200 fishes in water storage tank which brought him an annual income of
Rs. 6000. Hence from maintaining his farm with bio-diversity of trees, animals, intercrops and
which provided food and financial security to his family.
Veena and Tiwari (2009) in their study reported that Babulal Bairawa a small scale
farmer in Rajasthan was found to possess diversified enterprises such as agriculture, poultry
raising and flour mill in his 1.5 ha land. As a result of this diversification, it was found that,
despite frequent droughts and crop failures, the farmer was able to earn a steady income
through his livestock component and flour mill. Further, the cost incurred on animal feed was
drastically reduced with the availability of fodder available in the farm.
2.2.10 Orientation with Research Station
Ilayaraja (2001) stated that majority of the respondents (40.00 percent) possessed
low level of research contact. The remaining one-third (33.00 percent) and just above
one-fourth (27.00 percent) found to have medium and high level of research contact
respectively.
The study conducted by Anand (2003) revealed that 35.80 per cent and 35.00 per cent
of the banana growers respectively had medium to high level of extension agency contact
followed by low (29.20 per cent) level.
The results of rain fed rice growers indicated that majority of the rain fed rice
growers (58.33 percent) possessed medium to high level of orientation with research
station. The remaining 41.67 percent of the respondents possessed low level orientation
with research station. (Banumathy, 2003)
Selvamalathi (2003) exhibited that 52.50 percent of the rain fed farmers possessed
low level of research contact, followed by medium (40.83 percent) and high (6.67 percent)
levels of research contact.
The grape growers as reported by Ramani (2004) exhibited that 71.67 percent
distributed in low level category. There were about 17.50 percent and 10.88 percent of
them distributed between medium and high level of orientation with research station.
Thangaraja (2008) reported that TNAU scientists and senior research fellows have
regular contact with Precision Farming beneficiaries and offer technical advices to the farmers.
Sangeetha (2009) revealed that 83.64 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
had medium to high level of extension agency contact followed by 16.36 per cent with
low level of extension agency contact.
2.2.11 Participation of farmers in Research station activities
Jeyalakshmi (2000) reported that nearly half of respondents (45.00 %) were found
to have low level of contact with research station and a little more than half of the
respondents (55.00 %) were found to have high level of contact with research station.
Ilayaraja (2001) noticed that majority of the respondents (40.00 %) possessed low
level of research contact. The remaining one-third (33.00 %) and just above one-fourth
(27.00 %) found to have medium and high level of research contact.
Orientation with the activities of Research station was 48.30 per cent and
37.50 per cent at moderate and low level respectively as indicated by Sudha (2008) in her
study on Precision Farming.
Palanisamy (2011) found that 50.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
had participated trainings organised by research stations.
Karunajeba (2012) revealed that majority (74.09%) of the respondents had medium
level of participation followed by high (17.27%) and low (8.63%) levels of participation.
2.2.12 Innovativeness
Jayalakshmi (2000) in her study observed that 47.50 per cent of the respondents
had high level of innovativeness, followed by 43.33 per cent and 9.17 per cent with
medium and low level of innovativeness, respectively.
Namboothiripad (2000) in his study report stated that majority (70.83%) of the
commercial vegetable growers had medium level of innovativeness.
Venkatesan (2000) observed that half of the tomato growers had medium level of
innovativeness, followed by low (33.33%) and high (16.67%) levels.
Rosaiah (2001) in his study on analysis of knowledge gap on IPM stated that
nearly half (46.56%) of the cotton growers had high level of innovativeness, followed by
low and medium level of innovativeness.
Deepa (2003) in her study quoted that 38.00 per cent of the vegetable growers had
high level of innovativeness, followed by medium (31.00%) and low (31.00%) level of
innovativeness.
Suganthi (2004) in her study identified that a vast majority (75.00%) of the
cashew growers had high level of innovativeness and the rest (25.00%) of the cashew
growers had medium level of innovativeness.
Jayashree (2004) observed that nearly half of the respondents (47.50 per cent)
were found to have medium level of innovativeness. Low and high levels were found
with 29.17 per cent and 23.33 per cent of the respondents respectively.
Desingurajan (2005) revealed that 37.50 per cent of the respondents had high level of
innovativeness followed by medium (35.83 per cent) and low (26.67 per cent) levels.
Vilas (2005) noted that majority of respondents (40.00 per cent) were found to
have low level of innovativeness. Medium and high levels were found with 35.83 per cent
and 24.17 per cent of the respondents respectively.
Floralavanya (2007) observed that most of the adopters possessed high level of
innovativeness followed by medium (26.70 per cent) and low level (15.00 per cent) of
innovativeness which entirely differs from that of non adopters who possessed 51.42 per cent
of innovativeness under low level followed by 28.23 per cent under middle and
20.35 per cent under high level of innovativeness.
Rakesh (2010) expressed that majority of the respondents (52.70 per cent) had high
level of innovativeness followed by medium (24.00 per cent) and low (23.30 per cent) levels.
2.2.13 Risk bearing ability
Senthilkumar (2001) observed that 50.83 per cent of the respondents had medium level
of risk orientation followed by medium (26.67 per cent) and high (22.50 per cent) levels.
According to Anand (2003), 55.00 per cent of the banana growers had high level
of risk orientation followed by low (24.2 per cent) and medium (20.8 per cent) level of
risk orientation.
Deepabarathi (2003) stated that 60.83 per cent of the respondents had medium
level of risk orientation followed by high (23.34 per cent) and low (15.83 per cent) level
of risk orientation.
Senthilvadivoo (2003) revealed that 43.33 per cent of the respondents had
medium level of risk orientation followed by low (31.67 per cent) and high (25.00 per cent)
level of risk orientation.
Mankai (2005) indicated that 39.00 per cent of the respondents had high level of
risk orientation, while 33.00 per cent of the respondents had low level of risk orientation
and 28.00 per cent of the respondents had medium level of risk orientation.
Floralavanya (2007) revealed that 41.70 per cent of adopters and 42.70 per cent of
non adopters possessed medium level of risk orientation. Low level of risk orientation
was observed among 31.70 per cent of adopters and 26.70 per cent of non adopters
followed by 26.60 per cent of adopters and 30.60 per cent of non adopters with high risk
orientation nature.
Thangaraja (2008) noted that 52.22 per cent of the respondents had high level of
risk orientation followed by medium (31.11 per cent) and low (16.67 per cent) levels.
Rakesh (2010) reported that 45.30 per cent of respondents had medium level of risk
orientation followed by high (36.70 per cent) and low (18.00 per cent) level of risk.
Kavitha (2011) found that high level of risk orientation was found among the
respondents (35.00%) followed by moderate (33.34%) and low (31.66%) levels.
2.2.14 Extension participation
Saravanan (1999) inferred that majority of the respondents (60.00 percent) had
medium level of extension participation followed by high (23.33 percent) and low
(16.67 percent) level of extension participation.
Seema (1999) reported that 67.50 percent of the coconut growers had low level of
extension participation followed by medium (27.50 percent) and high (5.00 percent) levels.
Raja (2000) revealed that only 14.00 percent of the farmers had high level of
extension participation, 86.00 percent belonged to low to medium category of extension
participation.
Jegadeesan (2001) concluded that more than half (71.67 percent) of the
respondents had low level of extension participation followed by medium (26.67 percent)
and high (1.66 percent) levels.
Padma (2001) identified that majority of the respondents (62.51 percent) had medium
level of participation in training programmes and 20.00 percent had medium level of
participation. Only 17.00 percent of the respondents had high level of participation.
Suresh (2001) revealed that only 1.67 percent of the farmers had high level of
extension participation followed by medium level (25.33 percent) while majority
(72.50 percent) of the respondents had low level of extension participation.
Banumathy (2003) interpreted that only two rainfed rice growers had high level
extension participation followed by low level (43.33 percent) while majority
(55.00 percent) of the respondents had medium level participation in extension activities.
Usharani (2003) proclaimed that 70.34 percent of the respondents had low level
of participation followed by medium participation which was found 30.00 percent.
Nalini (2004) revealed that majority of the respondents (60.00 percent) did not
attend any training programme for the past three years. One training was attended by
more than one-fifth (22.50 percentage) of the farmers. One-tenth (10.83 percent) of them
attended two trainings, meagre percentage (6.67 percent) of the respondents attended
more than two trainings.
According to Floralavanya (2007) 40.48 percent of the drip users had low level of
participation in training programmes organised by extension agencies.
Sudha (2008) revealed that 16.70 per cent of the respondents were equally distributed
under high and low level of extension participation. While majority (66.60 per cent) of the
respondents had medium level participation in extension activities.
About 60.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries had medium level of
research and extension agency contact followed by 27.00 per cent of the Precision
Farming beneficiaries had high level of research and extension agency contact.
The remaining 14.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries had low level of
research and extension agency contact as found by Palanisamy (2011) in his study on
Precision Farming beneficiaries.
2.2.15 Economic motivation
Anand (2003) revealed that 40.90 per cent of the banana growers had high level
of economic motivation followed by medium (33.30 per cent) and low (25.80 per cent)
level of economic motivation.
Deepabarathi (2003) noted that 63.33 per cent of the respondents were with
medium level of economic motivation followed by high (20.00 per cent) and low level
(16.67 per cent) of economic motivation.
Mankai (2005) reported that 37.00 per cent of the respondents had high level of
economic motivation, while 32.00 per cent of the respondents had medium level of economic
motivation and 31.00 per cent of the respondents had low level of economic motivation.
Vilas (2005) revealed that 40.00 per cent of the respondents had low level of
economic motivation, whereas 31.67 per cent and 28.33 per cent of the respondents
possessed medium and high levels of economic motivation respectively.
Thangaraja (2008) reported that 42.22 per cent of the Precision Farming
beneficiaries had medium level of economic motivation followed by high (32.22 per cent)
and low (25.56 per cent) level of economic motivation.
Sangeetha (2009) revealed that 58.18 per cent of the respondents had higher level
of economic motivation followed by 30.91 per cent of medium and 10.91 per cent low
level of economic motivation under Precision Farming.
Rakesh (2010) corroborated that 45.30 per cent of the respondents had high level
of economic motivation followed by medium level (32.00 per cent) and little more than
twenty per cent of the respondents with low level of economic motivation.
In the study of Farm women in hi-tech nursery management Kavitha (2011)

revealed that Nearly two third (55.00 %) of the respondents had high level of economic
motivation followed by 28.34 per cent of respondents with moderate level and (16.66%)
having low level of economic motivation.
2.2.16 Credit orientation
Swamidasan (1994) inferred that 57.86 per cent of the respondents had high level
credit orientation followed by medium (33.57 per cent) and low (8.57 per cent) level of
credit orientation.
Kamaraj (1996) reported that 75.83 per cent of the respondents had high to
medium level credit orientation followed by low level (24.17 per cent) credit orientation.
Ramya (2005) found that 51.11 per cent of the respondents had low level of credit
orientation followed by high (44.44 per cent) level of credit orientation.
Thangaraja (2008) observed that 46.67 per cent of the Precision Farming
beneficiaries had low level of credit orientation and 30.00 per cent had medium level
credit orientation followed by 23.33 per cent had high level of credit orientation.
Rakesh (2010) corroborated that medium and high levels were seen among the
34.00 per cent and 37.30 per cent of the respondents respectively, while 28.70 per cent of
the respondents come under low level credit orientation.
2.2.17 Access to credit facilities
Access to credit facilities is defined as easiness and efficiency of small scale farmers
to obtain loans/ credit from financial institution for supporting their farming activities.
Agnet (2004) opined that the complex mechanism of commercial banking is least
understood by the small-scale farmers, and thus, limits their access.
According to Anyanwu (2004) higher interest rates has imposed on loans relative
to those by the formal banking sector. But this applies more to the informal credit
institution (money lenders). Credit from cooperative societies generally attracts interest
rates of less than 10 percent
Ademu (2006) confirmed that credit access to small holder remains extremely low
saying that only 12 percent of households accessed any type of credit and only six
percent out of them received credit for agricultural activities.
Philip et al. (2009) stated that high interest rate and the short-term nature of loans
with fixed repayment periods do not suit annual cropping, and thus constitute a hindrance
to credit access.
Rahji and Fakayode (2009) blamed the limitation on imperfect and costly
information problems encountered in the financial markets; credit rationing policy; and
banks‟ perception of agricultural credit as a highly risky venture.
According to Okojie et al. (2010), lack of bank accounts, collateral, and

information regarding the procedure for accessing credits from banks limit rural women‟s
access to credit from formal institutions.
Idris (2011) concluded that small-scale farmers have relatively more access to
informal and semiformal credit institutions than to formal credit institutions, in spite of
the higher volume of credit at the disposal of formal institutions. In addition, the high
repayment rate of loans recorded by informal and semiformal institutions could indicate
that the loans are granted at affordable rates to the small-scale farmers and that
subsidization may not be necessary. It was also found that access to credit is likely to
help improve the well-being of the beneficiaries.
Astonoliver‟s (2012) result indicated that 60 per cent of the respondents had
medium access to credit facilities whereas nearly 20 per cent of the sample were either
having low or higher access to credit facilities respectively. High interest rates and
tedious loan procedures which limited farmers interest. Farmers were travelling to long
distance to access credit facilities and generally proved to be costly. He further added that
the success of informal sector was derailed by factors such as transportation of
commodities and limited access to credit facilities.
2.2.18 Leadership Potential
Athraya and Rajeshwari (1998) stated that socio-economic characteristics like age,
education and income influence the Leadership Potential of women panchayat presidents.
According to Mukta (1998) with the passage of time, women‟s dependence will
decline and women can take up higher responsibilities with ease and even illiterate
women can work effectively and lead the group when occasion arises.
Sharma (1999) reported that 90.00 per cent of the elected women representatives
though elected for the first time had the competency to lead and only 10.00 per cent of
them were not competent enough.
Leadership potential of the SHG leaders was at moderate level (65.00 per cent)
followed by low (22.50) and high levels (12.50) as projected by Tamilselvi (2008)
Most of the women panchayat presidents (81.69 per cent) were carefully listened
to the views of the members, worked actively(70.42 per cent), admitted themselves as
excellent thinkers, gave more importance for priority setting and framing issue
persuasively and managed conflicts effectively as reported by Ponnipriya (2008)
2.2.19 Employment generation
The pattern of employment generation as a result of integration or mixing up of

more than one enterprises at farm level has been contemplated by different researchers in
terms of mandays hereunder.
Agro based industries provide local entrepreneurship, generates employment and also
checks the concentration of economic power through diffusion of ownership of means of
products.(Ganguly,1990)
Integrated Farming System under dryland with sorghum + cowpea, Leucaena

leucocephala + Cenchrus ciliaris, Acacia senegal + grass along with goat rearing generated
an additional employment of 113 man days/ha annually (Sivasankaran et al., 1995).
Santhi et al. (1996) reported that employment generation through crop + goat
mixed farming was 320 mandays per year and it was higher than the traditional system
due to lower cropping intensity.
According to Deoghare (1997), the average labour employment per household per
year from goat, sheep, buffalo and crop farming were 23.30, 19.00, 33.10 and
41.50 per cent respectively in Uttar Pradesh.
Kandasamy (1998) found that dairy and poultry based farming system provided
an additional employment of 270 man days per year.
Gajja et al. (1999) reported that in arid zone of Rajasthan, an additional

employment was generated through adoption of silvipasture or hortipastoral system with
sheep or goat.
Tiwari et al. (1999) observed that integration of crops with cows, goat, poultry
and duck generated 380 man days of employment.
With respect to employment generation, Thirumurugan (2002) found that, integration

of animal components along with cropping markedly increased the employment opportunity.
His further observation on component-wise employment potential recorded an employment
opportunity of 125 mandays only, whereas, the animal components of goat, rabbit and
pigeon generated 163, 142 and 60 mandays respectively.
Ramasubramanian (2003) reported that overall employment available from dairying
and goat rearing was 130 and 78 man days respectively. His further observation was that the
mean value of employment level of crop + dairying and crop + dairying + goat rearing was
more when compared to mean value of crop alone and crop + goat rearing categories. There
existed vast difference in employment between crop alone and other categories.
The farming system combinations rice - vegetable pea – beans + fishery + piggery
+ dairy + duckery generated the maximum number of 890 man days/ha/year in which the
crop components involved 180 mandays/ha/year in farming system approach and
livestock generated 675-700 mandays/year (Rathore and Bhatt, 2008).
2.2.20 Availability of agro inputs
Rajeshkanna (2006) revealed that cent per cent of the precision farmers felt that the
cost of water soluble fertilizers are expensive when compared to conventional farming.
According to Sangeetha (2009), 78.18 per cent of the respondents expressed that
cost of water soluble fertilizer was higher than the normal fertilizer. Half (54.54 %) of the
respondents felt that technologies like drip irrigation, fertigation and chemical pesticides
are expensive when compared to conventional farming agro inputs.
In the study of Rakesh (2010), an overwhelming majority of the respondents

(91.34 per cent) expressed that they suffered out of non availability of water soluble
fertilizers and the cost of water soluble fertilizer (44.66 per cent).
Palanisamy (2011) found that non availability of inputs (50.00 per cent) and
high cost of water soluble fertilizer (43.00 per cent) were the major problems.
2.2.21 Attitude towards farm technologies
Savithiri (1992) reported that little more than half (54.61 per cent) of the
respondents were found to have less favourable attitude followed by 35.33 per cent with
favourable attitude. Only a meagre percentage (10.00 per cent) of respondents possessed
more favourable attitude towards water conservation technologies.
Floralavanya (2007) concluded that 34.90 percent of drip users possessed more
favourable attitude towards drip irrigation followed by 33.40 percent under favourable
attitude and 31.70 percent of adopters had less favourable attitude.
Sudha (2008) found that majority of the respondents (57.50 per cent) had
favourable attitude towards Precision Farming followed by 20.00 per cent and
2.50 per cent in more favourable and less favourable attitudes respectively.
Rakesh (2010) found that almost forty per cent of the respondents (41.30 per
cent) had favourable attitude towards Precision Farming followed by more favourable
(30.00 per cent) and less favourable (28.70 per cent) attitude.
2.2.22 Information seeking pattern
Venkatesan (2000) reported that 48.33 per cent of the tomato growers had medium
level of information seeking behaviour, 33.33 per cent of them had low level followed by
high level 18.34 per cent.
Fountas et al. (2002) stated that majority of USA farmers (74.00 percent)
mentioned that they prefer Precision Farming data to be stored by the farmers themselves,
and only 12.00 percent would like the data to be stored outside the farm e.g. by the
adviser,14.00 percent indicated that they preferred storage data both by the farm and by
the adviser.
Sorensen et al. (2002) observed that Internet for information retrieval, a wide
spread use of e-mail as a way of communicating was observed (90.00 percent of the
respondents use e-mail) thus, 49.00 percent of the users communicate with wholesalers,
87.00 percent subscribe to various web services, and 24.00 percent communicate with
private firms, finally 73.00 percent use email for private purpose.
Anand (2003) revealed that 40.80 per cent of the banana growers had high level
of information seeking behaviour followed by low (30.80 per cent) and medium
(28.30 per cent) levels.
Deepabarathi (2003) found that 41.00 per cent of the vegetable growers had
medium level of information seeking behaviour, 34.00 per cent and 25.00 per cent had
high and low levels of information seeking behaviour respectively.
Kasthuri (2003) stated that information seeking behaviour of respondents was

found to be high 35.00 per cent, followed by 33.00 per cent and 32.00 per cent of the
respondents with low and medium levels respectively.
Mankai (2005) indicated that 35.00 per cent of the vegetable growers had high
level of information seeking behaviour and 34.00 per cent of the vegetable growers had
medium level of information seeking behaviour.
Jebapreetha (2007) clearly delineates that 35.84 percent had medium level of
information seeking behaviour followed by 33.33 percent with high and 30.83 percent
with low level of information seeking behaviour.
Sudha (2008) revealed that 55.84 per cent of the respondents had medium level of
information seeking pattern followed by high (39.16 per cent) and low (5.00 per cent) levels.
According to Karunajeba (2012), half (62.27%) had medium level of information

seeking behaviour, while little more than one-fifth (21.36%) were observed under low
category followed by high level of information seeking behaviour (16.36%).
2.2.23 Information sharing pattern
Prameela (1992) reported that neighbours, friends and relatives were the often
utilized channels by 78.67 percent 77.33 percent and 62.00 percent of the farm women
respectively.
Rajasekaran (1995) stated that information sharing pattern of majority of the

TANWA trainees was under (70.00 percent) medium level followed by low and high levels.
Jeyasankar (2000) revealed that nearly half of the sugarcane growers

(48.33percent) had low level of information sharing behaviour, while medium and
high level information sharing behaviour of farmers accounted for around 36.00 and
13.00 percent respectively.
Parkavi (2003) interpreted that two-fifth (45.64 percent) of the cardamom planters
had medium level of information sharing behaviour, followed by high (30 percent) and
low (24.16 percent) levels.
Sudha (2008) found that more than three- fourth (70.00 per cent) of the
respondents had medium level of information sharing pattern, followed by high
(24.20 per cent) and low (5.80 per cent) levels.
Karunajeba (2012) found that majority (47.70%) of the respondents exhibited a
high information sharing behaviour while medium level was seen among 30.00 per cent
of the respondents. Little more than one – fifth (22.30%) showed low level information
sharing behaviour.
2.2.24 Decision making pattern
Maheshwari (2000) pointed out that more than half of the vegetable growers
(54.17 percent) took independent decision followed by consulting the members of
vegetable growers association other than the family members.
Shiraj chandra (2001) elucidated that more than half (54.10 percent) of the
respondents had a high level of decision-making pattern. Medium level was found among
45.00 percent of the respondent‟s .Rest of them (0.83 percent) showed low level of
decision making capacity.
Kanakasaba (2002) indicated that nearly half (45.70.00 percent) of the cotton
growers had a low level of decision-making capacity. While 45.00 percent of the
respondent‟s had high level and 21.67 percent of the respondents had a medium level of
decision making capacity.
Indira priyadarshini (2002) elucidated that majority (49.16 percent) of the

respondents took joint decision with SHG members, followed by independent decision
(46.67 percent). Only 4.17 percent of the respondents took joint decision with other than
SHG members.
Nalini (2004) observed that nearly one-third of the paddy farmers (30.83%) took
independent decision. One-fourth (24.17%) of the respondents took joint decision by
consulting family members followed by joint decision with progressive farmers (15.83%)
and relatives (14.17%). Joint decision with neighbours and extension officers were
observed with 10.83 percent and 4.17 percent of the respondents respectively.
Sudha (2008) expressed that joint decision with family members emerged as major
39.17 per cent, followed by independent decision (36.17percent). Only 24.16 per cent of
precision faming farmers took joint decision with other than members.
Kavitha (2011) found that Self decision was more prevalent among majority
(45.83%) of the respondents. The rest consulted with their friends, family and relatives
(43.33%), village merchants (16.66%), commission agents (16.66 %) and marketing
officials (14.16 %) for marketing their produce
According to Karunajeba (2012) , majority (68.18%) of the respondents reported

to be consulting with spouse and elders for decision making. Less than one third
(34.09%) of the respondents possessed self decision making pattern followed by
27.72 per cent and 24.54 per cent of the respondents in the categories of consulting all the
family members and self decision without consulting others respectively.
2.2.25 Level of Aspiration
Arularasan (1992) reported that an overwhelming majority of the trainees of Rural

Development Self Employment Training Institute (72.50 per cent) belonged to low aspiration
category .
Pandian (1999) stated that 44.17 per cent of farm women trained through video
education had low level of aspiration followed by 38.33 per cent in medium and
17.50 per cent in high level categories.
An overwhelming majority of the farm women (95.83 per cent) possessed high level
of aspiration towards entrepreneurship and the rest belonged to low to medium level
categories as mentioned in the study of Padma (2001)
Tamilselvi (2008) in her study on SHG leaders found that 75.80 per cent
had possessed medium level of aspiration followed by high (12.50 per cent) and low
(11.70 per cent) levels.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
2.3 TECHNOLOGICAL UTILIZATION PATTERN
It is reported in the Tamil Nadu Precision Farming Project (2008), that assessment
of soil characteristics is done through remote sensing. Soil analysis with reference to
NPK is attempted for each field. Chisel ploughing and land levelling to facilitate proper
retention of moisture and air. Supply of certified seeds and seedling raised in controlled
conditions is made to ensure high percentages of survival and uniform plant growth.
Fertigation is a very special component of TNPFP which guarantees optimal
irrigation through Drip system and fertigation using soluble right mix of nutrients.
Marketing support is given by encouraging the farmers to organise associations among
themselves and initiating associations for proper marketing of their produce.
The PF technologies were structured in a package that had to be internally

consistent and were transferable as a package to the farmers. These were essentially of
two types: cultivation related and post-harvest management. Notable precision
technologies included drip irrigation using Class 3 fertigation units along with Water
Soluble Fertilizers (WSF), the use of community nurseries, use of remote sensing
technologies to develop a fertigation schedule according to crop and soil type, grading
and sorting techniques and detailed documentation of farm activities.
The drip irrigation system, and fertigation schedule recommended for each soil
and crop type, is considered as the core technology within the Precision Farming Project
package of technologies. Associated technologies include crop-spacing, pest management
techniques, grading of produce and several others that guide cultivation and post-harvest
activities. As far as the core technology of drip irrigation and fertigation is concerned, it
appeared that the farmers adopted these without making any modification, or if any then
making only minor adjustments. There was no case of any of the farmers abandoning the
fertigation technology from the sample farmers.
Schueller (1997) revealed that use of GIS in agriculture has increased because of
misuse of resources like land, water, etc. GIS is the principal technology used to integrate
spatial data coming from various sources in a computer. GIS techniques deal with the
management of spatial information of soil properties, cropping systems, pest infestations
and weather conditions. This is primarily an intermediate step because it combines the
data collected at different times based on sampling regimes, to develop the subsequent
decision technologies such as process models, expert systems, etc.
Realizing the potential of space technology in Precision Farming, the Department

of Space, Government of India has initiated eight pilot studies in well-managed
agricultural farms of the ICRISAT, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the
Agricultural Universities, as well as in farmers' fields. The pilot studies aim at delineating
homogeneous zones with respect to soil fertility and crop yield, estimation of potential
yield, yield gap analysis, monitoring seasonally-variable soil and crop conditions using
optical and microwave sensor data, and matching the farm inputs to bridge the gap
between potential and actual yield through Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS).
Sudha (2008) found that nearly 98.33 per cent of the farmers were well known
about drip and fertigation system and application of water soluble fertilizer and more
than two-third (72.50 per cent) of the respondents had the skill of preparing Hi-tech
community nursery in their own farm. Further, grading (90.83 per cent) and packing
(87.50 per cent) their produce has been practiced by majority of farmers with in their
farm itself before selling the market
Cent per cent of the respondents had knowledge on use of drip irrigation and
fertigation system in tomato cultivation under Precision Farming. More than ninety per cent
of the respondents had knowledge on staking practice (98.18 %), use of portrays for
nursery preparation (92.73 per cent), appropriate spacing (92.73 percent) and use of
optimum seed rate (90.00 per cent) was projected by Sangeetha (2009), in her study on
Precision Farming in Tomato cultivations
2.4 PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
Perceived effectiveness has been operationalised as the process through which the
respondents experiencing the intended or targeted results through the adoption of
Precision Farming technologies.
The perceived effectiveness of the TNPFP can be established by examining the

evidence of yields and gross revenue that the farmers realized using the precision
methods, and by studying the economics of running a precision farm. Vitally, the impact
of the TNPFP as a demonstration project must be assessed by examining some evidence
of its spread beyond the beneficiary farmers.
According to Sudha (2008) increased income was observed with 90.00 per cent of
Precision Farming adopters. Nearly four-fifth (78.25 per cent) had purchased new
household appliances as a result of increased profit.
Kavitha (2011) found that most of the respondents involving in high tech
community nursery, have invested their money for the purchase of cattle/goat/sheep
(7.93) followed by purchase of vehicles (7.63) and increase in employment status (7.20).
Further, increased social participation (7.10) and participation in training (5.90) were the
major social impacts.
Palanisamy (2011) found that 23.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
modified their existing house and 15.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
developed new sanitary unit through income received from the Precision Farming
cultivation and 40.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries had purchased new
housing utensils followed by purchase of new jewels (32.00 per cent), purchase of two
wheeler (27.00 per cent), purchase of new mobile (25.00 per cent), purchase of television
(20.00 per cent), purchase of new refrigerator (19.00 per cent), purchase of new washing
machine and fans (10.00 per cent), purchase of new four wheeler (8.00 per cent),
purchase of air coolers (5.00 per cent) and purchase of bureau and DTH (4.00 per cent)
due to increased amount of income generated by adopting Precision Farming method.
2.4.1 Estimates of Produce and Gross Revenue
The nine crops from which the sample of observations made were tomato, brinjal,
banana, chilli, bhendi, watermelon, muskmelon, cassava and cabbage. Apart from
cassava, all other crops yielded multiple harvests and the average number for each crop is
given in the table below. What is immediately obvious is the enormous large number of
times that tomato, brinjal, chilli and bhendi could be harvested. This implied a lengthened
crop duration and increased harvest period using PF techniques, that of average durations
for such crops.
In addition to the increased harvest period, the average tonnage obtained in one
season was also considerable. If we compare the average yield estimates for tomato,
brinjal and banana against national average estimates (17.35, 10.46 and 28.58 tons per
hectare respectively) we notice that the PF yields are at least 3 to 12 times higher.
This analysis indicates the potential for increasing yields in „real life situations‟ with the
proper adoption of PF technologies. This is corroborated through conversations with
individual farmers.
2.4.2 Economics of a Precision Farm
The economics of a precision farm is driven influenced by the cost of converting

from a non-precision farm to a precision farm. Conversion costs are affected by the type
of irrigation equipment used and the use of high-technology input and other cultivation
practices. Installation costs comprise of equipment cost and preparation costs. The cost of
the fertigation equipment, including the cost of fertilizer tanks and pumps is about
Rs. 18,750. In addition, the Class 3 PVC pipes used for drip irrigation cost about
Rs. 14,000 for a 7000m lateral. The cost of preparation, which is mostly composed of
providing the „laterals‟ can be as high as Rs. 65,000. Thus, the total cost of converting to
a precision farm using Class 3 material is between Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 100,000. Naturally,
this cost can be amortized over the life of the equipment, which is usually assumed to be
about 10 years.
Precision farms entail different farming practices and use of hi-technology inputs
compared to traditional farms. Thus, the difference in cultivation costs results both from
the use of different inputs, and incurring greater costs of field preparation and
management. Input costs consist of costs of hybrid seeds, water soluble fertilizers, and
plant protection measures. Preparation costs include nursery costs, and labour costs for
field preparation and irrigation, transplanting, harvesting, packing, etc. These could range
from a minimum of Rs. 40,000 per hectare for perennial fruit crops to a minimum of
Rs. 50,000 per hectare for annual vegetable crops.
Thus, allowing for the costs of traditional farming, the total cost of conversion of
a 1 hectare (2.5 acre) farm from a traditional to a precision farm is anywhere between
Rs.135,000 to 150,000. This is the cash amount needed in the first year to begin
operations. Considering that the equipment cost is amortized over 10 years, the actual
cost of operation of the precision farm is considerably lower, and may range between
Rs. 65,000 to 75,000 per hectare.
The adoption of the core technologies fertigation and drip irrigation by the
non-adopters has been limited, whereas the adoption of the associated technologies,
hybrid seeds, plant protection measures, field preparation methods, etc. has been
comparatively greater. Most non-adopters expressed that adopting only the associated
technologies has not translated into the tremendous increase in yield and market value, to
the extent experienced by the adopters. The main barrier for non-adoption of the core
technologies was the lack of financing available.
Yu (2000) stated that advantages of precision agriculture included an increased

efficiency of input use, potential profit increase, and potential reduction in negative
environmental impact caused by excessive chemical application.
Pedersen et al. (2000) observed that 67% of all respondents indicated that
precision agriculture will ultimately either increase the efficiency with which fertilizers
and pesticides are used, decrease their overall use, and reduce the environmental impact
of crop production.
Darren Hudson and Diane Hite (2001) elucidated that 59.59 percent of precision
farmers concluded that precision agriculture reduce the cost and increase the profit,
15.00 percent showed it provide better understanding of relationship between input use
and yield, 12.19 percent have better understanding of field characters, 7.53 percent
concluded PF reduce yield variability within field, 5.72 percent provide better monitoring
of environmental impact of chemical use.
Floralavanya (2007) studied that among direct consequences increased income

was observed by 51.60 percent and increased standard of living by 27.00 percent. Contact
with their peer groups outside their village has been increased according to 58.30 percent
of the drip users. Increased participation like Precision Farmers Association, Farm
Science club was experienced by 45.00 percent of drip users. Increased leadership quality
was reported by 28.33 percent. And also found that nearly 21.66 percent of drip users
purchased additional land by adopting drip technology. Nearly 30.00 percent of adopters
felt that drip irrigation technology influenced to purchase agricultural implements and
invest money in farming.
Majority (90.00 per cent) of Precision Farming practitioners obtained increased

income (Sudha, 2008). This resulted in spending more education of their children.
She further observed that the increase in income was the major direct consequences
observed with ninety percentage of precision farmers. About 80.00 per cent of
respondents expressed that their children could be educated up to higher secondary and
college level after adoption of Precision Farming technologies. Majority (80.00 per cent)
of the respondents improved their existing land and deepened the well in adopting
Precision Farming technology.
She further stated that other farm changes as perceived by the Precision Farming
practitioners were purchased additional livestock (70.83 per cent), purchased new
implements tools/ equipments (48.33 per cent) and purchased new lands (30.83 per cent).
Meagre per cent of the farmers Purchased new tractor (30.00 per cent) and Dug new well
(27.50) due increased income from farming.
And nearly four-fifth (78.25 per cent) had purchased new household appliances as
a result of increased profit. Nearly two-fourth (65.83 per cent) and half of farmers
(51.66 per cent) purchased Radio, new jewel, Vehicle, Tape and TV due to increased
income which ultimately reflected on the improvement in the standard of living. About
two-third (75.83 per cent) of the Precision Farming farmers purchased new Phone for the
purpose of communicating the market information from one area to other areas.
Majority (nearly 86.00 per cent) of the farmers reported that they repaid their old
loan and increased savings /deposits due to adopting Precision Farming.
Increased organizational participation likes Precision Farmers Association,

Farm Science club; Farmer‟s Forum was seen with 95.80 per cent of Precision Farming
farmers. Increased Opinion leadership quality was reported by 91.66 per cent. Political
participation (25.00 per cent) and migration from rural to urban (7.50 per cent) were
observed with limited portion of the sample.
PF increases the leadership quality (71.66 per cent), rate of media exposure
(53.33 per cent) and 27.50 per cent to subscribe farm journals and general publications as
a result of adoption of PF technologies.
2.4.3 Impact on farm
2.4.3.1 Yield and net income
The report of TNPF project as stated by Justin Arockiam (2007) that, the yield
of tomato was ranged from 9900 kg to 13, 0000 kg with the income ranged from Rs.34,
650 to Rs.5, 00,000.
In Chillies, the yield ranged from 5,000 kg to 40, 0000 kg and income ranged
from Rs.15, 000 to Rs.32, 000. In Turmeric, the yield ranged from 500 kg to 2500 kg
income ranged from Rs.13, 000 to Rs.60, 000.
In Brinjal, the yield ranged from 15,000 kg to 22, 500 kg and income ranged from
Rs.40, 000 to Rs.1, 50,000 and in Cabbage - the yield ranged from 18,000 kg to 60,000 kg
and income ranged from Rs.11, 200 to Rs.2, 10,000.
Rakesh (2010) reported that 60.00 per cent of the respondents were under high
income category followed by medium (32.00 per cent) and low (6.67 per cent) categories.
The yield of sugarcane will be high in Precision Farming than the conventional method
and so it is quite natural that the farmer will also get higher income.
2.4.3.2 Farm development
Venkattakumar (1997) reported that 66.37 per cent of the respondents purchased
motor for irrigation followed by purchase of additional livestock (59.29 per cent),
deepening of existing well (56.64 per cent), improved the existing lands (36.28 per cent)
and 33.63 per cent of the respondents dug new well. Further purchase of tractors,
purchase of new tools/ equipments and purchase of new implements were found with
varied magnitudes.
Namboothiripad (2000) reported that 65.33 per cent of the respondents purchased
motor for irrigation followed by purchase of additional livestock (52.00 per cent) and
deepening of existing well (51.33 per cent) which were the indicators reflecting the
higher adoption level of farmers.
Johnson (2002) reported that 85.56 per cent of the respondents felt increased
changes in purchase of implements, made improvements in existing lands (80.00 per cent),
67.78 per cent of the respondents felt increased changes in purchase of tyre cart,
deepened the existing well (54.44 per cent).
Thangaraja (2008) indicated that 72.22 per cent of the respondents felt that
adoption of Precision Farming had improved existing lands, around 71.11 per cent of
them purchased new tools / equipment/ implement followed by 64.44 per cent of the
respondents felt that increase the purchase of additional livestock. About 44.00 per cent
of them deepened the existing wells / bore wells, 75.55 per cent of the respondent
reported that they invested money on other enterprises and 11.11 per cent of them new
well / bore well in their own farm due to increased income from Precision Farming.
The results of Rakesh (2010) indicated that 77.34 per cent of the respondents had
made improvements in their existing lands and 71.34 per cent of the respondents diversified
their cultivation to many crops and purchased additional livestock (70.00 per cent). Other
farm changes perceived by the respondents were purchase of new implements (48.66 per cent),
digging of new well (12.00 per cent), purchase of new lands (8.00 per cent), 75.34 per cent of
the respondents expanded their Precision Farming area and purchase of new tractor
(4.7 per cent) with their increased income from sugarcane under Precision Farming.
2.4.4 Impact on home
2.4.4.1 Housing
According to Venkattakumar (1997) 37.17 per cent of the respondents modified

their existing houses and 27.43 per cent of respondents purchased new houses.
Namboothiripad (2000) stated that 35.33 per cent of the respondents modified the
existing houses and 26.00 per cent of the respondents purchased new houses.
Johnson (2002) revealed that 77.78 per cent of the respondents modified their existing
house and 14.45 per cent of the respondents either purchased or constructed new houses.
Justin Arockiam (2007) stated that 14.51 per cent of the agripreneurs increased
their expenditure towards maintenance of houses.
Rakesh (2010) reported that 70.00 per cent of the respondents modified their
existing house and purchased new house from the profit earned out of Precision Farming.
2.4.4.2 Home appliances
Venkattakumar (1997) reported that 97.35 per cent of the respondents had
purchased new house appliances followed by purchase of new utensils (90.27 per cent),
purchase of TV, radio, phone, tape recorder, VCR,VCP (87.61 per cent), purchase of new
jewels (77.88 per cent) and purchase of new vehicles (72.57 per cent) through
commercial coconut cultivation.
Namboothiripad (2000) reported that 97.33 per cent of the respondents had
purchased new household appliances followed by purchase of new utensils (90.00 per cent),
purchase of TV, phone, VCR, VCP (87.33 per cent), purchase of new jewels (78.00 per cent)
and purchase of new vehicles (72.66 per cent) through commercial cultivation.
Cent per cent of the respondents purchased new utensils and household appliances,
95.56 per cent of the respondents purchased new jewels and 93.34 per cent of the respondents
purchased TV, radio, tape, phone, VCR and VCP as indicated by Johnson (2002).
The results of Mankai (2005) showed that majority of the respondents felt increased
change in purchased new units and household appliances, whereas 71.00 per cent and
65.00 per cent, who had felt increased change in purchased new jewels, purchased TV,
radio, phone, tape and 60.00 per cent of the respondents felt increased change in
purchased new vehicles.
Justin Arockiam (2007) stated that 15.40 per cent of the agripreneurs increased
their expenditure towards the purchase of household appliances.
Rakesh (2010) reported that 91.34 per cent purchased household utensils as a
result of increased profit. Most of the respondents (84.65 per cent) purchased television
and 76.00 per cent of the respondents purchased radio and CD player (72.66 per cent)
from the increased income. It is also noticed that 61.33 per cent of the respondents
purchased new vehicles and only thirty per cent of the respondents purchased new jewels
from their increased income from Precision Farming.
2.4.4.3 Children education
Venkattakumar (1997) and Johnson (2002) reported that 75.00 per cent and
76.67 per cent of the respondents had given higher education to their children.
Mankai (2005) and Thangaraja (2008) reported that 69.00 per cent and 82.22 per cent
of the respondents spent more money for providing higher education to their children.
2.4.4.4 Repayment of loans and lending money
Venkattakumar (1997) and Namboothiripad (2000) reported that 73.45 per cent
and 73.33 per cent of the respondents liquidated their loans.
Johnson (2002), Mankai (2005) and Rakesh (2010) reported that more than 80
per cent of the respondents repaid their loans.
2.5 MARKETING ACTIVITIES
Sorting helped in easy identification of grades and helped to obtain better prices for
produce. Majority of the farmers mentioned that they realized better market value for their
produce on adoption of PF techniques. The increased price was a result of several factors:
1) Increased yield – both in terms of quantity per harvest as well as increased

number of harvests per plant
2) Better condition of the produce – weight, appearance, etc.
3) Better market price realization due to sorting and grading of produce
Additionally, the farmers associations helped to pool together resources to

transport the produce to the market, saved time and effort, and guaranteeing delivery.
This aided better price negotiation particularly to organized buyers and markets, such as
the SAFAL market in Bangalore, who prefer to deal with marketing associations rather
than individual markets. Thus, improved realization of market value accrued due to four
reasons; improved condition of produce, improved yields, better grading techniques and
transport efficiencies. The opinion of terminal market operators such as SAFAL market
about the marketing practices and quality of PF products was also quite positive.
2.5.1 Market Assessment & Decision Making
Vijayalakshmi (1999) in her study on “Cultivation of medicinal plants and

contract farming” stated that the medicinal plant growers were not sure about the buyer of
their produce or whom they can approach to sell their produce.
Johnson (2002) in his study on “Socio-economic impact of cashew cultivation and

marketing” observed that a large proportion of the respondents (45.56%) had medium
level of decision-making behaviour, followed by low (28.89%) and high (25.55%) levels
of decision making behaviour.
Anand (2003) in his study on “Marketing behaviour of banana growers of

Thiruchirapalli district” observed that commission agents in the city (48.33%), village
merchants (20.00%), and commission agents in village (12.50%) were the major sources
consulted by a considerable number of respondents. Family members, fellow farmers, friends
and relatives were the other sources consulted in addition to self-decision in general.
Deepabarathi (2003) in her study on “Adoption and marketing behavior of senna

growers” stated that more than three-fourth of the respondents (75.83%) were taking
self-decisions before marketing their produce. The rest consulted their friends and
relatives (8.33%), village merchants (6.67%), family members (4.17%), commission
agents (3.30%) and marketing officials (1.70%).
Beulah (2004) in her study on potentialities and prospects of medicinal plants

cultivation observed that almost an equal percentage (one-third) of the respondents fell
under the three categories namely high (37.78%), low (32.22%) and medium (30.00%)
levels of decision making behaviour.
According to Rajeshkanna (2006) an overwhelming majority of the sample

respondents (92.00%) of Dharmapuri district was high, and the rest (8.00%) had low
perception. In the case of Krishnagiri district, cent per cent of the respondents had high
level of favourable perception towards market assessment and decision making.
2.5.2 Marketing Assistance
Ratnagar (1998) in his study on “Group marketing” a large volume of produce

induced the traders to visit the farmers and buy it at the field centres. These helped the
farmers to negotiate and increase their income. Further, reductions in transportations,
expenses and savings in time were added advantages.
Kurian (1999) in his study on “Swashraya Karshaka Vipani a proven marketing

system of pioneering models in self-reliance” stated that vegetable farmers of Kottayam
district, with Kerala Horticultural Development Programme (KHDP) support introduced the
concept of „Swashraya Karshaka Vipani‟ (Field centre). This helped them to have an upper
hand in bargaining and price fixation, besides saving the transportation and marketing related
expenses. Further, the participants have gained much in the form of self-reliance and self-
confidence and not to mention substantial benefits in terms of money and time.
An overwhelming majority (88.00%) of the precision farmers had high level of
favourable perception on the intervention marketing assistance, followed by low (7.00%)
and the rest medium level (5.00%) in Dharmapuri district whereas, nearly all (97.00%)
the respondents had high level of favourable perception on marketing assistance, and the
rest (3.00%) fell under low level category in Krishnagiri District as projected by
Rajeshkanna (2006).
2.5.3 Market-Led Production
Niklaus (2005) reported that international experience has shown that growers
who grow and market horticultural products earn more income than cereal or pulse
growers. However, for this potential to be realised these growers need ready and efficient
access to markets.
Rajeshkanna (2006) expressed that a fairly large proportion of Dharmapuri district

respondents (40.00%) and Krishnagiri district respondents (38.00%) had high level of
perception on Market-Led-Horticulture and more than three-fourth of Dharmapuri district
respondents (80.00%) and about two-third (62.00%) of Krishnagiri district respondents
had high degree of perception on market-led-production.
2.5.4 Commodity Transportation
According to the report of World bank (2006) that small farming helps to ensure
a degree of food security in rural areas where high transport and marketing cost can drive
up food prices, while at the national level their higher land productivity had the potential
to help the country attain greater self sufficiency in staples.
2.5.5 Marketing infrastructure
Niklaus (2005) reported that poor quality or non-existence of infrastructure

(roads, transport, access to public service utilities such as electricity, water etc.,) further
raises business costs and hampers market efficiency by discouraging mobility, lowering
productivity and limiting access to markets.
Mwandira (2009) found that marketing of most of the horticultural produce in

most markets seem to be controlled by ordinary street vendors organised into cartel that
prevent producers from accessing lucrative markets. Involvement of middle men and or
vendors is not bad as long as they deploy professional marketing ethics in their
transaction with the small farmers on one hand and the consumer on the other.
2.5.6 Group Formation
2.5.6.1 Role of Farmer Associations
The farmers associations appear to perform two vital roles in the dissemination
and success of PF technologies. The associations serve as nodes for exchanging
knowledge and information. They also help farmers obtain better value for produce as
well as inputs (as mentioned above). Although, the extension model used in the TNPFP
relies upon direct scientist-farmer interaction to transfer key PF technologies, the
associations perform a vital support function as information nodes. The association holds
regular monthly meetings to discuss marketing and other issues on the 2nd day of every
month. Regular meetings such as those help farmers to raise, clarify and solve cultivation,
marketing and farm management issues. Often TNAU scientists attend these meetings
and were able to offer expert advice, but even in their absence local issues are raised and
resolved multi-laterally. The associations act as demonstration vehicles to disseminate
both knowledge and information about the techniques and the impact that they have on
cultivation and post-harvest results. They appear to help reduce the knowledge and
information deficit.
The associations also seem to help the farmers obtain better value by improving
their negotiating position vis-à-vis buyers or input providers. As discussed elsewhere,
organized markets increasingly prefer to deal with farmer associations as it helps to
eliminate risks of delivery failure while providing a greater assurance of quality. This is
also beneficial to the farmers as it helps them to secure better value by costing out
delivery failures and in-transit damage to produce out of the revenue. By assuring
minimum quality through proper grading and sorting, associations help farmers obtain
better average prices than comparable produce sold without the association‟s
involvement. The associations also help the farmers to negotiate better price for inputs
such as fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, etc. by guaranteeing minimum quantity, as well as
negotiating for or arranging timely supply of inputs.
Vaidyanathan (1994) in his study on “Water” stated that irrigation systems
managed by the farmers‟ organizations were working efficiently though its proportion is
small in the field.
Devanathan (1997) in his research on the Parambur Tank Irrigation Association in

Tamil Nadu observed that by growing trees along the bund of the tank from 1978 to
1996, the association had created assets worth over Rs.one lakh which made him to
conclude that to improve the national economy, there is no other way than forming
irrigation associations.
DHAN (1998) identified that the process of self help group formation has a series
of tasks carried out in a sequence, which includes creation of a base line; short listing the
potential villages; identifying the poor; seeding the concept; formation of self help
groups; quality control; and regulating the system. And according to them, the
development of self help group passes through pre-formation, formation, stabilization-I,
stabilization-II, growth to expansion and diversification.
Niranjan (1999) reported that water users associations generally increased their
irrigated area using less water and found that recovery of water charges improved and
also majority of water users associations were running at a profit in Maharashtra.
Puhazhendi and Jayaraman (1999) in their research on women participation

observed that as a result of group formation, women were able to diversify their activities
through non-formal and animal husbandry activities.
Kerala Horticulture Development Programme (KHDP, 2000) had pointed out that
farmers become increasingly interested towards group activity after its intervention.
Rajeshkanna (2006) revealed that nearly cent per cent of the respondents
(95.00%) of Dharmapuri district had high degree of favourable perception on the
intervention group formation, and the rest (5.00%) had low level of perception.
In Krishnagiri district, cent per cent of the respondents had high degree of favourable
perception towards group formation.
2.6 RELATIONSHIP OF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE WITH
TECHNOLOGICAL UTILIZATION PATTERN
Adiguru (1991) reported that there existed positive and significant relationship
between the characteristics of farmers viz., education, mass media exposure with their
adoption level.
Santha Govind (1992) found that annual income, mass media exposure, extension
agency contact, were the variables which showed positively significant relationship with
adoption of IPM practices.
Karthikeyan (1997) reported that there existed positive and significant

relationship between characteristics of farmers viz., farming experience, farm size, annual
income and mass media utilization with their adoption level.
Anusuya (1997) reported that the extent of adoption of IPM practices on cotton
was found to be positively and significantly associated with education status, extension
agency contact, mass media exposure and economic motivation.
Maheswari (2000) found that farm size, extension agency contact, mass media
exposure and perception on feasibility of organic farming had a positive and significant
association with the adoption. The variables namely farm size, extension agency contact,
mass media exposure, perception on feasibility of organic farming, educational status and
progressiveness were found to be the contributing variables for the adoption.
Nirmala Devi (2000) revealed that the variables, educational status, annual
income, extension agency contact, mass media exposure, risk orientation, economic
motivation had shown a non significant association with adoption level of cotton growers
on IPM practices.
Prabaharan (2000) stated that the variables namely area under medicinal plant
cultivation, annual income from medicinal plant cultivation and post-harvest facilities had
positive and significant correlation with the adoption of crop production technologies.
According to Shiraj Chandra (2001) innovativeness, attitude towards eco-friendly

cultivation practices, perception on organic manures, perception on feasibility of eco-friendly
cultivation practices, perception on health hazards, information source utilization, decision
making, perception on environmental degradation were the variables that had a
positive and significant association with adoption. He also stated that innovative attitude
towards eco-friendly cultivation practices, and information source utilization were the
contributing variables.
Fernandez et al. (2001) found that farm size and education positively influence
the adoption.
Sudhakar (2001) revealed that educational status, farm size, annual income,
extension agency contact, mass media exposure, risk orientation and economic
motivation were found to have positive and significant relationship with adoption.
Suresh (2001) reported that educational status, social participation, information

source utilization and training undergone had shown positive and significant association
with adoption.
Ilayaraja (2001) elicited that educational status had shown a positive significant
contribution and all other independent variables showed a non-significant contribution
towards the extent of adoption of cotton varieties and technologies.
Banumathi (2003) stated that educational status, farm size, annual income and
progressiveness had positive and significant association with adoption.
Vilas (2005) noticed that social participation, extension agency contact, economic
motivation and participation in training had positive and significant influence on adoption.
Sakthi (2008) reported that the variables namely educational status, annual
income, farm size, extension agency contact, mass media exposure, scientific orientation,
economic motivation, risk orientation, perception towards the benefits of Bt cotton were
found positively and significantly associated with their knowledge level on Bt cotton.
Sangeetha (2009) pointed out that annual income, extension agency contact,
scientific orientation and economic motivation had positive and significant relationship
with extent of adoption.
2.6.1 Relationship of characteristics of the respondents with market associated
activities
Material possession, social participation, scientific orientation and dynamism had

positive and significant association with marketing assistance in Dharmapuri district
whereas mass media exposure exhibited a positive and significant correlation with
marketing assistance in Krishnagiri district as projected by Rajeshkanna (2006)
Further he revealed that social participation, scientific orientation and dynamism

had shown positive and significant with Market-Led-Production in Dharmapuri district
wheras age, educational status occupation and mass media exposure had shown positive
and significant association with Market-Led-Production in Krishnagiri district.
Moreover, educational status, annual income, social participation, scientific

orientation, innovativeness and dynamism and farm size had positive and highly significant
relationship with group formation.
2.7 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

(SWOC) ON PRECISION FARMING
SWOC is an analytical method which is used to identify and categorise significant

internal (Strengths and Weaknesses) and external (Opportunities and Challenges) factors
faced either in a particular arena, such as an organisation, in a sector.
It provides information that is helpful in matching the firms' resources and

capabilities to the competitive environment in which it operates and is therefore an
important contribution to the strategic planning process.
It should not be viewed as a static method with emphasis solely on its output, but
should be used as a dynamic part of the management and business development process.
Strength is an internal competence, valuable resource or attribute that a sector

can use to exploit opportunities in the external environment whereas Weakness is an
internal lack of a competence, resource or attribute that a sector requires to perform in the
external environment.
Likewise Opportunity is an external possibility that an organization can pursue
or exploit to gain benefit and Challenge is an external factor that has the potential to
reduce an organization‟s effectiveness.
Most SWOC analyses identify strengths as enhancers to desired performance, and

weaknesses as inhibitors (both within the control of a sector).Likewise, opportunities are
identified as enhancers to desired performance, while challenges are inhibitors (both
outside of sector‟s control).
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges (SWOC) analysis is a device that

helps researcher to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges involved
in any business enterprise, including farms. A SWOC analysis can help them gain insights
into the past and think of possible solutions to existing or potential problems, either for an
existing business or for a new venture (USDA, 2008; Nouri et al., 2008).
Whilst economic factors are often an important consideration in adopting new

technologies in agriculture, other factors including lifestyle and environmental
implications also need to be considered. For example, some older growers may use the
technology to ease workloads or to maintain interest in farming, whilst their younger
counterparts may be more concerned with the idea of keeping up with technology and
self satisfaction. Because some of these aspects are difficult to measure, a SWOC
analysis was undertaken to further investigate the current situation and future possibilities
of Precision Farming.
Krause and Black (1995) found that when a decision has been made to adopt
some aspect of Precision Agriculture, the timing of that adoption may be delayed by
problems in the equipment replacement cycle for the underlying machines on which GPS,
sensors and other electronics are to be installed.
Kavitha (1999) stated that high investment cost was ranked as the major
constraint by the drip users in the adoption of drip irrigation technology followed by
delay in getting subsidy as the second major constraint. Cost of drip system hiked by the
company while getting through subsidy was ranked as the third constraint by drip users in
coconut where as drip users in grapes ranked clogging of emitters as the third major
constraints in the adoption of drip irrigation technology.
Namboothiripad (2000) in his study on commercial vegetable cultivation
observed that more than three-fourth (85.00 %) of the commercial vegetable growers
reported less availability of labour and high cost of available labour as major constraints.
Pedersen et al. (2000) found that common disadvantage listed in Denmark,

US and UK was the cost of using the technology, and the apparent lack of economic
return (58.00 %).The second most commonly listed disadvantage are time spent on
precision agriculture (21.00 %), lack of research and advice (12.00 %), equipment
problem (5.00 %) and potential government regulation (4.00 %).
Venkatesan (2000) in his study on tomato cultivation practices stated that most of
the tomato growers faced the following problems: non-availability of labour during peak
period (99.17 %), severe pest and disease attack (93.33 %),and fluctuation in market
price (92.50%).
Pedersen et al. (2001) found that the major problem in handling Precision
Agriculture data is the time requirement, where 74 per cent of the Danish and 69 per cent
of the American respondents found data handling too time consuming. Additional
surveys have mentioned time requirement as one of the main impediment to Precision
Agriculture adoption.
Daberkow and McBride (2003) stated that low-precision agriculture adoption was
potentially due to lack of awareness of the technologies.
Broke (2004) elicited that Clogging of emitters, salt accumulation, high initial
cost, rodents and insects were the major problem experienced by drip users.
Jha (2004) in his experiment observed that the efficiency under drip irrigation has
been estimated to be as high as 80 to 90 percent. Drip system also permits the use of
fertilizer and other soluble nutrients along with irrigation water and is considered to be
most efficient method of fertilizer application.
The attributes of drip irrigation has been elicited by Rajput (2004) as drip
irrigation minimizes conventional loss of water including, conveyance loss, deep
percolation, runoff and evaporation.
Sathyasundaram (2006) reported that initial cost of investment, lack of technical
knowledge and trained human resource, lack of sufficient institutional and credit support
as the major constraints experienced by the respondents.
According to David Jochinke et al. (2006), in addition to economic benefits,

Precision Farming has certain environmental benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas
emissions and offsite contamination from pesticides or fertilisers. The precision
application of nitrogen fertilisers in mid-row banding or liquid form can reduce losses to
the atmosphere or leaching and improve efficiency by better matching applications with
crop requirements throughout the growing season. Precision guidance has the potential to
reduce herbicide use where band spraying or inter-row cultivation are adopted for weed
control. It can also reduce the amount of time needed to complete farm operations,
thereby increasing the amount and quality of time that can be spent doing other things.
(social benefits).
Balasubramaniam et al. (2009) found that micro-irrigation system are useful in

economized use of water which was ranked first followed by uniform water distribution,
change of cropping pattern, increased area of cultivation and yield increase in crops.
Regarding reach-wise, the head-reach respondents indicated that uniform

distribution of water as the primary strength (100%) followed by economized use of
water (90%), increased area of cultivation and change of cropping pattern (50%). Only
thirty per cent of respondents indicated yield increase in crops as the last rank.
As far as mid-reach concerned, majority of the respondents expressed economized

use of water and uniform distribution of water as primary strengths, followed by change
of cropping pattern (60%), yield increase in crops and increased area cultivation (35%).
In tail-reach, economized use of water (100%), increased area of cultivation, uniform
distribution of water (85%) and change of cropping pattern (70%) were found in the
order. Only forty percent of respondents indicated yield increase in crops as last strength.
The Weaknesses found by David Jochinke et al. (2006) were, the initial cost of
Precision Farming technology may still be limiting adoption of Precision Farming. Return on
investment will be greatest after the initial years, but carrying this cost until returns are
realised may be challenging for many growers. At current prices, the adoption of some
Precision Farming tools will only be economically viable for larger enterprises (>1000 ha).
Rajeshkanna (2006) in his study found that, cent per cent of the respondents felt
that technologies like drip irrigation, fertigation and chemical pesticides are expensive
when compared to conventional farming. Nearly two-third (63.00%) of the respondents
felt difficulty in transporting produce to long distance markets even though opportunities
existed for better price. Above one-third (39.00%) of the respondents felt market tie-ups
led to low price fixation for their produce including unprofitable negotiations. About
one-fourth of respondents expressed their difficulty in accessing market information due
to non-availability of sources / non-awareness of sources / insufficient information from
existing sources.
According to Floralavanya (2007) High investment cost was reported as major

constraints by 78.33 percent followed by delay in getting subsidy (50.00 per cent). About
46.20 of respondents felt difficult to meet different officials for getting loan. About
43.66 percent of adopters felt that cost of the drip system was hiked by the company while
getting subsidy. Clogging of emitters (76.00 per cent), Salt encrustation (83.78 per cent),
Poor quality of the material (26.74 percent), Damage by rodents (44.44 percent),
Frequent cleaning of filters (82.34 percent) were the constraints projected in her study.
Moreover, 51.56 per cent of the respondents viewed that not suitability for all crops as a
major constraint.
While discussing the weaknesses, Balasubramaniam et al. (2009) expressed that,

the initial investment has secured the highest magnitude followed by non-suitability to all
areas/ crops/ soil types. The reason might be that the micro-irrigation requires high initial
cost to purchase various units of equipments and it could not be used in all soil, crops and
all areas, since, clay soil, cereals and pulses and undulating topography are not suitable to
this system. More labour requirement in the installation period was indicated by three-
fourths (75%) of the respondents followed by fragmentation of land (50%), difficulty in
intercultural operations (46%) and lack of technical know-how (33%).
Regarding reach wise, majority of the respondents in head-reach, quoted high labour
requirement as the prime weakness followed by non-suitability to all areas / crops / soil types
(75%), initial investment (75%), difficulty in intercultural operation (50%), difficulties in layout
and maintenance (50%), and fragmentation of land (35%). In mid-reach, majority of the
respondents indicated that initial investment (100%), non suitability to all areas/crops/
soil types (85%), and high labour requirement (75%) followed by fragmentation of land (50%),
high labour requirement (40%), difficulty in intercultural operations (25%) and lack of
technical know-how (15%) as the identified weaknesses.
The Opportunities revealed by David Jochinke et al. (2006) from their study on
Precision Farming were, the opportunity for consultants to create a service industry to
manage data collection, interpretation and the application of agronomic solutions.
This would create a need for specialised skills in this field, potentially boosting local
training institutions. There is a need to develop user-friendly software to interpret various
layers of spatial data into agronomic solutions. It could also record crop inputs which
might have implications in the event of litigation, especially for pesticides. Some data
and collection techniques used in Precision Farming could be used in collaborative
research with other fields like geology and environmental science.
The study conducted by Balasubramaniam et al. (2009) revealed that, provision
of bank loan (83%) was the best opportunity followed by availability of subsidy (67), one
time investment, less maintenance cost (47%), involvement of private agency (33%), and
low cost of cultivation (3%). In the promotion of micro-irrigation system, banking sector is
arranging loan to purchase equipments. The availability of subsidy followed by one time
investment indicates that all the private agency are offering subsidy for purchase of micro-
irrigation units and once the system has been installed, this can be used for long time.
In reach-wise analysis, provision of bank loan was indicated by the majority of
respondents. In head-reach, provision of bank loan (85%), one time investment (60%),
availability of subsidy (50%), involvement of private agency (50%), less maintenance cost
(35%) and low cost of cultivation (10%). In the mid and tail reaches, provision of bank loan
and availability of subsidy have been expressed by the majority of the respondents.
The Challenges faced by the Precision Farming practitioners as observed by
Whelan and McBratney et al. (2005) were, many tools commonly used in Precision
Farming rely on Geographical Positioning System(GPS) signal, which if becomes
unavailable for any period of time can lead to delays in farm operations. Over-reliance on
guidance systems and associated technology could lead to loss of skills in machinery
operation over time. There are potential issues between growers and consultants
regarding the ownership of raw and processed farm related data.
Further high investment was ranked as the first followed by damage due to rats and
rodents (33%), salt encrustation (32%), inadequate availability of spare parts (27%) and pest
and disease problem (17%) as the other challenges found by Balasubramaniam et al. (2009).
According to Palanisamy (2011),Seventy three per cent of the Precision Farming

beneficiaries indicated market price fluctuation followed by non availability of inputs
(50.00 per cent), high cost of water soluble fertilizer (43.00 per cent) and lack of storage
facilities (20.00 per cent) as the major problems.
Moreover, he found that 72.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries
indicated that frequent cleaning of emitters as major constraints in following drip
irrigation and 30.00 per cent of the Precision Farming beneficiaries mentioned difficulty
in taking up intercultural operations.
2.8 STAKEHOLDERS INTERVENTION
A stakeholder is any entity with a declared or conceivable interest or stake in a

policy concern. The range of stakeholders relevant to consider for analysis varies according
to the complexity of the reform area targeted and the type of reform proposed and, where the
stakeholders are not organized, the incentive to include them. Stakeholders can be of any
form, size and capacity. They can be individuals, organizations, or unorganized groups. In
most cases, stakeholders fall into one or more of the following categories: international
actors (e.g. donors), national or political actors (e.g. legislators, governors), public sector
agencies, interest groups (e.g. unions, associations), commercial/private for-profit, non-
profit organizations (NGOs, foundations), civil society members, and users/consumers.
To guide strategic responses, stakeholders are categorized by their power and

salience in a grid according to the following attributes:
• Promoters: Stakeholders who attach a high priority to the reform policy a priority and
whose actions can have an impact on the implementation of the policy
• Defenders: Stakeholders who attach a high priority to the reform policy but whose
actions cannot have an impact on the implementation of the policy
• Latents: Stakeholders whose actions can affect the implementation of the reform policy
but who attach a low priority to this policy
• Apathetics: Stakeholders whose actions cannot affect the implementation of the reform
policy and who attach a low priority to this policy
Stakeholder analysis is the identification of the key stakeholders in the analysis

and planning stage of a change process, and an assessment of their interests and the way
in which these interests are likely to affect this process. It results in deciding whom to
involve in which way in the analysis and planning (and tentatively in the change
implementation) process.
Stakeholder Analysis (SA) is a methodology used to facilitate institutional and

policy reform processes by accounting for and often incorporating the needs of those who
have a „stake‟ or an interest in the reforms under consideration. With information on
stakeholders, their interests, and their capacity to oppose reform, reform advocates can
choose how to best accommodate them, thus assuring policies adopted are politically
realistic and sustainable.
Different levels of engagement are likely to be appropriate in different contexts,

depending on the objectives of the work and the capacity for stakeholders to influence
outcomes (Richards et al., 2004; Tippett et al., 2007).
Rowe and Frewer (2000) focus on the nature rather than the degree of
engagement, identifying different types of public engagement by the direction that
communication flows between parties. According to this view, information dissemination
to passive recipients constitutes „„communication‟‟, gathering information from
participants is „„consultation‟‟ and „„participation‟‟ is conceptualised as two-way
communication between participants and exercise organisers where information is
exchanged in some sort of dialogue or negotiation.
By establishing common ground and trust between participants and learning to

appreciate the legitimacy of each other‟s view points, participatory processes have the
capacity to transform adversarial relationships and find new ways for participants to work
together (Stringer et al., 2006). This may lead to a sense of ownership over the process
and outcomes. If this is shared by a broad coalition of stakeholders, long-term support
and active implementation of decisions may be enhanced (Richards et al., 2004).
Stakeholder participation does not take place in a power vacuum: the

empowerment of previously marginalised groups may have unexpected and potentially
negative interactions with existing power structures (Kothari, 2001).
Beierle (2002) coded information from 239 published case studies of stakeholder
involvement in environmental decision-making and found evidence that stakeholders
improved the quality of decisions that were made in the majority of cases, adding new
information, ideas, and analysis.
Sultana and Abeyasekera, 2007 analysed 36 cases of community fisheries

management in Bangladesh with and without stakeholder participation during planning,
and found statistical evidence that participation led to greater uptake of conservation
measures and fewer conflicts between stakeholders.
The outcome of any participatory process is far more sensitive to the manner in which
it is conducted than the tools that are used (Chess and Purcell, 1999; Richards et al., 2004).
A successful facilitator needs to be perceived as impartial, open to multiple

perspectives and approachable. They need to be capable of maintaining positive group
dynamics, handling dominating or offensive individuals, encourage participants to
question assumptions and re-evaluate entrenched positions, and get the most out of
reticent individuals. Such skills are difficult to learn and tend to be developed through
years of experience, intuition and empathy (Richards et al., 2004).
Various techniques have been developed to aid facilitation, including the

development of ground rules that groups agree to follow, meticulous planning,
psychological approaches to deal with difficult individuals and group dynamics, and
being familiar with a wide range of alternative tools that can be adapted to the
circumstances (Chess and Purcell, 1999; Richards et al., 2004).
A combination of local and scientific knowledge may empower local communities to

monitor and manage environmental change easily and accurately (Ingram, 2008).
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problems.
It may be understood as a science of studying how research is done systematically.
(Kothari, 2008) It explains various steps done that are adopted by a researcher in studying
his research problem, along with logic behind them. It is necessary for the researcher to know
not only the research methods and techniques but also the methodology.
A well designed and clearly laid down research methodology is useful because it
determines the validity and quality of the study. The methodology provides a description
and rationalization of various methods involved in carrying the research. Detailed
descriptions of methods and procedures that are essential for addressing the objectives
said forth in the present research have been presented as follows.
This chapter enunciates the investigation methods and procedures adopted in the
study and explained under following heads.
3.1 Locale of research
3.2 Description of the study area
3.3 Research design
3.4 Sample and sampling procedure
3.5 Selection, Operationalization and measurement of variables
3.6 Tools and Techniques of data collection
3.7 Statistical tools used
3.1 LOCALE OF RESEARCH
Tamil Nadu agro climatic conditions have been divided into seven agro climatic
zones. Among this, two zones viz., Northern Zone and North western Zones were
purposively selected for conducting the present study. In the North western zones the
districts Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and in western zone Coimbatore and Erode were the
study areas. The Precision Farming was first experimented in the undivided Dharmapuri
district (present Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri districts). As a pioneer attempt (2004-2007)
more area was covered by Precision Farming techniques with the intervention of
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU). Financial allocation was made by the state
government to implement the precision farming techniques with the technical guidance
of scientists in TNAU. Based on the experience gained in the districts with vegetable
crops the project was expanded to the western zone of Tamil Nadu. More crops have
been brought under Precision Farming in this zones with the intervention of possible
stakeholders. In the other parts of Tamil Nadu Precision Farming is just at the nascent
level and not yet extended to most of the crops. Considering the long period of coverage
in the two zones with more crops, stakeholders contribution etc., the study has been
conducted in the said districts. Almost a decade and half a decade have passed after the
implementation of Precision Farming in Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri, Coimbatore and
Erode districts respectively. Some farmers may continue the Precision Farming, some
may discontinued and some farmers might have entered as new and others may have the
inclination to involve in future. Hence it is an appropriate time to assess the existing
status of Precision Farming and its socio-economic impact on the practitioners.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri Districts
Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri districts were purposively selected, since the Tamil
Nadu Precision Farming Project (TNPFP) is being implemented only in these two districts
of Tamil Nadu. The total geographical area of the Dharmapuri district is 4,497.77 sq. km, (4.49
lakh ha) i.e.3.46 per cent of the total geographical area of Tamil Nadu and Krishnagiri
District is 5,143 sq. Km (5.14 lakh ha). The climate of Dharmapuri district is hottest
between March and May. The temperature goes up to 38o C in April and the climate
becomes cool in December to February, with 17o C in January. The annual rainfall is
895.56 mm.
The Eastern part of the Krishnagiri district experiences hot climate and Western
part has a contrasting cold climate. The average rainfall is 830 mm per annum, July to
November is the rainy season. The temperature ranges from 15oC to 38oC. Red sandy,
black sandy and loamy soils are observed throughout both the districts. Generally the soil
is low in nitrogen and phosphate content with no marked variation among the taluks.
In Dharmapuri district, wells and tanks are the major sources of irrigation
contributing to 77.80 and 15.80 per cent of the total area irrigated. The main rivers that
flow across the Krishnagiri district are Cauvery and South Pennar. Cauvery enters the
district from South West in Denkanikottai taluk and exit in South West direction.
In Krishnagiri district wells and canals are the major sources of irrigation contributing to
81.19 and 10.71 per cent of the total area irrigated of the district, respectively.
In Dharmapuri district, millets are cultivated predominantly in an area of about

0.67 lakh ha (41.81per cent) followed by pulses with 0.28 lakh ha (18.06 per cent). Area under
horticulture crops occupied 30,444 ha in the district which accounted for 19 per cent of the total
cropped area. Out of this, fruits accounted for 6,024 ha, vegetables 19,673 ha, spices and
condiments 3,796 ha and flowers 951 ha.
The important crops of Krishnagiri district are millets, pulses, paddy, banana,
sugarcane, mango, vegetables and flowers. Millets are cultivated predominantly in an
area of about 0.75 lakh ha (38.80 per cent) followed by mango (17.75 per cent) and
pulses (13.27 per cent). Area under paddy occupied 5.90 per cent of total cultivated area.
Cash crop like sugarcane is raised in an area of 1,219 ha (0.62 per cent).
Krishnagiri District is more suitable for cultivation of horticultural crops. Area

under horticultural crops is 45,495 ha which accounted for 23.21 per cent of the total
cropped area. Out of this, fruits accounted for 36,187 ha, vegetables 5,052 ha, spices and
condiments 2,375 ha and flowers 1,678 ha.
Mango is the main horticultural crop accounts for nearly one-third area and
one-half of mango yield in the state. Thottapuri referred as Banglora is the most
cultivated mango variety. It has second highest area under tomato (22%) cultivated in
Palacode and Chillies at Pennagaram.
Erode
Erode district lies on the extreme north of Tamilnadu. It is bounded mostly by

Karnataka State and also River Palar covers pretty long distance. To the East lies
Namakkal and Karur Districts. Erode District is essentially a land-locked area having no
sea-coast of its own. The total geographical area of this district is 5722 sq.km.
The temperature varies from 19.20 C to 33.700 C. The average annual rainfall is 762.60 mm.
Total cultivated area is 1.98 lakh ha.
The region comprised in the district can be portrayed as a long undulating plain
gently sloping towards the river Cauvery in the south-east. The two major tributaries of
river Cauvery viz. Bhavani and Noyyal drain the long stretch of mountains in the
north. A part of the eastern boundary of the district is formed by river Cauvery, entering
the district from Salem and flowing in a southern direction.
The district in general is characterised with a scandy rainfall and a dry

climate. Maximum rainfall is recorded in Gobichettipalayam and Bhavani taluks.
The soils of the district are mostly red sand and gravel with moderate amounts of
red-loam and occasional black loam tracts. Paddy, Sugarcane, Cotton, Ground Nut,
Maize, Turmeric, Onion, Chillies, vegetables, Coconut, Tapioca, Banana are the
agricultural crops cultivated in this district.
It also occurs in the hilly tracts of Bhavani taluk. Soils of Bhavani, Erode and
Perundurai taluks are chiefly gravelly, stony and sandy of the red variety. Soils of
Gobichettipalayam and Sathyamangalam taluks are mostly of the red sandy variety.
Red loam is prevalent mostly in Gobichettipalayam and Perundurai taluks.
Coimbatore
Coimbatore district lies in the western part of Tamil Nadu, part of the Kongu
Nadu region with an area of 7,649 square kilometres. The average annual rainfall in the
plains is around 700 mm. The total geographical area of Coimbatore district is
7469 Sq.km. The temperature varies from 24 0 C -390C. The change in land use pattern
created a cause of concern amongst the agricultural planners to evolve suitable
development strategies. The increasing trend of fallow lands (both current and other
fallows) due to drought situation, causes reduction in cropping intensity from the average
level of 120 per cent to 113.4 per cent during the last couple of years. The gross cropped
area declined leaving about 9.8 lakh ha under fallow. Net Area Sown (41.88 per cent),
Forest (21.26 per cent), Land put to Non-agricultural use is 14.46 per cent and Current
Fallows is 11.96 per cent. Cropping intensity is 1.06.
Selection of the crop and the utilization of the agricultural inputs are influenced
by the extent of irrigation available. Aliyar, Nirar, Sholayar, Uppar, Amaravathy, Noyyal,
Thirumurthi, and Bhavani are the major eight rivers flowing through the district cover
approximately 16 per cent of the net sown area. Though Coimbatore is an industrial
district, it could maintain the pride of position in the field of agricultural too. The main
vegetables cultivated are Tomato (4853 ha), Brinjal (609 ha), Bhendi (429 ha), Pumpkin
(357 ha), Ash gourd (342 ha) and Onion (1878 ha). Vegetables are grown mostly in
Coimbatore South and Udumalpet taluks. Cotton, Coconut, Corn, Maize, Millet, Wheat,
Rice (limited areas) Sugarcane (limited areas) are the major crops found to be prevalent
in the study area. Apart from these, vegetable crops like Tomato, Chilly, Brinjal, Bhendi
and Onion are also seemed to be vigorously grown in the district.
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
Research design is the plan structure and strategy of investigation conceived so as

to obtain answers to the research questions and to control variance. The strategy includes
the method to be used to gather and analyze the data. The strategy implies how the
research objectives could be achieved and how the problems encountered in the research
could be tackled”- (Kerlinger, 1964).
For this study, ex-post facto research design was followed. Singh (1986)
defined, ex-post facto research as a design that draws the inferences regarding the
relationship between variables on the basis of such independent variable whose
manifestations have already occurred. The researcher has no control over the independent
variables because they occurred much prior to their producing effect.
3.4 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE
3.4.1. Selection of blocks
Dharmapuri district comprises of eight blocks, namely Dharmapuri,

Nallampalli, Palacode, Kariamangalam, Pennagram, Harur, Morappur, pappireddipatty.
Among these, Palacode and Pennagram were selected.
Krishnagiri district has 10 blocks namely Kelamangalam, Thali, Hosur,

Shoolagiri, Vepanapalli, Krishnagiri, Kaveripattinam, Bargur, Mathur and Uthangarai.
Of these Krishnagiri and Kaveripattinam blocks were purposively selected based on the
availability of more number of established Hi-tech nurseries for the past five years.
Erode district constitutes 14 blocks namely Erode, Kodumudi, Modakurichi,

Perundhurai, Chennimalai, Gobichettipalayam, Nambiyur, T.N Palaiyam, Sathyamangalam,
Bhavanisagar, Talavadi, Bhavani, Andiyur and Ammapet out of these, Modakurichi and
Gobichettipalayam blocks were selected.
Among 12 blocks in Coimbatore district, two blocks viz., Thondamuthur and

Pollachi North were selected purposively for the study, since more area was under
vegetable cultivation. The blocks selected in each district were based on more area
covered under Precision Farming.
3.4.2 Selection of sample
The sample of the study has been fixed as 200 from the four districts. Two blocks
from each district in which the Precision Farming cultivation is intensive were selected.
Thus the study covers eight blocks in four districts. The sample of the present study was
taken after receiving the list of precision farm practitioners from State Department of
Agriculture, Horticulture, Research stations of TNAU and the existing precision farmers.
After deleting the overlapping sample from the list, samples were arranged in the
alphabetical order, and simple random sampling procedure was followed. Thus totally
200 samples were arrived @ 25 samples from each block. The sample of the study were
practising Precision Farming in a portion of their farm in addition to conventional farming.
Stakeholders like extension personnel from the department of Agriculture,

Horticulture, Marketing, Input agencies, Drip marketers, Agripreneurs like agri clinic
personnel were involved in the Precision Farming process. From the stakeholders
involving in Precision Farming, totally 50 sample @ 25 from each zone were taken for
the study following simple random sampling procedure. . A sample of 50 stakeholders
involving in Precision Farming Process viz., Researchers and Extension Personnel (24),
Input Dealers (8), Drip Marketers (2), Produce Marketing Personnel (10), Agri clinics (6)
have been taken for the study.
3.5 SELECTION, OPERATIONALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF
VARIABLES
3.5.1. Selection of independent variables
Having discussed with Agricultural Scientists and Advisory Committee members

and on perusal of literature a list of 31 variables was prepared and it was sent to fifty four
judges with three point continuum of most relevant, relevant and least relevant.
(ANNEXURE B). The responses were obtained from 42 judges. The experienced, senior
social scientists and farm scientists involved in Precision Farming projects were
requested to evaluate the degree of relevancy of each variable in the list on a three – point
continuum. The scores of 3, 2 and 1 were assigned for the “relevant", “somewhat
relevant" and "not relevant" responses respectively.
Based on the rating by judges, the mean and coefficient of variations were worked
out for all the independent variables. The overall mean and coefficient of variations were
also worked out. The criteria used for the selection of variables are as follows.
 The individual variables mean should be greater than the overall mean.
Individual mean > Overall mean
 The individual variables co-efficient of variation (CV) should be less than

the overall coefficient of variation.
Individual CV < Overall CV
Through this process, 25 variables were selected from the judges‟ ratings.
The summary of selected variables and their measurement procedure are given in Table 1.
Table 1: List of independent and dependent variables selected for the study and
their measurement procedure
S.No. Variables Scoring procedure followed

Independent variables -Farmers
1. Age Scoring procedure followed by Sudha (2008)
2. Educational status Scoring procedure followed by Aston Oliver
(2012) with the addition of one category
3. Landholding size Agriculture census Input Survey 2001-2002,
Ministry of agriculture, GOI.
4. Area under Precision Farming Scoring Procedure developed for the study
5. Experience in Precision Farming Scoring Procedure developed for the study
6. Farming experience Scoring Procedure Followed by Floralavanya
(2007)
7. Irrigation Potentiality Scoring Procedure followed by Sudha (2008)
8. Annual income from farming Scoring Procedure followed by Aston Oliver
(2012)
9. Annual income from PF Developed for the study
10. Orientation with research station Scoring procedure developed by Banumathy
(2003)
11. Participation in research station
Scoring Procedure developed for the study
activities
12. Innovativeness Scoring Procedure developed for the study
13. Risk-bearing ability Scale Followed by Floralavanya (2007)
14. Extension participation Scoring Procedure followed by Suresh (2001)
and modified for the study.
15. Economic motivation Scoring Procedure adopted by Vilas(2005)
16. Credit orientation Scoring Procedure followed by Astonoliver
(2012)
17. Access to credit facilities Scoring Procedure developed for the study
18. Leadership potential Scoring Procedure followed by Shinogi
(2007)
19. Employment generation Scoring Procedure developed for the study
20. Availability of agro-inputs Scoring Procedure developed for the study
21. Attitude towards Precision Attitude Scale Constructed for the study
Farming
22. Information seeking pattern Scoring Procedure followed by Jebapreetha
(2007) and modified for the study
23. Information sharing pattern Scoring Procedure followed by Sudha (2008)
and modified for the study
24. Decision making pattern Scoring Procedure followed by Tamilselvi
25. Level of aspiration Scoring Procedure developed for the study
Dependent variables
1. Technological Utilization
Scoring Procedure Developed for the Study
Pattern
Scoring procedure followed by Floralavanya
2. Perceived Effectiveness
3. Market Associated Activities Scoring Procedure Developed for the study
3.5.2 Operationalization and measurement of independent variables
3.5.2.1 Age
Age has been operationalised as the number of completed years of the

respondents at the time of enquiry and the chronological age was taken as the measure.
Scoring procedure followed by Sudha (2008) was used in this study. The respondents
were categorized into young, middle and old according to their age
S.No Categories Age
1. Young Up to 35 years
2. Middle Above 35 and up to 45 years
3. Old Above 45 years
3.5.2.2 Educational status
It has been defined as the stage of formal schooling of the respondent at time of
study and their ability to read and write.
Illiterate farmers are those people who did not able to read and write, functionally
literate are those who can read and write, people with primary education studied up to
fifth standard in schools. Middle education referred to education in school from sixth to
eighth standard. Secondary education meant the education from nineth standard to plus
two levels and Diploma education and collegiate education after schooling. The scoring
procedure adopted by Aston Oliver (2012) was used with the inclusion of diploma
category and the scoring procedure was modified accordingly.
Categories Score
illiterate 0
Functionally illiterate 1
Primary education 2
Middle education 3
Secondary education 4
Diploma education 5
College education 6
3.5.2.3 Land Holding Size
Land holding size has been operationalised as the number of hectares of land
possessed by the respondents at the time of investigation. The total hectare of crop
cultivation including the area under Precision Farming possessed by the respondents was
taken into consideration for computing the land holdings. Score of one was given to each
hectare of land holding. The respondents were categorized into five based on the area
they possessed as notified in “Agriculture census input survey 2001-2002, Ministry of
Agriculture, Government of India”
S.No Area (acres) Categories
1 Upto 1 ha Marginal farmer

2. 1-2 ha Small farmer
3. 2-4 ha Semi medium
4 4-10 ha Medium farmer
5. More than 10 ha Big farmer
3.5.2.4 Area Under Precision Farming
Area under Precision Farming has been operationalised as the number of hectares
of land cultivated under Precision Farming at the time of investigation. The scoring
procedure was one score to each hectare of land holding.
3.5.2.5 Experience in Precision Farming
Experience in Precision Farming is referred to the number of completed years of

experience of the respondent exclusively in Precision Farming at the time of enquiry.
The scoring procedure was developed for the study. „Two‟ scores were assigned for each
year of experience.
3.5.2.6 Farming Experience
Farming experience referred to the number of years of experience the respondent

possessed in farming inclusive of Precision Farming at the time of enquiry. The scoring
procedure followed by Floralavanya (2007) was used and one score was assigned for
each year of farm experience.
3.5.2.7 Irrigation Potentiality
Irrigation potentiality has been operationalised as the fraction of total area

irrigated to the size of land holdings. It was quantified using the formula followed by
Sudha (2008) and this is expressed in percentage.
Total area under irrigation in acres

Irrigation potentiality = X 100
Size of land holdings
3.5.2.8 Annual Income
Annual Income has been operationalised as the earning of the respondents from
all sources in a particular year to support the house hold needs and farm needs derived
exclusively from farming other than Precision Farming. The scoring procedure as
followed by Aston Oliver (2012) was adopted as every Rs.10,000/- one score was
assigned.
3.5.2 .9 Annual Income from Precision Farming
Annual Income from Precision Farming has been operationalised as the earning of
the respondents derived exclusively from Precision Farming. The Scoring Procedure was
developed for the study and one score was assigned for every Rs.10,000/-
3.5.2.10 Orientation with Research Station
It is referred to the extent of contact made by Precision Farm practitioners with

the scientists of local research station. It was measured in terms of the frequency and
purpose of contact with the research station and also the farm activities in which the
respondents had participated. A score of zero to six was assigned for the responses from
never to daily and a score of one to three was assigned from general purpose to exclusive
for Precision Farming. The sum of scores was considered as the score for Orientation
with research stations. The Scoring Procedure developed by Banumathy (2003) was used
for the study.
S.No Frequency of contact Score
1. Daily 6
2. Once in a week 5
3. Twice in a week 4
4. Once in a fortnight 3
5. Once in a month 2
6. Rarely 1
7. Never 0
S.No Purpose of contact Score
1. Exclusively for Precision Farming 3

2 Other crops 2
3. General 1
3.5.2.11. Participation in Research Station Activities
The Scoring procedure for participation was developed for the study and a score
of one was assigned in each activity, viz., scientists -farmer‟s discussion, farmer‟s day,
field day, study tour, on farm testing, Front line demonstration and training. The total
score was taken as a measure for this variable.
3.5.2.12. Innovativeness
Innovativeness denotes the quality of being innovative. An innovation involves

creation of entirely new knowledge as well as an idea perceived as new. Hall (2003)
defined innovativeness as the continuous process of upgrading new knowledge or the
new combination of existing knowledge that is new to the local area. It is operationally
defined as one shows interest in seeking new idea and bringing change in his farming.
Scoring procedure was developed for the study and the scores ranging from three
to one were assigned for Very True, True and Never responses respectively.
3.5.2.13 Risk Bearing Ability
It is referred as the degree of orientation of the sample towards risks and uncertainty
and courage to face problems. The scoring procedure followed by Floralavanya (2007) was
modified to suit the requirement of the study. The Scores of five to one were assigned to
positive statements and vice versa for the negative statements, measured on a five point
continuum for six statements from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
3.5.2.14 Extension Participation
It is referred to the participation of the respondents in extension activities

conducted by extension agencies during the year. Scoring Procedure followed by Suresh
(2001) was modified with the inclusion of some more activities and addition of more sub
categories under the frequency of participation. The extension activities viz., meetings,
demonstrations, training, front line demonstration, on farm trial, campaign, field visit, field
day and special occasions were taken for the study after consulting with the functionaries,
The frequency of extension participation was quantified on a five point continuum

namely Once in a week, twice in a week, once in a fortnight, once in a month, rarely and
never with the scores 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0 respectively. The higher score reveals greater
participation of the respondents in extension activities. The respondents were categorized
as low, moderate and high using cumulative frequency method.
3.5.2.15 Economic Motivation
It has been operationalised in terms of profit maximization and the relative value
placed by farmers on economic ends. The procedure adopted by Vilas (2005) was used to
measure the economic motivation.
The score consisted of six statements of which first five were positive and one
was negative. These items were rated over a five point continuum which ranged from
strongly agree to strongly disagree and the scores of five to one were assigned for
positive statements and vice-versa for the negative statements. The categorization was
done using Cumulative Frequency method as low, medium and high.
3.5.2.16 Credit Orientation
Credit orientation has been operationalised with the help of the respondents
relation to the need for the credit, difficulties encountered in securing credit. Scoring
procedure followed by Aston Oliver (2012) was used in this study. It was measured over
three statements on a five point continuum from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with
the scores of 5,4,3,2 and 1. The need for availing credit was assessed on 6 items and one
score was assigned for every response.
3.5.2.17 Access to Credit Facilities
Access to credit facilities has been operationalised as easiness and efficiency of

precision farmers to obtain loans/credits from financial institutions for supporting their
farming. The scoring procedure was developed for the study. The scale intended to
measure five aspects viz., proximity, sources of finance, interest rate, loan procedures and
timeliness in getting the loan with four to six alternatives provided under each item.
Relative weightage of 0 to 6 were assigned for these alternatives. The alternatives were
not uniform in nature and it varies based on the statements. The scores obtained for each
item were summed to get the total score of access to credit facilities.
3.5.2.18 Leadership Potential
Leadership potential has been operationalised as the capacity of an individual in

leading the Precision Farmers towards the utilisation of Precision Farming technologies
and gaining increased income. It was measured using scale followed by Shinogi (2007).
Dichotomous responses of agree and disagree over the six items were obtained. The
respondents were categorised as low, medium and high based on their leadership potential.
3.5.2.19 Employment Generation
It has been operationalised as the opportunities created for employing additional

manpower in Precision Farming other than family members of the respondents.
The employment generation through Precision Farming is measured in terms of number of
labourers engaged from family, hired labourers used, the time spent by them per day and the
frequency of engaging them. The scoring procedure developed for the study as follows.
One score was assigned for every one labourer from family employed for six
hours per day. For the frequency of hired labourer one score for every six hours a labour
has engaged for a month. Two scores for a labourer engaged for two months and three
scores for a labourer engaged for three months. The pooled score for all the above items
indicates the employment generation score of the respondents.
3.5.2.20 Availability of Agro inputs
It has been measured in terms of the availability of all type of inputs, price and the
reliability of the inputs. The scoring procedure is developed for the study and the
measurement procedure as follows. The availability was rated as easily available,
available, difficult and not available with the scores of 3,2,1 and 0. The prices was
measured as very cheap, cheap, reasonable, expensive and very expensive with the scores
of 5,4,3,2 and 1.The reliability of the inputs was measured as highly reliable, reliable, not
much reliable and problematic with the scores of 4,3,2 and 1. The availability of all type
of inputs required was measured as Yes, No and not sure with the scores of 2,1 and 0.
The sum of scores of all the said items indicates the scores of availability of agro inputs.
3.5.2. 21 Attitude towards Precision Farming
A scale was developed to measure the attitude of farmers engaged in Precision

Farming towards Precision Farming. The scale was constructed by following „Equal
Appearing Interval’ scaling technique developed by Thurstone and Chave (1929).
The steps followed in construction of attitude scale are presented below.
Operationalization of attitude of farmers towards Precision Farming
For the purpose of this study, attitude was operationalised as the mental
disposition of the farmers about Precision Farming in varying degrees of favourableness
or unfavourableness.
Collection of attitude items
Possible statements concerning the psychological object i.e. „Attitude towards

Precision Farming” with respect to economic benefits, employment opportunities,
resource utilization, risk management, etc. were collected based on review of literature,
discussion with scientists involved in Precision Farming project and Extension
personnel. Totally 89 statements were collected, organized and structured in the form of
items. The items were screened by following the informal criteria suggested by Edwards (1969)
for editing the statements to be used in the construction of the attitude scale. Based on the
screening, 79 items were finally selected which formed the universe of contents.
Item scoring and computation of scale values and Q values
The 79 statements were then subjected to judges opinion on a five-point

continuum ranging from most unfavourable to most favourable. The list of statements
was sent to fifty four judges comprised of scientists of State Agricultural Universities and
ICAR Research Institutes and Extension personnel of the State Department of
Agriculture (ANNEXURE A).
Of the fifty fours judges, 42 judges responded by sending their judgements. By

applying the formula as suggested by Thurstone and Chave (1929), the scale values and Q
values were computed for the 79 statements.
Scale Value
S = l +{ (0.50-∑ Pb)/Pw} i
Where,
S= the median /Scale value of the statement
l= the lower limit of the interval in which the median falls
∑ Pb=the sum of the proportions below the interval in which the median falls
Pw=the proportion within the interval in which the median falls
i=the width of the interval and is assumed to be one (1).
Thurstone and Chave used the interquartile range (Q) as a measure of the
variation of the distribution of judgements for a given statement. The interquartile range
contains the middle 50% of the judgements. To determine the value of Q, 75 th and
25th centiles should be obtained.
Q = C75 - C25
C75 = l +{ (0.75-∑ Pb)/Pw} i
Where,
C75 = 75th centile
l= the lower limit of the interval in which the 75th centile falls
∑ Pb=the sum of the proportions below the interval in which the 75th centile falls
Pw=the proportion within the interval in which the 75th centile falls
C25 = l +{ (0.25-∑ Pb)/Pw} i
Where,
C25 = 25th centile
l= the lower limit of the interval in which the 25th centile falls
∑ Pb=the sum of the proportions below the interval in which the 25th centile falls
Pw=the proportion within the interval in which the 25th centile falls
A large Q value, indicating the disagreement among the judges as to the degree of
the attribute possessed by a statement, is therefore taken as an indication that there is
something wrong with the statement. Large Q values primarily as an indication that a
statement is ambiguous. Large Q values may result from the fact that, the statement is
interpreted in more than one ways by the judges when making their judgements.
Selection of attitude items
The attitude items to be included in the final attitude scale were selected based on
the following criteria.
 The statements selected should represent the universe of content with respect to
Precision Farming.
 The statements selected should adequately represent the domains such as economic
benefits, employment opportunities, resource utilization, risk management,
commercial orientation etc.
 The scale values of the selected attitude items should have equal appearing
interval i.e. distributed uniformly along the psychological continuum.
 Those items with high Scale values (S) and smaller Q values should be selected as
far as possible.
 There should be more or less equal number of statements with favourable and
unfavourable attitudes as far as possible.
An objective methodology was devised in order to select the attitude items

keeping in mind the criteria mentioned. The scale values were arranged in ascending
order of magnitude. Considering the time limitation from farmers‟ point of view, nine
statements were selected to constitute the attitude scale. Since the selected scale values
should have equal appearing interval and distributed uniformly along the psychological
continuum, it was necessary to form nine compartments so as to select nine statements,
one statement from each compartment. The basis for forming the compartments was that,
each compartment should be equally spaced in the continuum. For this purpose, the
cumulative total was divided by nine, which worked out to 0.546, and this formed the
width of the class intervals. Each class interval represented a compartment for the
selection of the attitude items [APPENDIX II (A)].
To select the attitude items from the nine compartments the scale values (S) and
the corresponding Q values were considered. Based on the criteria already mentioned,
items having high scale values (S) and low Q values were selected at one item from each
compartment. Care was taken to ensure that the selected items represented the universe of
content and covered different aspects of Precision Farming [Appendix II(B)].
Thereby, nine items were selected with equal appearing interval and with a
uniform distribution along the psychological continuum. The final items to measure the
attitude selected through Equal Appearing Interval Technique are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Final Items selected to measure the attitude of farmers towards Precision
Farming
S. Statement Scale
Q Value Statement
No. No. Value
Precision Farming encourages cultivation of
1. 17 0.125 1.384
high value crops.
Precision Farming provides more avenues for
2. 20 0.511 -0.166
income generation.
Practicing Precision Farming increase the risk
3 78 1.701 1.600
taking ability of the growers.
Precision Farming envisages significant
4 77 1.785 1.453 improvement in the economic conditions of the
farmers.
Nature of Precision Farming varies according
5 31 2.300 0.966
to agro-climatic zones
Eco-friendly crop management technologies
6 35 2.667 0.411
are not recommended in Precision Farming.
Farmers with inadequate finance can not go
7 30 3.502 1.250
for Precision Farming.
S. Statement Scale
Q Value Statement
No. No. Value
Precision Farming requires regular contact with
8 46 3.900 0.508
agriculture consultants.
Precision Farming has complicated practices
9 62 4.500 3.75
to adopt.
After selecting the statements based on Scale value and Q values, the validity and
reliability of the scale was assessed as follows
Reliability of the scale
The reliability of the scale was determined by „split- half‟ method. The split-half
method is regarded by many as the best of the methods for measuring reliability (Garrett and
Woodworth, 1973). The nine selected items to measure the attitude were divided into two
equal halves by odd-even method (Singh, 2008). The two halves were administered
separately to 30 farmers engaged in Precision Farming in a non-sample area. The scores
were subjected to product moment correlation test in order to find out the reliability of
the half-test. The half-test reliability coefficient (r) was 0.570, which was significant at five
per cent level of probability. Further, the reliability coefficient of the whole test was
computed using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. The whole test reliability (rtt) was
0.726. According to Singh (2008), when the mean scores of the two groups are of narrow
range, a reliability coefficient of 0.50 or 0.60 would suffice. Hence, the constructed scale is
reliable as the whole test reliability was greater than 0.60.
Content validity of the scale
It referred to the representativeness or sampling adequacy of the content of a

measuring instrument (Kerlinger, 2007). Content validation was carried out by subjecting
the selected nine attitude items to judge‟s opinion. Experts in the selected field of study
were the judges. They were asked to indicate the extent to which each attitude item
covered the different aspects of Precision Farming or judge each item for its presumed
relevance to the property being measured. The responses were obtained on a four-point
continuum of „most adequately covers‟, „more adequately covers‟, „less adequately
covers‟ and „least adequately covers‟. Scores of 4, 3, 2 and 1 were given for the points
on the continuum respectively. Totally 42 judges responded by sending their judgements.
The mean score (2.5) was fixed as the basis for deciding the content validity of the scale
i.e. if the overall mean score of the attitude items as rated by the judges was above 2.5, the
scale will be declared as valid and if not otherwise. In the present case, the overall mean
score was worked out as 3.0, therefore, the constructed attitude scale is said to be valid.
Administration of the scale
The nine attitude items selected were arranged randomly in order to avoid biased
responses. A five-point continuum of „strongly agree‟, „agree‟, „undecided‟ „disagree‟
and „strongly disagree‟ was used as response categories. The scoring procedure adopted
is presented here under.
Scoring Procedure
Continuum
Nature of the
statement Strongly Strongly
Agree Undecided Disagree
Agree Disagree
Favourable 7 5 4 3 1
Unfavourable 1 3 4 5 7
This scale was administered to obtain precision farmers responses. The score obtained
for each statement was summed up to arrive at the attitude score for that respondent. The score
ranged from 63 (maximum) to 9 (minimum). The responses were grouped as less favourable,
moderately favourable and highly favourable based on the cumulative frequency method.
3.5.2.22 Information Seeking Pattern
It has been referred as the sources and channels from where the respondents
received the information regarding the cultivation practices of the crop and the related
aspects of Precision Farming.
The scoring procedure followed by Jebapreetha (2007) was modified for this
study. The score for frequency of use of sources /channels for seeking information ranges
from 3 to 1 for the responses viz., Frequently, Occasionally and Rarely. The scores
obtained for the frequency of use of the sources / channels reported under Institutional
sources, Non-Institutional sources and media sources were summed up to arrive at the
total score for each individual. The maximum score would indicate more information
seeking behaviour and vice-versa. The respondents were categorized into three by using
cumulative frequency method.
3.5.2.23 Information Sharing Pattern
It is referred to the tendency of the respondents to share the information of the

technologies received by them. Four sources with whom the sharing used to be happened
was assessed on a three frequency mode as furnished. The scoring procedure followed by
Sudha (2008) was modified and used in this study.
S.No Frequency Score
1. Regularly 2
2. Rarely 1
3 Never 0
3.5.2.24 Decision Making Pattern
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) defined decision as the process by which an

individual engages in activities which leads a choice to adopt or reject an innovation.
The sample may take independent decision or joint decision by consulting family
members, discussion with friends and relatives, precision farm forum members and after
consulting the stakeholders. The decision making pattern was measured on five activities and
the scoring pattern followed was indicated in this section. The scoring procedure followed by
Tamilselvi (2003) was used for the study with some modification to suit the study.
S.No Type of decision Scores

1 Independent Decision 1
2 Joint decision with their family members 2
3 Joint decision with friends and relatives. 3
4 Joint decision with PFA Members 4
5 Joint decision with stakeholders 5
3.5.2.25 Level of Aspiration
Level of aspiration was operationalised as the overall assessment of Precision

farmers‟ concern on their wishes and hopes for the future or for the fear and worries
about the future in their own real world.
The scoring procedure was developed for the study. The scale consisted of
5 statements with three alternatives provided for each item. Relative weightage of 1, 2
and 3 were assigned for those alternatives. The alternatives were not uniform in nature
and it varies based on the statements. The scores obtained for each item were summed to
get the level of aspiration score. The possible score ranges from 5 to 15.
3.5.3. Operationalization and measurement of Dependent variables
3.5.3.1 Technological Utilisation Pattern
The Technological Utilisation Pattern in this study has been operationalised as the
number of technologies adopted by the sample, among the technologies recommended.
As far as the Precision Farming approach is concerned, nine critical technologies which
are primarily responsible for successful farming with increased production are
recommended for adoption. The extent of utilisation of those technologies was assessed
as adopted and not adopted. The scores of 2 and 1 were assigned for their utilisation
pattern. The total score obtained by the sample on the nine technologies will represent the
Technological Utilisation Pattern score of the sample. Percentage analysis was performed
to discuss this component. Finally, the sample was categorised as low level utilisers,
moderate level utilisers and high level utilisers using cumulative frequency method.
3.5.3.2 Intervention of Stakeholders as perceived by the Farmers
The stakeholders in any system involves in the decision making process, skill
transfer process, technology dissemination process etc., in order to help the clients to
equip with the latest information and to proceed for adoption. The nature of intervention
of stakeholders in the said processes will ensure the maximum proportion of adoption by
the clients on the recommended technologies. The stakeholders either alone or in
coordination with the other stakeholders will perform the required activities of the agency
concerned. In this study, the stakeholders involved in Precision Farming Process viz.,
Researchers, Extension Personnel, Input Dealers, Drip Marketers, Produce Marketing
Personnel were considered as the stakeholders. The intervention of these stakeholders
was measured as frequently, occasionally and rarely with the scores ranging from 3 to 0
respectively. The purpose of intervention was measured in terms of project requirement,
need based and voluntarily with the scores of 1, 2 and 3 respectively Percentage analysis
was carried out to measure the type of intervention.
3.5.3.3 Perceived Effectiveness
Perceived effectiveness has been operationalised as the effect reflected on the

consequences of the adoption of Precision Farming technologies as perceived by a
farmer. This effect will be observed through the increase in production. The increase in
production will lead to the changes in the standard of living of the sample both at home
and at farm levels. Such effect of Precision Farming was studied in terms of Direct and
Indirect effects as broad categories. The indirect effect was studied in terms of the
changes in the farm, the material changes, and economic changes, social and personal
changes. The respondents were asked to place their agreement or disagreement towards
the statements under direct and indirect effects. A score of 1 and 0 was assigned for the
agree and disagreeness responses towards the statements. Percentage analysis was
performed to discuss the perceived effectiveness of Precision Farming technologies.
3.5.3.4 Market Associated Activities
Market associated activities referred to the various activities involved in the

disposal of the farm produce from production centre to market. The major activities
involved in marketing are Marketing Assessment and Assistance, Activities of Precision
farmers Association, Commodity transportation and the Infrastructure status of the
Market. The items selected for assessment under the four sub components were collected
though Focus Group Discussion with the farmers, discussion with the extension
personnel, the scientists of TNAU and through the earlier studies. From the exhaustive
list the prime items were finalised and selected through the results of pilot study and in
consultation with the extension experts. Those items were included in the study.
Marketing Assessment and Assistance covered the areas like, Market information
on price, demand, forecasting and also the market trend. Relationship with other
stakeholders, sharing responsibilities, availing privileges due to association were the
aspects covered under the activities of Precision farmers Association. The responses of
the said two activities were assessed by allotting 3, 2 and 1 scores to good, moderate and
poor responses. The commodity transportation mainly focussed towards the mode of
transport, road facilities, and the easiness of the transport and the means of conveyance.
This aspect was measured on the said five sub-dimensions. The responses under each
dimension may vary from three to five, more than one response may be possible under
each item and a score of one was assigned for every response. The total score thus arrived
will be the commodity transportation score of the sample.
Market Infrastructure status was concerned with the place of sale, storage
facilities, and the rate for storage, the involvement of middle men and the decision on
marketing of the produces. The responses under each sub component were obtained and
vary from three to five. More than one response is possible and a score of one was
assigned for every response. The score thus arrived will be considered as the market
infrastructure score of the sample. By using percentage analysis the results have been
discussed. Cumulative frequency method was also employed to categorise the sample as
low, medium and high.
The score of Market associated activities was arrived by adding the total score of
the major four activities studied under this aspect. The sum of scores of all the four
activities put together represent the score of Market associated activities of the sample.
The overall market associated activities of the sample was categorised as low, medium
and high using Cumulative frequency method.
The said dependent factors viz., technological utilisation pattern, perceived

effectiveness and market associated activities have been covered as the perspectives of
stakeholders especially the Precision Farm practitioners on Precision Farming.
3.5.4 SWOC on Precision Farming
After the implementation of any new practice / technology prior to further spread,
it is inevitable to study the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges. There
is no exception for this study also. SWOC analysis on Precision Farming technologies
will also be performed considering its strengths and weaknesses that influence their
attractiveness and also the stimulus to implement the technology. Its potential benefits
were taken as possible opportunities, while challenges mean barriers in adopting the
method and its potential negative consequences.
Initially, rating from the researchers, extension workers and experts involving in
Precision Farming projects were obtained to fix the Relative Weightage Scores for each
of the items under four sub- components viz., Strengths, weakness, Opportunities and
Challenges. And they were asked to fix the relative weightage scores ranging from 1 to
10 for each of the item based on the importance of the particular item to be included in
the interview schedule.
Then the collected responses were analyzed to arrive at Relative Weightage Mean
Scores (RWMS) for each activity based on the following formula.
Relative Weightage Score for each item

RWMS =
Total number of judges
Finally, 19 statements and 12 statements were selected based on the RMWS
obtained, for the strengths and weakness sub-components. Likewise 16 and 12 statements
were selected for opportunities and constraints respectively under the various sub heads
viz., Economical, Social, Political and Technological aspects.
3.5.5 Stakeholders’ intervention in Precision Farming as perceived by them
The stakeholders in any system involves in the decision making process, skill
transfer process, technology dissemination process etc., in order to help the clients to
equip with the latest information and to proceed for adoption. The nature of intervention
of stakeholders in the said process will ensure the maximum proportion of adoption by
the clients on the recommended technologies. The stakeholders either alone or in
coordination with the other stakeholders will perform the required activities of the agency
concerned. In this study, a sample of 50 stakeholders involving in Precision Farming
Process viz., Researchers and Extension Personnel (24), Input Dealers (8), Drip
Marketers (2), Produce Marketing Personnel (10), Consultants of Agri clinics (6) were
included. The purpose of intervention was measured in terms of project requirement,
need based and voluntary. Percentage analysis was performed for discussion.
The type of intervention, Managements skills and facilitating skills of the

stakeholders has been covered as the perspectives of stakeholders viz., Researchers and
Extension Personnel, Input Dealers, Drip Marketers, Produce Marketing Personnel,
Consultants of Agri clinics.
3.5.6 Assessment on skills of stakeholders
3.5.6.1 Management Skills
In any work environment the managers, facilitators equipped with some specific
type of skills to perform their activity effectively. In this study, multi stakeholders were
involved in the process of Precision Farming from land preparation to marketing. Every
stakeholder has a specific task to be performed so as to lead the client in the direction
desired. In order to achieve this, the skill components viz., Management and Facilitating
skills possessed by them and their own perception on those skills were assessed.
Management skills constitutes strategic skill, influencing skill, leadership skill,

implementation skill and personal factors. These skills were assessed on various items in
terms of its importance and the competency.
The sample stake holders have to place the relative importance of the items under
each component and indicate their level of competency. This component was discussed
by using Percentage analysis.
3.5.6.2 Facilitating Skills
As a skilled facilitator, he /she have to demonstrate several practises of Precision

Farming to the clients. The extent to which the stake holder performing his activity on the
five type of skills viz., Presentation skill, Relationship skill, Learning environment
Management skill, Continuous learning attitude skill and Empathic attitude were taken as
a measure.
The items under each skill were measured based on its usage viz., Rarely,
Sometimes, Frequently and Always. Percentage analysis was performed to discuss the
skill components.
The items under the said two skills, components were collected from the various
management studies and through perusal of literatures. Further discussion was made
with the advisory committee members and the faculty of Agricultural Management and
thus the items were finalised and included in the final data collection tool.
3.6 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF DATA COLLECTION
3.6.1 Schedule construction
Considering the scope, objectives and the variables under the study, a comprehensive
structured interview schedule was constructed. The items included in the interview schedule
were both structured and objective type of questions, which were suitable to the farmers
involved in Precision Farming. The most relevant, unambiguous and practical questions were
included in the schedule in order to gather adequate and precise information.
The interview schedule was designed into two major units which covered Farmers
and Stakeholders.
The Unit I focussed on the following aspects of farmers.
 Part – I Profile of the Precision farm practitioners
(Independent variables)
 Part-II Technological Utilization Pattern, Stake holders intervention

as perceived by the farmers
 Part – III Perceived Effectiveness on Precision Farming
 Part – IV Market Associated Activities
 Part - V SWOC on Precision Farming as perceived by farmers
The Unit II covered the following aspects of stakeholders.
A. Intervention of Stakeholders as perceived by them

B. Assessment on skills of Stakeholders
B1. Management Skills
B2. Facilitating Skills
C. SWOC on Precision Farming as perceived by stakeholders
3.6.2 Pre-testing the interview schedule
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is a group discussion of approximately 6 to 12 persons

guided by a facilitator, during which group members talk freely and spontaneously about
a certain topic. It is a qualitative method and its purpose is to obtain in-depth information
on concepts, perceptions and ideas of a group. FGD aims to be more than a question
answer interaction. The idea is that group members discuss the topic among themselves
with guidance from the facilitator. This technique was used in the study area by gathering
the precision farm practitioners. The status of existing Precision Farming, the views of
the practitioners, the support they get from the stakeholders etc., were recorded. This
outcome helped to prepare the interview schedule with in-depth details to be collected
from the sample and the stakeholders to meet the objectives set forth.
Prior to final shaping of the interview schedule, the schedule was pre-tested in a
non-sample area with 48 respondents at the rate of ten framers and two stakeholders from
each district. Based on the experiences gained in pre-testing, necessary modifications
were made in the schedule. The finalized schedule is furnished in APPENDIX III.
3.6.3 Interview schedule
After finalization of the interview schedule, the data collection was carried out
with the farmers and other stakeholders involved in Precision Farming through
interview method.
The data collected from the respondents were coded, tabulated, analyzed and
presented in the form of tables in order to make the findings meaningful and easily
understandable. The findings emerged from the analysis of data were suitably interpreted
and conclusions were drawn.
3.7 STATISTICAL TOOLS USED
The data gathered were quantified and tabulated for statistical analysis.
The following statistical techniques were applied for the study.
 Percentage analysis
 Mean and standard deviation
 Cumulative frequency method
 Correlation analysis
 Multiple regression analysis
 ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)
 Principal Component Analysis
3.7.1 Cumulative frequency method
This method was suggested by Rao (1983) to categorise the respondents into three
viz., low, medium and high. Based on the score value, the number of beneficiaries
belonging to each class was determined. The final frequency value was multiplied by
1/3 and 2/3 to find out the two boundaries namely L1 and L2 respectively. The exact
values of these boundaries were calculated by using the following formula.
Li -C
Li = K+ Xn
f
Where
K = Median between the lower limit of the class in which Li occurs and the
Upper limit of the previous class
Li = Boundary value namely L1 and L2
C = Cumulative square root of frequency up to the classes preceding the

class in which Li lies
n = Interval of the class
f = Square root of the frequency in the class in which the median lies
The categories were formed as detailed below
1. Below L1 value = Low
2. Between L1 and L2 value = Medium
3. Above L2 value = High

3.7.2 Principal Component Analysis
Two tests namely, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measures of sampling adequacy (KMO) &

Bartlett‟s Test of Sphercity have been applied to test whether the relationship among the
variables has been significant or not:
Bartlett‟s test of Sphercity is used to test whether the data are statistically
significant or not. With the value of test statistic and the associated significance level, it
shows that there exists a high relationship among variables. (Not > 0.05)
Another test is Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin measure of sampling adequacy. As the value

of test statistic is given as 0.737, which means the factor analysis for the selected
variables is found to be appropriate or good to the data.
The result of the test shows that there is significant relationship among the
variable chosen.
If KMO value is greater than 0.7 - variables are highly reliable and factor analysis
should be applied
If the KMO value is more than 0.5 - factor analysis may be applied
If the KMO value is less than 0. 5 - It is not advisable to apply Factor analysis
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter highlights the findings of the investigation. The findings along with
discussion are given under the following sections for both Precision Farmers and other
stakeholders in the light of the objectives set forth.
4.1 Profile of Precision Farm Practitioners
4.2 Technological Utilization Pattern of Precision Farmers
4.3 Perceived effectiveness on Precision Farming
4.4 Market Associated Activities of Precision Farm Practitioners
4.4.1 Market Assessment and Assistance
4.4.2 Activities of Precision Farmers Association
4.4.4 Market Infrastructure
4.5 Association and Contribution of profile of the sample with Dependent

Variables
4.6 SWOC on Precision Farming as perceived by Precision Farm Practitioners
4.7 Intervention of Stakeholders as perceived by them
4.8 Assessment on skills of stakeholders
4.8.1 Management skills
4.8.2 Facilitating Skills
4.9 SWOC on Precision Farming as perceived by stakeholders.
4.1 PROFILE OF PRECISION FARM PRACTITIONERS
As a prelude in any social science study, clear understanding of the composition

of the subjects, help in a large way, to interpret the data gathered in a conclusive manner.
It is not an exception in this study.
In social science, it is essential to know about sample‟s profile which would
serve as a base for clear and thorough understanding about the subjects. The information
about the profile would help in deriving exact results from the data. In this study, twenty
five characteristics were taken up for analysis. Distribution of the sample according to
their characteristics and the relevant discussion have been presented in this section.
4.1.1. Age
Age is considered to be one of the important factors as it influences the farmer to

choose and to adopt a particular technology. This is because age of an individual decides
one‟s mental maturity, decision making capability and finally involvement and participation
in developmental activities. The age of the sample was categorized into young, middle and
old. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Age (n=200)
S.No Category Frequency Per cent
1 Young(up to 35 years) 88 44.00
2 Middle (Above 35 to 45 years) 87 43.50
3 Old (Above 45 years) 25 12.50
Total 200 100.00
Almost an equal proportion of the sample were observed in young and middle
aged category (44 percent each). Only 12.50 per cent were found under old aged
category. Precision Farming being an innovation approach, naturally farmers above
45years of age may not have the inclination to adopt the technology. That could be the
possible reason for the observation in the age category.
The results of Sudha (2008) also showed the similar status that nearly 50 percent
of the respondents were young and middle aged category.
4.1.2. Educational status
It is generally believed that education is the process of bringing about desirable

changes in the human behaviour. Level of education is a crucial attribute in taking
rational decisions to adopt the innovative technologies. The literacy level of sample have
been categorized from illiterate to collegiate levels and the pertinent data have been
presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Educational status (n=200)
1 Primary education 16 8.00
2 Middle education 60 30.00
3 Secondary education 44 22.00
4 Diploma education 71 35.50
5 Collegiate education 9 4.50
Total 200 100.00
It is interesting to observe that diploma (35.50 per cent), middle (30.00 per cent)
and secondary (22.00 per cent) level of education was observed among the sample.
Totally 87.50 per cent of the sample had their education from middle school to diploma
level. As observed in the age category, majority were young and middle aged and that
reflected in the educational level also. The rest 12.50 per cent had primary and collegiate
level education.
The study of Floralavanya (2007) and Sudha (2008) also indicated the similar
outcome.
4.1.3 Land holding size
The farm size of an individual represents the extent of farming, which is also
considered as an essential factor influencing the adoption of Precision Farming.(i.e) when
the farm size is larger, they may able to spare some area to try the new techniques.
The data collected are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Land holding Size (n=200)
1 Marginal farmer (Upto 1 ha) 15 7.50
2 Small farmer (1-2 ha) 21 10.50
3 Semi medium (2-4 ha) 63 31.50
4 Medium farmer (4-10 ha) 101 50.50
Total 200 100.00
The size of land holding as observed in Table 5 revealed that more than half of
the sample possessed medium size holding of up to 10 ha followed by 31.50 per cent had
up to 4 ha of land of semi-medium in size. Marginal and small size land holdings
constituted 18 percent of the sample. It is very clear that 82 per cent of the farmers
possessed the land size from 2 ha to 10 ha.
The results of Sudha (2008) also revealed that the 58 per cent of the Precision
Farming operators possessed more than 2 ha of land.
4.1.4 Area under Precision Farming
As the present study aims to analyse technological utilization pattern and the
perceived effectiveness of the farmers, area allocated exclusively for Precision Farming
cultivation by the sample is also considered as one of the most effective factors affecting
the same. The relevant data regarding this aspect is presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Area under Precision Farming (n=200)
1 Little area under PF 23 11.50
2 Moderate area under PF 145 72.50
3 More area under PF 32 16.00
Total 200 100.00

Regarding the operational holding under Precision Farming it could be observed
that nearly three-fourths of the sample were operating the land size of 1.5 ha to 2 ha.
Above 2.5 ha of land was operated by 76 per cent of the sample who were observed
under high farm size and the rest 11.50 per cent were operating less than 1 ha of land.
As stated elsewhere, the sample who possessed above 4 ha of land and operating
minimum area in Precision Farming. It is obvious that any new practice used to be tried
in a smaller area only. Hence, majority of the sample restricted their operation of
Precision Farming to a limited possible extent.
The study conducted by Sudha (2008) which was a pioneer study in Precision
Farming indicated that 85 per cent of the sample practised Precision Farming in one ha
of land.
4.1.5 Experience in Precision Farming
Farming experience acquired over a period of years pave way for the success in
agriculture and could be a key factor in acceptance or rejection of an innovation. In the
present study, experience means the number of years of experience possessed by an
individual in Precision Farming. The data pertaining to this have been shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Experience in Precision Farming (n=200)
1 Little experience in Precision Farming 63 31.50
2 Moderate experience in Precision Farming 137 68.50
Total 200 100.00
It is revealed from the Table 7 that more than two –thirds (68.50 percent) of the
sample had more than 4 years of experience in Precision Farming and the rest
31.50 percent were observed with less than 4 years of experience.
Precision Farming was introduced in Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri districts during

2004-2007. Those sample of that districts might have come under the moderate category of
more than 5 years. Those who had less than 4 years of experience might be represented from
Coimbatore and Erode where the Precision Farming technique was introduced very recently.
Majority of Precision Farm Practitioners had more than 2 years of experience as
stated by Sudha (2008).
4.1. 6 Farming Experience
Farming experience acquired over period of years may pave way for success in
farming and might be a key factor in adoption or rejection of innovations. The experience
in farming would have helped the farmer to take concrete and appropriate decision
regarding their involvement in farm activities. In the present study, farming experience
means the total number of years of experience possessed by an individual in Farming
including Precision Farming. The data pertaining to this have been shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Farming Experience (n=200)
1 Low farming experience 32 16.00
2 Moderate farming experience 166 83.00
3 More farming experience 2 1.00
Total 200 100.00
The data in Table 8 corroborated that majority of the sample (83 per cent)
possessed medium level of experience in farming followed by 16 per cent under low
experienced category. In this study majority of the sample were young and middle aged
categories of up to 45 years of age. That could be related with less experienced nature of
the sample. The study conducted by Flora lavanya (2007) on drip irrigation revealed that
more than two -thirds of the sample had low to medium level of total farming experience.
4.1.7 Irrigation Potentiality
It mainly explains the sources of irrigation and total irrigated area to size of
holding by the sample.
Table 9. Irrigation Potentiality (n=200)
1 Low 28 14.00
2 Medium 116 58.00
3 High 56 28.00
Total 200 100.00
The irrigation potentiality of the sample revealed that 86 per cent had medium
and high level and the rest (14 per cent) were found under low level. Being an innovative
practice required continuous water supply for the corps grown annually, those farmers
who had sufficient water potential alone might have taken Precision Farming.
As observed earlier in this report, majority of the sample were operating more
than four ha of land. Without sufficient water supply, they could not operate such a
larger area. In Precision Farming practice water is used economically, it could be
possible for the farmers to divert a minimum quantity of water to Precision Farming in a
limited area.
Similar was the result of the study on Drip irrigation conducted by Floralavanya (2007)
4.1.8 Annual Income from Farming
It is admitted on all hands that income is an important factor which influence human
activity in many ways. Hence the distribution of respondents under different categories
according to their annual income was analyzed and presented in the following table.
Table 10. Annual Income from Farming (n=200)
1 Low (Upto 3 lakhs) 43 21.50
2 Medium (Above 3 lakhs upto 4.5 lakhs) 125 62.50
3 High (Above 4.5 lakhs) 32 16.00
Total 200 100.00

It could be observed from the result on income from farming, nearly two-thirds
(62.50 per cent) earned the income upto 4.5 lakhs. About 22 per cent were under the low
category of 3lakhs per annum. Upto 5.5 lakhs were earned by 16 per cent of the total
sample. In general it could be stated that majority (78.50 per cent) of the sample‟s
income was from 3.5 to 5.5 lakhs. Majority (82 per cent ) of the farmers were operating
semi medium to medium farm size of more than 4 ha and that could be reflected on their
annual income.
4.1.9 Annual Income from Precision Farming
In this section the income obtained exclusively from Precision Farming was
assessed and the data collected in this aspect are categorised in the Table 11.
Table 11. Annual Income from Precision Farming (n=200)
1 Low (Upto 2 lakhs) 48 24.00
2 Medium (Above 2 lakhs upto 5 lakhs) 112 56.00
3 High (Above 5 lakhs) 40 20.00
Total 200 100.00
It is indicated by 56 per cent of the sample that they were getting the income of
upto 5 lakhs from Precision Farming, whereas 24 per cent and 22 per cent respectively
were found under low and high income category. It was observed earlier that majority of
the sample were operating 1 to 2.5 ha of area in Precision Farming.
However, the income from Precision Farming and other conventional farming did
not show much variation. This showed that even with minimum area under Precision
Farming, the operators could able to obtain more income.
4.1.10 Orientation with Research Station
The Precision framers may establish the contact with the scientists of research
stations to get the information regarding Precision Farming. Their extent of contact was
assessed and presented in Table 12. Pictorial representation of this is given in Fig.4.
Table 12. Orientation with Research Station (n=200)

1 Low level orientation 12 6.00
2 Moderate level orientation 180 90.00
3 High level orientation 8 4.00
Total 200 100.00
It is inferred that majority of the sample had orientation with the nearby research
stations as well as the scientists. In the Precision Farming process the stakeholders like
Researchers, Extension workers are maintaining the continuous contact with the
practitioners of Precision Farming. The farmers in turn either individually or through
their Precision Farmers Association (PFA) get in contact with the researchers both
during their field visit and also meeting the Scientists in their office. So, this pattern of
contact explicitly observed under this section.
4.1.11. Participation in Research station activities
Any innovative farming technology requires continuous delivery of information

to the users. Precision Farming is not an exception which induce the farmers to get in
touch with research station, the Scientists and their extension activities. In order to assess
the extent of participation of sample towards this dimension, data were collected and
Table 13. Participation in Research station activities (n=200)
Sl.No Activities Frequency Per cent

1. Scientists –Farmers Discussion 167 83.50
2. Farmers Day 122 61.00
3. Field Day 117 58.50
4. Study tour 94 47.00
5. On farm testing 67 33.50
6. Front line demonstration 78 39.00
7. Training 185 92.50
*Multiple responses
Training was emerged as the major activity in which 92.50 per cent of the sample
attended regularly. This was closely followed by the discussion with Scientists (83.50 per cent).
Farmers Day, Field Day and Field visits were the other means of contact. On farm testing
and front line demonstration were the other situations through which the farmers had
orientation with the Scientists and the activities of Research station. It was also observed
from Table 12 that majority of the sample had medium level of orientation with Research
Station, that was exhibited in this result. Fig.5 depicts this results graphically.
Continuous delivery of technological information have been carried out to the

farmers through training programmes by the stakeholders especially the researchers and
field extension functionaries. This could be the reason for majority of the farmers
participation in training programme and the interaction could also be possible during the
programme. Hence, the discussion emerged as a second maximum extent of participation.
Moderate to high level of orientation was shown by Sudha (2008) in her study on
Precision Farming.
4.1.12 Innovativeness
Innovativeness has been operationalised as the extent to which an individual had

acquired an awareness of the need to be innovative. The person who felt the greatest need
to change would be the first to innovate. Innovativeness is the degree to which an
individual is relatively earlier in adopting an innovation than other members in his social
system. The data gathered in this aspect are presented here.
Table 14. Innovativeness (n=200)
1 Low level Innovativeness 39 19.50
2 Moderate level Innovativeness 135 67.50
3 High level Innovativeness 26 13.00
Total 200 100.00

From the Table 14 that 80.50 per cent of the sample had moderate to high level
innovators as observed. High level innovativeness alone will motivate the farmers
towards new ideas. So, obviously 80.50 per cent constitute that characteristic among the
total sample.
According to Floralavanya (2007), 85.00 per cent of drip adopters possessed

medium to high level innovativeness.
4.1.13 Risk Bearing Ability
In general, farmers are always facing risk and uncertainty in adopting new ideas
in farming, since agriculture largely depends on rainfall, which is an unpredictable
phenomenon. Risk bearing ability decides individual‟s innovativeness and influence
positively on the adoption behaviour. The successful farmer is one who readily accepts to
face the risk and play with nature. Therefore the risk bearing nature of the sample was
studied and the results are depicted in Table 15.
Table 15. Risk Bearing Ability (n=200)
1 Low 63 31.50
2 Medium 113 56.50
3 High 24 12.00
Total 200 100.00
A cursory look on the table put forth the information that 56.50 per cent possessed
the medium level risk bearing ability followed by 31.50 per cent under low category.
However, 12 per cent were seen with high level risk bearing ability. In general, it could
be stated that moderate to high level risk bearing ability was possessed by majority of
the sample.
While reporting the risk orientation nature of the drip users Floralavanya (2007)
stated that 69 per cent had moderate to high level of risk orientation.
Elsewhere in the report, it was observed that the sample earned more than 5 lakhs
as their annual income from conventional farming and Precision Farming. When they
were getting adequate income from farming, naturally it is coincided with their risk
bearing ability.
The newer ideas were initially tried on a limited area, after getting convinced
could be extended to a larger area with the risk taking nature.
4.1.14. Extension Participation
Extension personnel of State Department of Agriculture, State Department of

Horticulture, Agricultural Marketing were the major stakeholders in the technology
transfer process. In the Precision Farming System, devoid of these personnel will not
sustain the farming system. The programmes and activities being taken up by the
personnel would help the practitioners to know the developments in the field concerned.
In order to assess the frequency of participation of the sample towards the extension
activities, data were collected and incorporated in Table 16.
Table 16. Extension Participation (n=200)
1 Low level participation 32 16.00
2 Medium level participation 166 83.00
3 High level participation 2 1.00
Total 200 100.00
Nine various extension activities were taken up to assess the participation of the
sample in those activities. Table 16 indicates clearly that majority (83.00 per cent) had
medium level participation followed by 16 per cent in the low category. Farmers
participation was observed in all the nine activities despite more frequency was observed
in meetings, demonstrations, trainings, field visits and special occasions. The pictorial
representation is presented in Fig.6
To become a successful Precision farm practitioner, it is essential to cope with the
activities of the State department to abreast with latest knowledge and technological
developments, that was notified in the outcome.
4.1.15 Economic Motivation
Economic motivation is one of the basic drives against the activities of an individual
and it has more influence on the empowerment. Every farmer normally tends to possess
the basic urge to earn more. In order to understand the level of their economic
motivation, pertinent data were collected and the details are presented below
Table 17. Economic Motivation (n=200)
1 Low level economic motivation 33 16.50
2 Moderate level economic motivation 94 47.00
3 High level economic motivation 73 36.50
Total 200 100.00
It is evident from Table 17, majority (83.50 percent) of the sample had moderate
to high level economic motivation followed by low level(16.50 per cent). The basic
instinct of a farmer is to earn more income from their farming whatever may be the type
of farming approach he follows. With the minimum assurance of getting positive return
from Precision Farming the sample had taken up this venture. This revenue generation
characteristically motivated them to adopt Precision Farming.
Economic motivation of 70.00 percent of the farmers converted them as drip users
as observed by Floralavanya (2007). In the Precision Farming approach also just
because of getting more assured return, the sample followed the practices.
4.1.16. Credit Orientation
Credit orientation decides the degree of orientation to avail credit from

credit institutions. Although the farmer needs credit for many purposes, his agricultural
needs occupy a key position. Since agriculture has become a profitable enterprise, the
farmer‟s demand for credit has increased with the increasing cost of inputs. The pertinent
data collected have been processed and the results are given in Table 18.
Table 18. Credit Orientation n=200)
1 Low level orientation 56 28.00
2 Moderate level orientation 103 51.50
3 High level orientation 41 20.50
Total 200 100.00
It could be discerned from the table that more than half (51.50 per cent) of sample
had moderate level of credit orientation followed by low and high levels. About
three-fourths (72.00 per cent) generally had the habit of obtaining credit from various
possible sources. In order to meet the initial investment on the infrastructure development,
the farmers necessarily depend on the reliable sources for getting credit in time.
When compared to the conventional farming, the initial investment in Precision

Farming is relatively more expensive, hence the Precision farm practitioners have to rely
on the other sources for financial support. The result exhibited the same in this aspect.
According to Floralavanya (2007) drip adopters of sugarcane had low level credit
orientation (44 per cent) as the sugar factories had taken care of the initial investment
required for drip installation.
4.1.17. Access to Credit Facilities
Access to credit facilities is defined as easiness and efficiency of small scale

farmers to obtain loan/credits from financial institutions for supporting their enterprises.
In this study this variable was assessed in terms of proximity of the lending institutions,
the sources approached, the interest rate, the loan procedures and the timeliness in getting
the loan. The responses on these dimensions were gathered, analysed and they were
categorised as low. medium and high. The results have been presented in Table 19.
Table 19. Access to Credit Facilities (n=200)
1 Low access to credit 43 21.50
2 Medium access to credit 134 67.00
3 High access to credit 23 11.50
Total 200 100.00
The results indicates that 67 percent of the sample had medium access to credit
facilities whereas 21.50 per cent and 11.50 percent respectively had low and high access
to credit facilities. The lending institutions/agencies were located in the nearby
towns/cities, the tedious loan procedures, high interest rate might have limited the interest
of farmers and this could be the possible reason for such an outcome. The results of
Astonoliver (2012) also reflected in the similar line that 60 percent of the sample had
medium access to credit.
4.1.18 Leadership Potential
Leadership Potential is the process of influencing/guarding/mobilising the people

for attaining the goal. In the Precision Farming activity, it is essential for the association
leaders to lead the members in the direction desired. The potential of the leaders was
measured on six items and presented in Table 20.
Table 20. Leadership potential (n=200)
Agree Disagree
Sl.No Criteria
Per Per
Frequency Frequency
cent cent
1. I can give clear directions 165 82.50 35 17.50
2. In a difficult situation, usually I 172 86.00 28 14.00

know what to do
3. I feel comfortable being a group 132 66.00 68 34.00

leader
Agree Disagree
Sl.No Criteria
Per Per
Frequency Frequency
cent cent
4. Others usually come to me for 161 80.50 39 19.50

opinion
5. Give a choice, I would like to be a 54 27.00 146 73.00

group member than a leader.
6. Mostly leaders have more 148 74.00 52 26.00

responsibilities and less
recognition
It is observed that more than 80 per cent of the sample had the leadership potential.
They expressed that they know how to handle a difficult situation (86.00 percent), able to
give clear directions to the members (82.50 percent) and often acts as opinion leaders
(80.50 percent). In addition to this they felt comfortable as a leader (66 per cent).
Almost an equal proportion of the sample expressed their feeling that they have
more responsibilities and less recognition and like to be a group member than a leader.
The sample as leaders performing the activities of a leader as what they should do.
However they were not satisfied with the reactions received from the members. It is quite
common in any leadership position that the leaders used to perform the expected role and
not getting the wholehearted support and recognitions.
Table 21. Leadership Potential status (n=200)
1 Low 50 25.00
2 Moderate 120 60.00
3 High 30 15.00
Total 200 100.00
It is revealed from the Table 21 that overall leadership potential was moderate to
high (85.00 per cent) and only one-fourth had low leadership potential. This status
graphically presented in Fig.7
4.1.19. Employment Generation
Through the adoption of Precision Farming techniques, it is possible to generate

employment opportunities for the people in the study area. The details on this dimension
was assessed and furnished here under.
Table 22. Employment Generation (n=200)
1 Low 30 15.00
2 Medium 147 73.50
3 High 23 11.50
Total 200 100.00
Moderate level employment generation was expressed by 73.50 per cent of the
sample. On the other hand 15 percent and 11.50 per cent of the sample stated that they
were able to generate employment at low and high levels respectively. It is obvious that
when more than one enterprise was taken up and in Integrated Farming System (IFS),
there could be possible to generate more crop in terms of man days per year. In Precision
Farming simultaneously more crops are being cultivated to get produce periodically. Also
throughout the year they have the crops. When such is a case, though drip fertigation is
followed, to perform the other associated activities, labourers have been engaged.
Thus more employment opportunities are created. Fig.8 indicates the employment
generation results pictorially.
4.1.20 Availability of Agro- inputs
In this study availability of agro inputs was assessed through type of inputs,
rating on the availability, cost and reliability of the inputs. The results have been
Table 23. Availability of agro- inputs (n=200)
SNo Rating Frequency Per cent
Availability of all types of agro- inputs
1 Always 141 70.50
2 Rarely 36 18.00
3 Not at all 23 11.50
Rating of availability of agro- inputs
1. Easily available 60 30.00
2. Available 81 40.50
3. Difficult 31 15.50
4. Unavailable 28 14.00
Prices of agro- inputs
1. Very expensive 58 29.00
2. Expensive 91 45.50
3 Reasonable 23 11.50
4 Cheap 20 10.00
5 Very cheap 8 4.00
Reliability of agro- inputs
1 Highly reliable 67 33.50
2 Reliable 103 51.50
3 Not much reliable 20 10.00
4 Problematic 10 5.00
It is disclosed that all types of inputs are available as stated by 70.50 per cent of
the sample. Though 70.50 per cent expressed the easiness of availability, 15.50 per cent
opined the difficulty in getting the inputs. About one-fourth (25.50 per cent) was with the
view that the cost of the inputs was reasonable to very cheap and the rest (74.50 per cent)
stated as expensive. However the reliability of the input was expressed by 85.00 percent
of the sample. Their responses in these aspects are shown as pictorial representations.
(Fig.9,10,11,12)
In general it could be inferred from the result that all agricultural inputs were
always available, reliable but expensive. The high cost of water soluble fertilizer would
have acted as a cause for such response.
The over all response of the sample on the availability of agro inputs have been
furnished in Table 24.
Table 24. Status of Availability of Agro- inputs (n=200)
1 Less availability 33 16.50
2 Moderate availability 116 58.00
3 High availability 51 25.50
Total 200 100.00
The response of the sample indicated that (83.50 per cent) the availability of agro
inputs were moderate to high level. In almost all the Precision Farming areas the farmers
organised an association (PFA), the required inputs were purchased in bulk and
distributed to the members. They did not find it difficult in getting the inputs and hence
such a response.
4.1.21 Attitude towards Precision Farming
An attitude scale was constructed to measure the attitude of Precision Farming

practitioners towards their favourableness and unfavourableness on Precision Farming.
The responses have been incorporated in the table 25.
Table 25. Attitude Towards Precision Farming (n=200)
1 Less favourable 39 19.50
2 Moderately favourable 107 53.50
3 More favourable 54 27.00
Total 200 100.00
It is interesting to observe that more than half of the sample recorded their
moderately favourable attitude towards Precision Farming. This was closely followed by the
highly favourable category by 27 per cent and less favourable attitude (19.50 per cent).
It could be stated that moderate to highly favourable attitude was observed with 80.50 per
cent of the sample. However, a proportion of the sample found with less favourable
attitude. As observed in the report, subsidy component was available only for the
installation of the drip system. The sample under study also expected the subsidy for
other major input viz., water soluble fertilizer. Those who could not satisfied with the
assistance and support for Precision Farming as explained might had responded like this.
Distribution of sample in different attitude categories is displayed in Fig.13
The study of Floralavanya (2007) and Sudha (2008) reported that more than
two-thirds of drip users and 77.50 per cent of the Precision Farmers respectively had
favourable to more favourable attitude towards Precision Farming.
Principle Component Analysis
The data on the farmers attitude towards Precision Farming were analysed
through Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify the underlying structures
(components) in the data. For PCA analysis, the data was entered as correlation matrix
and the components were extracted. After extraction, the components were rotated using
varimax approach.
The data on the farmers‟ attitude towards Precision Farming were subjected
through Principal Component Analysis. The PCA estimates Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
value of 0.78 was above the minimum level of 0.5, and a significant Bartlett‟s Chi-square
(χ2 = 314.499, p<0.01) indicated that the sample size chosen for this investigation was
adequate (Field, 2000).
The PCA extracted two factors that exceeded the eigen value of one and
explained 71 per cent of the total variance in the data, which is close to the minimum
level of 48per cent variance (Hair et al., 1998). Since the sample size is 200, a factor
loading of 0.45 was used as a lower cut-off value for selection of variables for each factor
(Field, 2000). The rotated component matrix showing the principal components along
with loaded variables is given in the following table.
Table 26. Rotated component matrix of attitude of Precision Farmers towards

Precision Farming
S.No Attitude Statements PC1 PC2

1 Precision Farming encourages cultivation of high value 0.549 0.141
crops.
2 Precision Farming provides more avenues for income 0.582 0.187
generation.
3 Practicing Precision Farming increase the risk taking 0.769 0.055
ability of the growers.
4 Precision Farming envisages significant improvement in 0.692 0.119
the economic conditions of the farmers.
5 Nature of Precision Farming varies according to agro- 0.159 0.737
climatic zones
6 Eco-friendly crop management technologies are not 0.081 0.637
recommended in Precision Farming.
7 Farmers with inadequate finance can not go for Precision 0.038 0.784
Farming.
8 Precision Farming require regular contact with Agriculture 0.730 0.059
consultants.
9 Precision Farming has complicated practices to adopt. 0.151 0.598
Variance Explained 24.45 % 23.92%
* Values shown in bold letters indicate significant loading (>0.45)
Data displayed in Table 26 shows that statements 1,2,3,4 and 8 had significant
loading in PC1, which explained 24.45per cent variation in the data. Based on the factors
loaded, this component may be named as “Boosters”. while other statements 5,6,7 and
9 converged in PC2, which explained 23.92per cent variation in the data and may be
named as “Inhibitors”.
4.1.22 Information Seeking Pattern
The farmers in general getting agricultural information through various sources

viz., institutional, non-institutional and media with varied frequencies. It depends on the
individual farmer from which source he prefers to receive the information based on the
importance he placed on that particular source. The details are furnished here under.
Table 27. Information Seeking Pattern (n=200)
1 Low level 43 21.50
2 Moderate level 116 58.00
3 High level 41 20.50
Total 200 100.00
The result indicated that 58.00 per cent of the samples‟ information seeking
pattern was moderate level, followed by low and high levels (42.00 per cent). It has been
observed in this report that majority of the sample had more orientation with Research
station, participated in more number of activities of the research station, possessed
moderate to high level of innovativeness and risk bearing ability and that could be the
reason for moderate to high level information seeking pattern. The overall status of
information seeking pattern has also been represented in Fig. 14
The Precision Farm practitioners when ever required new information, wants to
clear doubts while cultivation and also during marketing of their produce may search for
sources. Regular contact with all possible information sources will enable them to equip
with details on these aspects. This may be emerged as a cause for such an outcome.
4.1.23. Information sharing pattern
It is a common practice of a farmer to share what ever new information /technology

he come across with his peer group, family members, friends etc., The sources in which they
used to share were discussed and furnished in Table 28.
Table 28. Information sharing pattern (n=200)
Regularly Rarely Never

Sl. The person to whom shares
No the information No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent
1 Friends 88 44.00 98 49.00 14 7.00
2 Relatives / Family members 54 27.00 85 42.50 61 30.50
3 Neighbours 39 19.50 83 41.50 78 39.00
4 PFA members in the village 72 36.00 112 56.00 16 8.00

and outside the village
It is disclosed from the table that among the four sources, friends were found as a
major source of information sharing, (44.00 per cent), followed by members of Precision
Farmers Association (36.00 per cent). Relatives/family members and neighbours were
also considered by 27.00 per cent and 19.50 per cent of the sample. Surprisingly 39.00
and 30.50 per cent of the samples never shared the information with family members and
neighbours. Fig.15 depicts the information sharing pattern.
The frequency of sharing the information was measured with the range from
regularly to never. More than 40.00 per cent very rarely sharing information with all the
sources studied. The continuous visit of stake holders to the Precision Farming areas, the
farmers orientation with Researchers enabled them to get cleared their doubts. When
more sources are used for sharing, which in turn delaying the process of farming and
related activities, hence they restricted their sharing with friends and members of
Precision Farmers Association .
Table 29. Information Sharing Pattern status (n=200)
Total 200 100.00
The overall information sharing pattern indicated that two –thirds (66.00 per cent) of
the sample were at moderate level followed by high (20.50) and low levels (13.50 per cent).
It was also observed that the farmers restricted their sharing with sources other
than those they considered less important.
4.1.24 Decision Making Pattern
Farmers have the habit of taking decisions on farming either independent or

jointly with their family or peer group. Information on this was gathered and furnished in
Table 30.
Regarding the decision making pattern, it could be seen only four to eleven
percent of the sample took independent decisions in all the five activities studied.
Members of Precision Farmers Association served as a source for joint decisions
regarding association activities (56.50 per cent) and for obtaining credit (43.50 per cent)
as stated by more than two-fifths of the sample. Joint decisions with stakeholders were
taken by 53.50 per cent each of the sample while planning and initiating the Precision
Farm activities. Family members were least considered in taking decision as shown in the
table. The Fig. 16 shows the decision making pattern of the Precision Farm practitioners.
Table 30. Decision making pattern (n=200)
Type of Decisions
Joint decisions
S. Independent Joint
Activities Decisions Joint Joint
decision Joint decision
No decision decision
with their with friends
with PFA with
family and relatives
members Members stakeholders
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1. Planning
activities. 8 4.00 8 4.00 68 34.00 107 53.50 9 4.50
2. Obtaining
credit 12 6.00 17 8.50 87 43.50 62 31.00 22 11.00
3. Initiating
Precision 15 7.50 19 9.50 52 26.00 107 53.50 7 3.50
Farming
4. Participation
in PF 21 10.50 38 19.00 94 47.00 32 16.00 15 7.50
activities
5. Participation
in precision 22 11.00 20 10.00 113 56.50 21 10.50 24 12.00
farmers
Association
The credit orientation and the access to credit facilities were observed from
moderate to high level among the sample. It could be exhibited in decision making
pattern also as 34.00 per cent and 53.50 respectively took joint decision with association
members and stakeholders for obtaining credit.
Table 31. Over all status of Decision making pattern (n=200)
1 Low level 17 8.50
3 High 41 20.50
Total 200 100.00

Moderate to high level decision making pattern was observed with 91.50 per cent
of the sample followed by low level. As observed from Table 31, that among the five
activities taken for assessing the decision making pattern, the sample used all possible
sources to the varied extent depends on the nature of the decision made. It is encouraging
to note that joint decision was focussed in all the activities assessed.
4.1.25 Level of aspiration
It is one of the factors which enable the farmers to become high achievers. When
the aspiration is high, it influences his decision making and also takes him in the right
direction. The data collected have been discussed in this section.
Table 32. Level of aspiration (n=200)
1 Low level aspiration 13 6.50
2 Moderate level aspiration 147 73.50
3 High level aspiration 40 20.00
Total 200 100.00
The aspiration level of the sample was moderate level as opined by 73.50 per cent
and this was closely followed by 20.00 per cent at high level. In general, it could be
inferred that 93.50 per cent had moderate to high level aspiration towards Precision
Farming.
As stated elsewhere in this report that the innovativeness, research contact,

information seeking and sharing pattern, risk bearing ability were from moderate to high
level which necessarily required for a farmer with high level of aspiration. This depicted
in the outcome on aspiration.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
4.2 TECHNOLOGICAL UTILIZATION PATTERN OF PRECISION FARMERS
Inorder to study the technological utilization pattern of precision farmers, nine

technologies which were identified, focussed and recommended as key technologies in
TNPFP were studied. Among the nine 83.50 per cent had adopted the sorting technique
of various crops as recommended. This was closely followed by market tie-up (55 per cent)
and use of chisel plough (47 per cent).
Table 33. Technological utilization pattern (n=200)
Adopted Not Adopted

Sl.No Key Technologies
Frequency Per cent Frequency Per cent
1. Remote sensing Technology 0 0 200 100.00
2. Chisel plough 94 47.00 106 53.00
3. Hi-tech Community Nurseries 76 38.00 124 62.00
4. Drip irrigation System 200 100.00 0 0
5. Application of Water Soluble 200 100.00 0 0
Fertilizers
6. Grading 200 100.00 0 0
7. Sorting 167 83.50 33 16.50
8 Packing 38 19.00 162 81.00
9. Market tie up 110 55.00 90 45.00
The technologies like drip irrigation system, application of water soluble

fertilizers and grading of farm produces were adopted by cent per cent of the sample.
On contrary, packing, hi-tech community nursery and chisel plough technologies were
not utilised by more than 50 per cent of the sample. The observation on technological
utilization pattern revealed that apart from drip fertigation, water soluble fertilizers,
grading and sorting were considered as important practices and hence followed by an
overwhelming majority. The finding on Technological utilisation pattern has also been
represented in the Fig.17.
The performance of drip fertigation with water soluble fertilizers is observable
by the sample. That could be the possible reason for cent per cent adoption. Moderate
to high level adoption of PF technologies was observed by Sudha (2008) and in line
with that 66.67 per cent adoption of drip system was reported by Floralavanya (2007).
It could be possible to get reasonable price for the produce only when the produces are
graded and sorted according to the market requirement. The market tie-up with more
than half of the sample facilitated the farmers to adopt grading and sorting techniques
for their produces concerned.
The study further revealed that 47 per cent only followed chisel plough. Though,
it is not mandatory wherever required it was used by the farmers. Especially, the study
areas like, Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri districts it is being used because of hard pan
nature of the soil, and hence 53 per cent representing from Erode and Coimbatore
districts were not adopted.
Hi-tech community nurseries were not practised by 62 per cent of the sample.
High investment of hi-tech community nursery, more labour requirement, non-
availability during peak seasons, difficulty in taking up intercultural operations,
physical strain, damage due to rats and rodents were some of the factors projected by
the sample as reasons.
Cent per cent of the sample did not follow remote sensing technology though
TNPFP were introduced during 2004, this particular technology was not at all aware by
the sample. They used to follow soil testing procedure for nutrient analysis, however the
existence of in-field variations did not felt as important by the PF practitioners. In India,
17 Precision Farm Development Centres (PFDC) are operating this project mainly
through SAUs, ICAR institutes and IITs. At least the adopted villages of these centres
may utilise the Remote Sensing technology and there by the farm folk will be realising
its importance. This will motivate them to approach PFDC of their location concerned,
to get information on their in-field variations and go with appropriate application of
inputs. The PF approach focuses on location specific, field specific and crop specific.
This could be possible to meet the said criteria through Remote Sensing technology.
The objective of optimisation of inputs use to facilitate optimal output resulting
in saving of valuable resources like water and energy, without deteriorating the
environment with specific reference to soil degradation could be envisaged through
Remote Sensing technology. When considering the nutrient management in Precision
Farming, the placement in root zone has been indicated by Robert et al. (1994) and
Khosla (2008) as Right time, Right amount, Right place, Right Source and Right
Manner. This aspects consider as global level importance in PF practices.
In order to get the assured market for the produce, PF approach is focussed
towards formation of group among them. This will help them to fix price for their
produce, avoiding middle men, and ensure more return on their investment. Thus, the
result on this table focuses the importance of all the recommended key technologies.
The overall Technological Utilisation Pattern of the sample has been presented in
Table 34.
Table 34. Technological Utilisation Pattern status (n=200)
1 Low level Utilization 19 9.50
2 Moderate level Utilization 150 75.00
3 High level Utilization 31 15.50
Total 200 100.00
Based on the Technological Utilisation Pattern the sample were categorised as

low, moderate and high level Utilization. Moderate to high level utilisation of
technologies were observed with more than 90 per cent of the sample. The rest were
found under the low level utilisation category. It was observed in Table 33 that except
Remote Sensing Technology, the rest eight technologies were adopted by the sample. Among
them three technologies were followed by cent per cent of the sample. This could be the
possible reason for majority observed under moderate to high level utilisation categories.
4.2.1 Intervention of Stakeholders as Perceived by Farmers
When implementing PF process, the intervention of stake holders from planning

phase to the end phase involves implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The intervention
of stakeholders will certainly be observed explicitly in the outcome of the PF process.
The stakeholders viz., Researchers, Extension personnel, Officials of State Department of
Agriculture (SDA), State Department of Horticulture (SDH), input dealers, drip
marketers, Agri clinic consultants and marketing personnel are continuously and
constantly intervene in the process of PF. In order to bring out their extent of intervention
in terms of the purpose were measured and presented in the Table 35.
Table 35. Intervention of stakeholders as perceived by farmers n=200)
Frequency of contact On the Basis of

Sl.
Stakeholders Frequently Occasionally Rarely Project Need Voluntarily
No
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1. Researcher/
Extension 152 76.00 27 13.50 21 10.50 146 73.00 15 7.50 39 19.50
personnel
2. Input
24 12.00 139 69.50 37 18.50 19 9.50 94 47.00 87 43.50
Dealers
3. Drip
17 8.50 87 43.50 96 48.00 152 76.00 34 17.00 14 7.00
Marketers
4. Produce
Marketing 32 16.00 126 63.00 42 21.00 21 10.50 92 46.00 87 43.50
Personnel
5. Agri Clinics 12 6.00 153 76.50 35 17.50 14 7.00 52 26.00 134 67.00
Among the five categories of stakeholders studied Researchers, Extension

personnel, Officials of State Department of Agriculture, Horticulture were frequently
intervened in the PF activities as stated by 76 per cent of the sample. Input dealers,
Produce marketing personnel were perceived as occasionally intervened sources as stated
by more than 60 per cent. The intervention of drip marketers was rare (48 per cent) and
occasionally (43.50 per cent). At the time of installation of drip fertigation system, their
intervention was more and subsequently it was getting reduced as opined by the sample.
The fig. 18 depict the intervention of stakeholders as perceived by the farmers.
With regard to the purpose of contact, drip marketers and Researchers/Extension

personnel intervention were mainly on project basis. Being responsible for initiating the PF
their intervention was observed as more. The need based and voluntary involvement of the
input dealers and Produce marketing personnel were observed by 40 per cent of the sample.
It is noticed in general that project based frequent intervention of the stakeholders

viz., Researchers, Extension personnel were more than the others. The intervention of
input dealers was occasionally on need and voluntary basis as they are commercial
oriented. Similar was the observation among produce marketing personnel.
As stated elsewhere in this report, more than 90 per cent of the sample had
orientation with Researchers and Research station activities. Their participation with the
activities of SDA, SDH, marketing personnel etc., was also to the tune o 83.00 per cent.
This type of intervention of the sample made them to perceive the intervention of the
Researchers, Extension personnel as frequent.
Keeping the status in mind the intervention of stakeholders other than Researchers
and Extension personnel must be raised with more frequency.
The availability of PF operators in the field during field operations is inevitable.

If they move out in search of the stakeholders during that time, will affect the farm
operations. This type of issues could be solved by the intervention of stakeholders
through their frequent visit and constructive contribution.
In the 11th plan period, GOI has given sufficient importance to the agri clinics. Based
on that MANAGE, Hyderabad encouraged for establishment of more training centres in the
country to impart field oriented skill based trainings to the graduates, diploma holders, retired
technocrats etc., with the financial assistance of MANAGE every year. The number of
centres has been increased and more technically qualified persons were trained, despite the
establishment of agri clinics in the rural areas was not to the expected level.
If these centres encouraged to open more consultancy centres in the form of agri
clinics, not only will strengthen the PF activities by providing technical information to
the needy farmers but also providing the job opportunities the unemployed agri graduates
and diploma holders. Simultaneously it enhances entrepreneurial development.
4.3 PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS ON PRECISION FARMING
No study is devoid of assessing the perceived effectiveness of the sample on any

new ideas /practices diffuse in the social system. The more perceived effectiveness the
high will be the spread of information. This has been studied as Direct and Indirect
effects on the sample both at farm and home levels.
The data gathered have been furnished in Table 36.
Table 36. Perceived Effectiveness (n=200)
Agree
S.No Perceived Effectiveness
Frequency Per cent
A Direct Effects
1. Increased income 187 93.50
2. Provide higher education for children 123 61.50
3. Increased standard of living 145 72.50
4. Increased investment on other enterprises 37 18.50
B. Indirect Effects
1. Changes in the farm
i Purchasing of new lands 52 26.00
ii Improvement in existing lands 94 47.00
iii Deepened the existing well 33 16.50
iv Dug new well 7 3.50
v Purchase of additional livestock 27 13.50
vi Purchase of new implements, tools, equipments 65 32.50
2. Material Changes
i Purchase of household materials 113 56.50
a. New jewel
b. Vehicle
c. TV
d. Tape
e. Phone
Agree
S.No Perceived Effectiveness
Frequency Per cent
3. Economic Changes
i Diversified the cultivation to other crops 42 21.00
ii Increased savings/deposits 112 56.00
iii Repaid old loan 137 68.50
iv More money invested in farming 97 48.50
4. Social Changes
i Increased organizational participation like PF
Association, Farm Science club, Farmer‟s Forum
etc.,
146 73.00
ii Increased Opinion leadership quality 74 37.00
iii Political participation 17 8.50
iv Personal Establishment in nearby city 22 11.00
5. Personal Changes
i Increased consultation with fellow farmers 83 41.50
ii Outside contact increased 89 44.50
iii Become an effective communicator 74 37.00
iv Got social recognition 141 70.50
v Increased opportunity to know about development
activities 62 31.00
vi Better extension contact 51 25.50
vii Emerged as a Leader 69 34.50
viii Increased the rate of media exposure 31 15.50
ix Subscribed for farm journal & general publication 92 46.00
*Multiple Responses
Direct Effects
It could be observed from the Table 36 that , increased income was expressed by
majority of the sample (93.30 per cent).They were able to increase their standard of
living(72.50 per cent) and provided higher education for their children(61.50 per cent).
Indirect Effects

Improvement in the existing land was expressed by 47 per cent of the sample
followed by purchase of new implements, tools, equipments (32.50 per cent), purchase of
new lands(26 per cent) and deepened the existing well (16.50 per cent).Purchase of
additional livestock was also indicated by 13.50 per cent.
2. Material Changes
At house hold level, the appliances like TV, radio, vehicles and even new jewels
were procured by 56.50 per cent of the sample as a result of the adoption of PF
techniques.
3. Economic Changes
More than two –thirds (68.50 per cent) of the sample repaid their old loan
followed by increased the savings/deposits (56.00 per cent) and invested more money in
the farming (48.50 per cent)
4. Social Changes
The participation in farm science clubs, farmers‟ forum, Precision Farmers
Association etc., was increased as perceived by 73 per cent of the sample. The opinion
leadership potential was also raised. It is interesting to note that 11 per cent of the sample
had made personal establishments in the form of house, house sites, shops etc., in the
nearby cities.
5. Personal Changes
Got social recognition (70.50 per cent), increased outside contact (44.50 per cent),
increased sharing and consultation with fellow farmers, become an effective
communicator (37 per cent) and increased opportunities to know about development
activities (31 per cent) were the personal changes occurred among the sample as a result
of the adoption of Precision Farming. Increased reading habit of the sample was exhibited
is 46 per cent had subscribed to farm journals and other publications.
It is inferred in general that more changes both in the farm and in the home were
occurred as perceived by majority of the sample. They were able to give better education,
investment and development on lands, repayment of loans, sharing with peer group, more
outside contact were some of the specific area in which the changes happened among the
sample. This could be possible because of the assured production coupled with increased
income. Precision Agriculture reduced the cost and increased the profit of 60 per cent of
precision farmers as elucidated by Darren Hudson and Diane Hite (2001). Similar type of
results were also reported by Floralavanya (2007) on drip adopters and Sudha (2008) on
Precision Farming practitioners.
The perceived effectiveness in terms of the changes occurred at the farm and
home levels of the sample as a result of adoption of Precision Farming and perceived by
the sample is incorporated in the Table 37.
Table 37. Status of Perceived Effectiveness (n=200)

1 Less effective 26 13.00
2 Moderately effective 155 77.50
3 Highly effective 19 9.50
Total 200 100.00
Majority of the sample perceived the effect of Precision Farming as moderate to

highly effective (87.00 per cent). In Table 36, it was observed that increased income,
standard of living, improvement in the farm, purchase of new equipments in the house,
increased savings, repayment of old loans, more participation in PFA, Social recognition
were indicated as the effect of the adoption of Precision Farming techniques. Such
perception reflected in the overall perceived effectiveness on Precision Farming, hence
such an outcome.
4.4 MARKET ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES
4.4.1 Market Assessment and Assistance
Channelizing the farm produces from farm to market is one of the most important
activities of the sample both as individually and as group. The assurance of marketing
ensures assured disposal. This network has been established in terms of assessing the
market assessment and assistance, Activities of PFA, Commodity transportation, Market
infrastructure. Indeed production is not complete till it reaches the consumer and the
producer will not be rewarded unless the consumer buy it and pays adequate price for it.
The market assessment and assistance regarding PF was assessed and presented in
Table 38. This has also been presented in Fig. 19.
Table 38. Market Assessment and Assistance (n=200)
Responses
Good Moderate Poor

Sl.No Functions
Per Per Per
No. No. No.
cent cent cent
1. Information on demand based

production 15 7.50 80 40.00 105 52.50
2 Exposure to successful PF
Association 22 11.00 68 34.00 110 55.00
3 Market trend and choice of

crop 17 8.50 86 43.00 97 48.50
4 Forecasting Market Price of

commodities 52 26.00 97 48.50 51 25.50
5 Market tie-up 27 13.50 105 52.50 68 34.00
6 Assured price and sale of the

produce 18 9.00 68 34.00 114 57.00
7 Creating logo 0 0 23 11.50 177 88.50
Forecasting market price of commodities was from moderate to high level

(74.50 per cent) followed by market tie-up (66.00 percent), market trend and choice of
crops (51.50 per cent) and information on demand based production(47.50 per cent).
Assured price and sale of the produce (43.00 per cent) were also indicated as moderate to
good level. However, creating logo for the group, assured price and sale of the produce,
exposure to successful PF Association and demand based production were expressed as
poor. This showed that the assistance on said dimension was not up to the expected level
of the farmers and need to be strengthened so that the marketing activities of the PF
practitioners would justifiable. The importance of creating logo for their produce has not
been realised by the sample. They require some assistance/ guidance in this aspect from
the stakeholders.
The functions studied under this component, need to be focussed and improved to
the possible extent. Then only, it could be possible to ensure adequate assistance through
the intervention of stakeholders.
Table 39. Status of Market Assessment and Assistance (n=200)
1 Little assistance 53 26.50
2 Moderate assistance 99 49.50
3 High level assistance 48 24.00
Total 200 100.00
It could be corroborated that, moderate level market assistance was expressed by

half of the sample. Almost an equal proportion was found under low and high level
categories. This result is in line with the observation made in Table 38.Six functions studied
under this section was resulted with moderate response from 34 per cent to 52.50 per cent.
4.4.2 Activities of Precision Farmers Association
Organising an association of PF is one of the major components of PF. Through

this association sharing of farm related information, sharing of responsibilities, bulk
Purchase of inputs, availing financial assistance etc., are met out. Such types of functions
of the association have been discussed with the sample and their responses were depicted
in the Table 40.
Table 40. Activities of Precision Farmers Association (n=200)
Responses
Sl.No Functions Good Moderate Poor
No. % No. % No. %
1 Relationship building with
40 20.00 70 35.00 90 45.00
stakeholders
2 Sharing of responsibilities 62 31.00 96 48.00 42 21.00
3 Sharing of farm related
76 38.00 102 51.00 22 11.00
information
Responses
Sl.No Functions Good Moderate Poor
No. % No. % No. %
4 Establishing community nursery
13 6.50 64 32.00 123 61.50
and pooling of resources
5 Availing financial assistance 57 28.50 127 63.50 16 8.00
6 Bulk Purchase of inputs 85 42.50 76 38.00 39 19.50
7 Eliminating middle men 31 15.50 76 38.00 93 46.50
8 Price fixation 24 12.00 82 41.00 94 47.00
9 Bulk disposal of produce 47 23.50 90 45.00 63 31.50
It is revealed from the Table 40 that the status of establishment of community
nursery was at poor level (61.50 per cent), followed by price fixation (47 per cent),
eliminating middle men (46.50 per cent) and relationship building with stakeholders
(45.00 per cent).
The table further revealed that, the association helps in availing financial
assistance (63.50 per cent), sharing of farm related information(51.00 per cent), sharing
of responsibilities (48.00 per cent), bulk disposal of produce (45.00 per cent) and price
fixation(41.00 per cent) were at moderate level.
Among all the nine functions studied, the association activities were good in the
bulk Purchase of inputs (42.50 per cent), Sharing of farm related information and Sharing
of responsibilities to the tune of 38.00 per cent and 31.00 per cent. Fig.20 depicts the
activities of Precision Farmers Association.
In general, it could be inferred that, activities of PFA enabled the sample in

sharing the farm related information and Sharing of responsibilities, bulk Purchase of
inputs, availing financial assistance, fixing price for the produce and bulk disposal of
produce. However, there is scope to improve the activities of association further for the
betterment of Precision farmers.
The result is in line with the study outcome of Rajesh kanna (2006) who also
projected that the Precision Farmers of Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri districts had
favourable perception towards group formation and activities. The overall Responses
collected under this section are presented in the Table 41.
Table 41. Status of Activities of Precision Farmers Association (n=200)
1 Low level Activities 33 16.50
2 Moderate level activities 127 63.50
3 High level activities 40 20.00
Total 200 100.00
Moderate level activity of Precision Farmers Association was observed with

nearly two –thirds of the sample followed by high level with 20 percent of the sample.
Among the nine activities of the Precision Farmers Association, as indicated in Table 40,
more than 40 per cent moderate level responses were noticed on five items. Poor
response of more than 40 percent was also noticed on four activities. This could be the
possible reason for low level to moderate level activities observed in this table.
The transport of produce from the place of production to the market, come across
several means viz., mode of transport, availability of road, availability of transport. In
addition the reliability of conveyance were assessed. The responses are depicted in Table 42.
Table 42. Commodity Transportation (n=200)

Sl.No Mode of transport* Frequency Per cent
1 Personally carry them 104 52.00
2 Animal driven cart 68 34.00
3 Small truck 164 82.00
4 Truck 64 32.00
5 Use Bicycles 18 9.00
Road Facilities*
1 Concrete 34 17.00
2 Tar topped road 127 63.50
3 Good mud road 95 47.50
4 Rough mud road 67 33.50
5 No proper road 17 8.50
Sl.No Availing Conveyance* Frequency Per cent
1 Own 17 8.50
2 Borrowed 48 24.00
3 Hired 149 74.50
4 Public transport 73 36.50
Availing transport facilities
1 Very easy 23 11.50
2 Easy 131 65.50
3 Not easy 18 9.00
4 Difficult 19 9.50
5 Very Difficult 9 4.50
Reliability of the conveyance
1 Very reliable 43 21.50
2 Reliable 124 62.00
3 Not very Reliable 18 9.00
4 Problematic 15 7.50
Topography of area
1 Undulating 42 21.00
2 Hilly 0 0
3 Plain 158 79.00
*Multiple Responses
Small truck was the major mode of transport for 82 per cent of the sample,
followed by personally carrying the commodities. Using small truck was said to be more
convenient to reach the interior areas of the field wherever required. Those who are
residing in the farm house used to load them personally (52 per cent).Animal driven cart
and trucks were used to transport from yard to the market to certain extent. Tar topped
road, mud road, rough mud road were the different types of roads commonly available in
the study area through which they were transporting the materials to market. Hired
vehicles were used by three-fourths of the sample followed by public transport and
borrowed vehicles. The Figures 21,22 and 23 show the pictorial representations on mode
of transport, availing transport facilities and reliability of the conveyance.
It was expressed as easy in availing the transport facilities(65.50percent).

Government has extended the public transport buses, mini bus services, share auto
facilities to all the nook and corners of villages. The penetration of transport to all the
areas made the farmers to express the availability as easy. Almost the similar proportion
of the sample opined that the transport and conveyance facilities as reliable.
It could be inferred that the transport of commodity was made through trucks in tar
topped roads, by hiring vehicles and expressed that the conveyance used were much reliable.
Transport facilities were observed as medium Astonoliver (2012). He also

indicated that the sample of the study transported the farm produce by carrying on their
heads, using bicycles and in some cases used small trucks.
The data on overall Commodity Transportation is depicted in the Table 43.
Table 43. Status of Commodity Transportation (n=200)
Total 200 100.00
It is revealed from Table 43 that moderate to high level commodity transportation

was indicated by 84 percent of the sample and the rest 16 percent found under low level.
As indicated in the above table, among the six items studied, more than one response was
recorded. Particular items like small truck and personal load under mode of transport, tar
topped road under road facilities, hired conveyance, easy transport and reliable
conveyance were recorded. This outcome exhibited in the overall response.
4.4.4 Market infrastructure

In this study, market infrastructure was studied in terms of the place of disposal of
produce and the various storage units. The results have been furnished in the Table 44.
Table 44. Market Infrastructure (n=200)
S.No Place of Disposal* Frequency Per cent
1 Near homes 27 13.50
2 Traditional markets 84 42.00
3 Near roads or path 13 6.50
4 Commercial markets 132 66.00
5 Mobile markets 53 26.50
Storage Units*
1 Use home premises 138 69.00
2 Locally constructed premises 11 5.50
3 Rented premises 49 24.50
4 Government constructed markets 34 17.00
Storing device for fresh produce*
1 Keep in baskets 48 24.00
2 Keep in shop shelves 79 39.50
3 Keep in well aerated rooms 153 76.50
Need of market infrastructure
a Strongly support 176 88.00
b Support 24 12.00
c Not sure 0 0
d Don‟t support 0 0
Cost of market infrastructure
a Very expensive 26 13.00
b Expensive 38 19.00
c Reasonable 132 66.00
d Cheap 4 2.00
e Very cheap 0 0
S.No Market decision* Frequency Per cent
a Self-decision 64 32.00
b Consulting family members 112 56.00
c Consulting PF Association Members 51 25.50
Middlemen Involvement*
a Only through middleman 52 26.00
b Partly through middleman 148 74.00
c Direct sale to the firm 81 40.50
*Multiple Responses
It is very interesting to note that commercial markets (66.00 per cent) were the
major source of disposal of farm produce. Traditional market (45.00 per cent), to a
certain extent mobile markets were also exploited by the sample for marketing their
produce. The sample Precision Farmers were trained in grading and sorting of the
produces. Because of assured quality such products were amenable for sale in the
commercial markets. That‟s why they prefer to sell their produce in commercial markets.
Home premises (69.00 per cent) were mostly used for storing the farm produce.
In and out of the study areas, the sample were residing in the farm houses and sufficient
area is available for storage as both temporary and permanent structures. Only a meagre
per cent of the sample availed the rented structures in the premises of Uzhavar santhai,
regulated markets, ware houses etc.,
With regard to the fresh produce, the sample used to store in well aerated rooms
and also in the shelves of shops outlets. The need for market infrastructure was strongly
supported by cent per cent of the sample. The cost for market infrastructure was said to
be reasonable by two –thirds of the sample and 32.00 per cent opined as expensive.
Consulting family members, self decision and consulting PFA members, were commonly
practiced by the sample while taking market related decisions.
Nearly three-fourths of the sample marketing their produce partly through

middlemen as most of them made pre-harvest agreement with traders as stated by them
during data collection. And 40.00 to 50.00 per cent of the sample expressed that, they
were marketing their produce directly, without involving middlemen.
It could be inferred that commercial markets were the major source of disposal
of farm produce, own home premises were used for storing the produces and for fresh
produces well aerated rooms were used. Consulting family members and PFA members
were followed for taking decision on marketing. However middlemen involvement was
also exists for marketing their produce. The need for market infrastructure was strongly
supported and the costs of marketing infrastructure existence were very reasonable.
This type of responses on market infrastructure was encouraging and need to be further
improved. The results on place of disposal, storage units, need and cost for market
infrastructure are graphically represented in the figures 24,25,26 &27 respectively.
The data collected on overall Market Infrastructure is depicted in the Table 45.
Table 45. Status of Market Infrastructure (n=200)
1 Moderate 194 97.00
2 High 6 3.00
Total 200 100.00
Almost cent percent of the sample expressed the Market infrastructure as

moderate level. In the table, it was indicated that, majority were using home premises for
storing and strongly supported the need for the market infrastructure. This indicated that,
the study area lacks with the required market infrastructure viz., the storage units and
well aerated rooms. This response reflected on the overall status of market infrastructure.
The market associated activities constitutes four sub components viz., Market
Assessment and Assistance, Activities of Precision Farmers Association, Commodity
transportation and Market Infrastructure. The performance and responses on the said four
dimensions is exhibited in the Market associated activities.
Table 46. Status of Market Associated activities (n=200)
S.No Category Frequency Percent
1 Low 22 11.00
2 Medium 158 79.00
3 High 20 10.00
Total 200 100.00
Table 46 revealed the moderate level Market Associated activities as stated by

79 per cent of the sample. An equal proportion of the sample expressed the low and high
level activities of the market. The results on the four dimension studied under Market
Associated activities also resulted with moderate to high level responses. Similar was
the outcome observed in the over all Market Associated activities .
4.5 ASSOCIATION AND CONTRIBUTION OF PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE

WITH DEPENDENT VARIABLES
This part deals with association and contribution of selected independent

variables with dependent variables. Correlation and Multiple Regression were
performed to study the relationship and cause and effect relationship of independent
variables respectively. The results have been presented as follows
4.5.1 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Technological

Utilization Pattern
Table 47. Correlation and multiple regression analysis between the profile of the
sample and Technological Utilization Pattern
„r‟ Regression Standard

S.No Independent Variables „t‟ value
value Coefficient Error
1 Age .109 -.015 .009 -1.553NS
2 Education -.113 -.046 .051 -.897NS
***
3 Land holding size .271 .098 .040 2.476**
4 Area under Precision
.173** 2.244 .851 2.638***
Farming
5 Experience in Precision
.153** .438 .049 8.896***
Farming
6 Farming experience .006 -.008 .039 -.208NS
7 Irrigation potentiality .001 .013 .006 2.137***
8 Annual income from
.160** -.100 .034 -2.905**
farming
9 Annual Income from
.161** -.034 .026 -1.274NS
Precision Farming
10 Orientation with Research
-.008 -.011 .046 -.235NS
Station
11 Participation in Research
-.014 -.020 .076 -.264NS
station activities
12 Innovativeness .208*** .059 .036 1.651NS
13 Risk bearing ability .436*** -.034 .033 -1.014NS
14 Extension participation .144** -.068 .042 -1.628NS
15 Economic motivation .007 1.270E-5 .014 .001NS
16 Credit orientation .384*** .012 .055 .225NS
17 Access to credit facilities .001 .056 .063 .894NS
***
18 Leadership potential .433 .022 .056 .389NS
19 Employment generation -.032 .054 .042 1.308NS
20 Availability of agro inputs -.086 -.030 .024 -1.255NS
21 Attitude towards
-.009 .030 .013 2.254**
Precision Farming
22 Information seeking
-.201*** -.017 .006 -2.605***
pattern
23 Information sharing
-.052 .020 .044 .445NS
pattern
24 Decision making pattern .065 .053 .020 2.730***
25 Level of aspiration .016 -.003 .036 -.072NS
NS -Non significant F = 11.141
*** - Significant at 0.01 level R2 = 61.50
** -Significant at 0.05 level
* - Significant at 0.1 level of probability
The variables viz., land holding size (X3), area under Precision Farming(X4),
experience in Precision Farming (X5), annual income from Farming (X8), annual
income from Precision Farming (X9), innovativeness (X12), risk aearing ability (X13),
extension Participation (X14), credit orientation (X16), leadership potential(X18) had
shown positive significant association with the dependent variable Technological
utilization pattern at 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability. Whereas information seeking
pattern (X22) had exhibited the negative significant association with the technological
utilization pattern at 0.01 level of probability.
It is revealed from the table that land holding size (X3), area under Precision
Farming (X4), experience in Precision Farming (X5), irrigation Potentiality (X7), annual
income from Farming (X8), attitude towards Precision Farming (X21), information
seeking pattern (X22) and decision making pattern (X24) were acted as a cause for effecting
the technological utilisation. It is quite natural that when a farmer possessed favourable
attitude towards Precision Farming as stated elsewhere, naturally he had the inclination in
adopting the recommended technologies. Prior to the adoption, it could be possible for him to
spare some area to bring under PF. When he is ready to go for, essentially he should seek the
possible sources to get detailed information on the technologies.
Table 47, indicates that the R2 value was 0.615 which revealed that 61.50 per cent
variation in the Technological utilization pattern was explained by twenty five
independent variables selected for the study. The 'F' value (11.141) was significant at one
per cent level of probability.
The overall regression analysis interprets that an unit increase in Land holding
size, Area under Precision Farming, Experience in Precision Farming, Irrigation
Potentiality, Annual income from Farming, Attitude towards Precision Farming,
Information seeking pattern, and Decision making pattern would result in 0.098, 2.244,
0.438, 0.013, -0.100, 0.030, -0.017 and 0.053 units respectively.
It was observed in the study that, majority of the farmers had more than five years
of experience in PF and they brought more than two ha of land under Precision Farming.
The Irrigation Potential of 86 per cent of the sample was moderate to high level. This
type of observation also depicted in the technological utilization pattern. It could be
further indicated that the sample took farm decisions in consultation with the stakeholders
and the members of Precision farmers association. Hence, that factor exhibited highly
significant contribution towards the technological utilization pattern.
4.5.2 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Perceived

Effectiveness
Among the 25 independent variable taken for the study, factors viz., age (X1),
size of land holding (X3), experience in Precision Farming (X5), extension Participation
(X14), attitude towards Precision Farming (X21), decision making pattern(X24) and level
of aspiration (X25) were exhibited the association with the dependent factor perceived
effectiveness. All other variables did not show association with perceived effectiveness.
It could be observed from the table that F value (22.631) was found to be
significant at one per cent level. R2 value indicated that the 25 independent variables put
together accounted for 76.50 per cent variation in the perceived effectiveness.
The variables viz., area under Precision Farming (X4), experience in Precision
Farming (X5), irrigation potentiality (X7), annual Income from Farming (X8), credit
orientation (X16), attitude towards Precision Farming (X21), information Seeking Pattern
(X22), decision making pattern (X24) and level of aspiration (X25) were found to have
significant influence on perceived effectiveness. The rest of variables did not show any
significant contribution in the Perceived Effectiveness.
The strength of the variables can be explained as unit increase in Area under
Precision Farming, Experience in Precision Farming, irrigation potentiality, annual
Income from Farming, Credit orientation, Attitude towards Precision Farming,
Information Seeking Pattern, decision Making Pattern and level of aspiration would bring
increase of -9.407, -1.883, -0.091, 0.581, 0.330, -0.094, -0.041, -0.160, -0.255 units in the
perceived effectiveness of the sample respectively.
Table 48. Correlation and multiple regression analysis between the profile of
the sample and Perceived Effectiveness

1 Age -.222*** -.036 .028 -1.305NS
2 Education .009 .005 .151 .031NS
3 Land holding size -.184*** -.198 .117 -1.691NS

-.078 -9.407 2.510 -3.748***
Farming
-.731*** -1.883 .145 -12.951***
Farming
6 Farming experience .066 .219 .115 1.911NS
7 Irrigation potentiality -.031 -.091 .018 -5.078***

-.076 .581 .101 5.737***
farming

-.079 .079 .078 1.018NS
Precision Farming
10 Orientation with
-.053 -.157 .137 -1.144NS
Research Station
-.058 -.162 .226 -.720NS
station activities
12 Innovativeness -.006 .093 .106 .874NS
13 Risk bearing ability -.005 -.125 .099 -1.272NS
14 Extension participation -.187*** -.012 .123 -.101NS
15 Economic motivation -.049 -.012 .043 -.294NS
16 Credit orientation .047 .330 .161 2.048**
17 Access to credit facilities -.023 -.220 .185 -1.192NS

18 Leadership potential -.022 -.151 .165 -.916NS
19 Employment generation .091 .039 .123 .317NS
20 Availability of agro
.128 .123 .071 1.738NS
inputs
21 Attitude towards
-.440*** -.094 .039 -2.404**
Precision Farming
-.008 -.041 .019 -2.145**
pattern
.066 -.078 .130 -.597NS
pattern
24 Decision making pattern -.401*** -.160 .058 -2.778**
25 Level of aspiration -.466*** -.255 .106 -2.399**

*** - Significant at 0.01 level R2 =0.765
Higher the Irrigation potential achieved through PF, especially the drip fertigation
would have facilitated the perceived effectiveness on Precision Farmers. It has been
observed elsewhere in the report that the sample of the study had more irrigation
potential, got high income of more than 5 lakhs from farming, approached and exploited
all possible sources for availing credit through PFA and such result acted as a cause for
such an effect on perceived effectiveness.
It was observed that the sample had more favourable attitude towards Precision
Farming. Their information seeking pattern was also encouraging, they had frequent
contact with the research station, the scientists, also the extension personnel of public
extension system.
With regard to Decision Making Pattern, they took joint decisions in consulting
with their friends and through discussion with PFA members and to a certain extent with
the other stakeholders. This type of Decision Making Pattern helped them to take right
decision at right time and thereby they were able to get good yield from their crops.
Their aspiration level was from moderate to high level. It becomes effortless to
achieve a highest possible production with the available techniques when the sample
possess high level aspiration. Put together all the determinants discussed above had
played a major role in exhibiting high perceived effectiveness towards the adoption of PF
techniques. Thus it could be stated that the sample were satisfied much on the adoption of
PF techniques.
4.5.3 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Market Assessment

and Assistance
From the twenty five independent variables taken for the study, positive and
significant association was displayed by the variables viz., age (X1), land holding size
(X3), experience in Precision Farming (X5), extension Participation (X14), attitude
towards precision Farming (X21), decision making pattern (X24), level of aspiration
(X25) except information sharing pattern (X23) which has shown negative association at
0.01 per cent of probability.
Subsequently, the multiple regression analysis was performed to find out the extent of
contribution of independent factors towards the Market Assessment and Assistance.
sample and Market Assessment and Assistance

1 Age .250*** .034 .019 1.749NS
2 Education .026 .020 .106 .190NS
***
3 Land holding size .197 .069 .082 .843NS
.079 8.962 1.760 5.092***
Farming
.756*** 1.508 .102 14.787***
Farming
6 Farming experience -.032 -.216 .080 -2.691***
7 Irrigation potentiality -.045 .043 .013 3.425***
.065 -.423 .071 -5.958***
farming
.080 -.157 .055 -2.882***
Precision Farming
10 Orientation with
-.007 -.067 .096 -.695NS
Research Station
.028 .089 .158 .563NS
station activities
12 Innovativeness .037 .031 .074 .413NS
13 Risk bearing ability -.030 -.063 .069 -.918NS
***
14 Extension participation .211 .075 .086 .867NS
15 Economic motivation .018 -.005 .030 -.181NS
16 Credit orientation .059 .050 .113 .440NS
17 Access to credit facilities -.006 -.013 .129 -.099NS
18 Leadership potential -.076 -.113 .116 -.974NS
19 Employment generation -.051 .064 .086 .749NS
-.023 .081 .050 1.627NS
inputs
21 Attitude towards
.383*** .013 .027 .464NS
Precision Farming
-.006 .021 .013 1.536NS
pattern
-.184*** -.186 .091 -2.038**
pattern
24 Decision making pattern .407*** .081 .040 1.999**
25 Level of aspiration .458*** .110 .075 1.473NS
F value (24.143) was found to be significant at one per cent level. R2 value
indicated that the 25 independent variables collectively accounted for 77.60 per cent
variation in Market Assessment and Assistance.
The variables viz., area under Precision Farming (X4), experience in Precision
Farming (X5), farming Experience (X6), irrigation Potentiality (X7), annual income
from farming (X8), annual income from Precision Farming (X9) were found to have
significant influence on the Market Assessment and assistance at one per cent of
probability. Income sharing pattern (X23), decision making pattern(X24) had shown the
significant influence at five per cent level of probability.
The strength of the variables can be explained as unit increase in area under
Precision Farming, experience in Precision Farming, farming Experience, irrigation
potentiality, annual income from farming, annual income from Precision Farming,
income sharing pattern, decision making pattern would bring increase of 8.962, 1.508,
-0.216, 0.043, -0.423, -0.157 ,-0.186 and 0.110 units in the market assessment and
assistance of the sample respectively.
It could be observed from the Table 49 that Area under Precision Farming,
Experience in Precision Farming, Irrigation Potential, Income from conventional farming and
Precision Farming, Information Seeking Pattern, Information Sharing Pattern and Decision
Making Pattern were causes for improvement in the market assessment and assistance.
The sample were able to expand their cultivation area based on the availability of
irrigation water in the study area. The sample was getting sufficient water both through
ground water and canal irrigation. This helped them to spare some lands from conventional
farming to Precision Farming. No about that limited water is enough for Precision Farming.
Hence it was possible for the sample to take up Precision Farming. Through this, they were
able to generate more income and that reflected on their response.
Without market tie-up the Precision Farming could not be successful. The sample
used to discuss with the stakeholders and the members of PFA for getting information on
marketing aspects. It was confirmed with their Decision Making Pattern that the members
of PFA were consulted while disposing the farm produce. These type of activities
reflected on the market assessment and assistance.
4.5.4 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Activities of
Precision Farmers Association
Among the 25 independent variables taken for the study, age (X1), land holding
size (X3) and information sharing pattern( X23) had shown positive and significant
association with the dependent variable at five per cent level of probability. Experience
in Precision Farming (X5), orientation with research station (X10), extension
participation (X14), attitude towards Precision Farming (X21), decision Making Pattern
(X24), level of aspiration (X25) had shown positive and significant association with the
dependent variable at one per cent level of probability.
sample and Activities of Precision Farmers Association

1 Age .153** .024 .033 .730NS
2 Education -.031 -.187 .180 -1.039NS
3 Land holding size .144** -.017 .140 -.123NS
.094 8.194 2.989 2.741***
Farming
.670*** 1.734 .173 10.013***
Farming
6 Farming experience .021 .021 .137 .152NS
.081 -.401 .121 -3.325NS
farming
.093 -.133 .093 -1.431***
Precision Farming
10 Orientation with
-.216*** -.886 .163 -5.433**
Research Station
.034 .680 .269 2.531**
station activities
12 Innovativeness -.011 -.220 .126 -1.739NS
13 Risk bearing ability .063 .169 .117 1.441NS
14 Extension participation .190*** .184 .146 1.257NS
15 Economic motivation .041 .013 .051 .262NS
16 Credit orientation -.009 -.063 .192 -.325NS
17 Access to credit facilities .000 -.074 .220 -.337NS
18 Leadership potential -.085 -.249 .197 -1.267NS
19 Employment generation -.037 -.035 .146 -.240NS
-.056 .015 .084 .174NS
inputs
21 Attitude towards
.345*** .037 .047 .788NS
Precision Farming
.002 .014 .023 .624NS
pattern
-.169** -.309 .155 -1.994**
pattern
24 Decision making pattern .309*** .080 .069 1.160NS
25 Level of aspiration .379*** .108 .127 .850NS
It could be observed from the table that F value (12.80) was found to be
significant at one per cent level. R2 value indicated that the 25 independent variables put
together accounted for 64.80 per cent variation in the dependent variable Activities of
Precision Farmers Association.
Area under Precision Farming (X4), Experience in Precision Farming (X5) and
irrigation potentiality (X7) had contributed positively to the Activities of Precision
Farmers Association at one per cent level. Orientation with Research station(X10),
Participation in research station activities(X11), and information sharing pattern (X23)
had shown the contribution to the dependent variable at five per cent level of probability.
The rest of variables did not show any significant contribution towards the
activities of Precision Farmers Association.
The strength of the variables can be explained as unit increase in Area under PF,
experience in PF, Irrigation potentiality, Annual income from PF, Orientation with research
station, participation in research station activities and information sharing pattern would bring
increase of 8.194,1.734,0.057,-0.133,-0.886,0.680,-0.309 units in the Precision Farmers
Association activities of the sample respectively.
Forming an Association and encouraging the members for joint action in terms of
taking decisions, sharing the responsibilities, identifying the market potential etc., are
entertained through the Association activities. Meeting once in a while through fixed schedule
in a commonplace is habituated among the association members was reported in the study.
Irrespective of the size of the land, the type of crops grown, all the precision
farmers come together under the Association umbrella. Those who had more innovative
nature necessarily possess much orientation with Research station and the activities of the
research Stations. When they possess such characteristics they used to share whatever
they gained. This type of activities further groomed the sample through their participation
in Precision Farming Association. It could be stated that those factors explained acted as
the determinants in increasing the participation of farmers in Association activities.
4.5.5 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Commodity

Transportation
The Table 51. displayed that the variables viz., age (X1), land holding size (X3),
experience in Precision Farming (X5), innovativeness (X12), extension participation
(X14), attitude towards Precision Farming (X21), decision making pattern ( X24), level
of aspiration (X25) had positive and significant association with Commodity
Transportation at 0.01 level of probability. Information seeking pattern (X22) and
information sharing pattern (X23) had negative and significant association with
Commodity Transportation at 0.05 level of probability.
F value (9.376) was found to be significant at one per cent level. R 2 value
indicated that all the independent variables collectively responsible for 57.40 per cent
variation in the dependent variable Commodity Transportation.
The „t‟ value in the table explained that the variables viz., Age (X1), Land
holding size (X3), Area under Precision Farming (X4), Experience in Precision Farming
(X5), Farming experience(X6), Innovativeness (X12), Risk bearing ability (X13),
Extension Participation (X14), Attitude towards Precision Farming (X21), Decision
making pattern(X24) had influence the dependent variable Commodity Transportation at
five per cent level of probability except the variables viz. Age (X1) and Attitude towards
Precision Farming (X21) which at one per cent level of probability.
The strength of the variables can be explained as unit increase in Age, Land
holding size, Area under Precision Farming, Experience in Precision Farming, Farming
experience, Innovativeness, Risk bearing ability, Extension Participation, Attitude
towards Precision Farming , Decision making pattern would bring increase of 0.122,
0.430, 7.437, 0.782, -0.472, -0.307, 0.905, -0.396, 0.389,0.238, 0.191 units in the commodity
transportation of the sample respectively.
As reported elsewhere in the study, Commodity Transportation was assessed in

terms of the mode of transport, types of road, mode of availing conveyance,
transportation facility and the reliability of conveyance. The Commodity Transportation
aspects were explained as reliable and easy by majority of the sample which showed that
the sample were satisfied with the facilities in transporting their produce from farm to
home and to the market.
sample and Commodity Transportation

1 Age .346*** .122 .043 2.861***
2 Education -.010 -.267 .232 -1.151
***
3 Land holding size .365 .430 .180 2.391**
.074 7.437 3.853 1.930**
Farming
.445*** .782 .223 3.502**
Farming
6 Farming experience -.038 -.472 .176 -2.678***
7 Irrigation potentiality -.073 -.012 .027 -.440
.053 -.307 .155 -1.977*
farming
.081 -.148 .120 -1.236
Precision Farming
.066 .224 .210 1.065
Station
.007 -.244 .346 -.704
station activities
12 Innovativeness .368*** .905 .163 5.558**
13 Risk bearing ability .011 -.396 .151 -2.614**
***
14 Extension participation .343 .389 .189 2.064**
15 Economic motivation .028 .002 .065 .032
16 Credit orientation .026 -.016 .248 -.065
17 Access to credit facilities -.033 -.125 .283 -.442
18 Leadership potential -.058 -.387 .254 -1.526
19 Employment generation -.085 .002 .188 .012
20 Availability of agro inputs .034 .086 .109 .789
21 Attitude towards
.400*** .238 .060 3.961***
Precision Farming
-.188** -.019 .029 -.637
pattern
-.154** -.239 .200 -1.198
pattern
24 Decision making pattern .291*** .191 .089 2.161**
***
25 Level of aspiration .268 -.005 .163 -.028
NS -Non significant F =9.376
It is revealed from the Table 51, that Education, Area Under Farming, Experience
in Precision Farming and the Total experience in conventional farming were explained as
the causes for the moderate satisfaction derived in Commodity Transportation. Most of
the sample framers had education from middle to diploma level which was one of the
factors responsible for taking up Precision Farming by the sample. Subsequently the
experience gained in Precision Farming helped them to realise the importance of availing
the possible mode of transport for marketing. The said observation exhibited in the result.
4.5.6 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Market

Infrastructure
sample and Market Infrastructure

1 Age -.350*** -.075 .024 -3.176***
2 Education -.050 .061 .129 .473NS
3 Land holding size -.257*** -.033 .100 -.325NS

-.085 -3.484 2.147 -1.623NS
Farming
-.353*** -.275 .124 -2.210***
Farming
6 Farming experience .039 .227 .098 2.317**
7 Irrigation potentiality .080 .010 .015 .640NS

-.061 .132 .087 1.519NS
farming

-.090 .067 .067 1.001NS
Precision Farming

-.058 -.146 .117 -1.248NS
Station
.013 .261 .193 1.353NS
station activities
12 Innovativeness -.379*** -.510 .091 -5.624***
13 Risk bearing ability -.012 .206 .084 2.445***

14 Extension participation -.372*** -.352 .105 -3.351***
15 Economic motivation .024 .043 .036 1.184NS
18 Leadership potential .074 .308 .141 2.180**
19 Employment generation .080 .033 .105 .312NS
20 Availability of agro inputs -.017 -.030 .060 -.492NS
21 Attitude towards
-.357*** -.114 .034 -3.388***
Precision Farming
.128 -.004 .016 -.215NS
pattern
.108 .044 .111 .396NS
pattern
24 Decision making pattern -.201*** -.040 .049 -.806NS
25 Level of aspiration -.209*** .000637 .091 -.007NS

From the table it is clear that the variables viz., age (X1), land holding size (X3),
experience in Precision Farming (X5), innovativeness (X12), extension participation
(X14), attitude towards Precision Farming (X21) , decision making pattern (X24) and
level of aspiration (X25) had exhibited the association with the dependent variable
Market infrastructure at one per cent level o f probability. The remaining variables did
not show association.
From the multiple regression results, F value (6.776) showed its significance, and
all the independent variables collectively accounted about 49.30 per cent to the dependent
variable which has been reflected through R2 value.
The variables viz., age (X1), experience in Precision Farming (X5), innovativeness
(X12), extension Participation (X14), and attitude towards Precision Farming (X21) had
shown the negative contribution at one per cent level of probability whereas Farming
experience (X6), Risk bearing ability (X13) and leadership potential (X18) which
exposed to positive contribution at five per cent level of probability.
The strength of the variables can be explained as unit increase in Age, Experience
in Precision Farming , Farming experience , Innovativeness , Extension Participation and
Attitude towards Precision Farming would bring increase of -0.075, -0.275, 0.227,-0.510,
0.206,,-0.352, 0.308, and -0.114 units in the Precision Farmers Association activities of
the sample respectively.
This component contributes the place of disposal and the availability of storage
units. It was observed through Table 52 that Attitude towards Precision Farming,
Extension Participation, Risk Bearing ability and innovativeness were acted as a cause to
put forth the sample in selling their produce in commercial markets and derived moderate
satisfaction in market infrastructure. Since market tie up is one of the important
components of Precision Farming, every sample had the awareness on the same. The
experience in Precision Farming also helped them to place importance on the marketing
avenues. The infrastructure available in the nearby production centres will enable the
growers not to search for other avenues.
Traditional markets were also exploited by the sample as one of the places for
disposal of the produce. Generally speaking, good market infrastructure will enable
majority of the producers to approach and dispose their produce in such areas.
Also, if any market available with additional storage facilities will naturally bring
more farmers to dispose their produce. Most of the farmers had more favourable attitude
towards Precision Farming and had the leadership potential. This potential envisaged
them to avoid middle men in the process of marketing and consulting their association
members for taking appropriate decisions on marketing. Thus the said factors under
market infrastructure paved the way to feel favourable on the availability of market
infrastructure.
4.5.7 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Market

Associated Activities
Among the 25 independent variables taken for the study, the association with the
dependent variable Market associated activities was explained positively by the
independent variables viz., age (X1), land holding size (X3), experience in Precision
Farming (X5), extension Participation ( X14), attitude towards Precision Farming (X21),
decision making pattern (X24) and level of aspiration (X25) at one per cent level of
probability.
The result of multiple linear regression revealed the F value (22.905) as

2
significant and R value 76.70 per cent which explained the independent variables
collectively accounted to the dependent variable.
sample and Market Associated Activities

1 Age .257*** .104 .056 1.875NS
2 Education -.026 -.373 .304 -1.226NS
3 Land holding size .271*** .450 .236 1.908**
.091 21.110 5.047 4.182***
Farming
.741*** 3.748 .292 12.819***
Farming
6 Farming experience -.012 -.440 .231 -1.907**
.074 -1.000 .204 -4.910***
farming
.093 -.371 .157 -2.371**
Precision Farming
-.086 -.875 .275 -3.178***
Station
.034 .786 .454 1.734NS
station activities
12 Innovativeness .106 .206 .213 .964NS
13 Risk bearing ability .023 -.084 .198 -.421NS
14 Extension participation .253*** .296 .247 1.197NS
15 Economic motivation .049 .053 .085 .620NS
18 Leadership potential -.080 -.441 .332 -1.327NS
19 Employment generation -.061 .064 .247 .260NS
20 Availability of agro inputs -.021 .151 .142 1.063NS
21 Attitude towards Precision
.425*** .174 .079 2.212**
Farming
22 Information seeking pattern -.070 .013 .039 .327NS
23 Information sharing pattern -.202*** -.691 .262 -2.638***
24 Decision making pattern .400*** .312 .116 2.691***
25 Level of aspiration .436*** .212 .214 .992NS
From the Table 53, land holding size (X3), farming experience (X6), annual
income from Precision Farming (X9) and attitude towards Precision Farming (X21) had
exhibited the contribution with dependent variable at five per cent level of probability.
Whereas the variables viz., area under Precision Farming (X4), experience in Precision
Farming (X5), irrigation potentiality (X7), annual income from Precision Farming (X8),
orientation with research station (X10), information sharing pattern (X23) and decision
making pattern (X24) had shown the contribution to the dependent variable.
The strength of the variables can be explained as unit increase in Land holding
size, Farming experience, Annual income from Precision Farming, Attitude towards
Precision Farming, Area under Precision Farming, Experience in Precision Farming,
Irrigation potentiality, Annual income from Farming, Orientation with Research Station,
Information sharing pattern and Decision making pattern would bring increase of 0.450,
-0.440, -0.371, 0.174, 21.110, 3.748, 0.098, -1.00, -0.875, -0.691, 0.312 units in the
Market associated activities of the sample respectively.
In this study it was observed that the irrigation potential of the sample was more.
They had rich experience in the conventional and Precision Farming. The stakeholders‟
continuous intervention and delivery of farm information enabled them to follow the
recommendation. The results showed that their income was also more than
5 lakhs/annum. They had favourable attitude towards Precision Farming, which further
strengthened their involvement. In every Precision Farming area, through the intervention
the PFA had been organised. It gives an opportunity to the members to discuss farm
related information and sharing their ideas/views. With regard to all the Precision
Farming activities majority of the sample had discussion and took joint decision with the
members of PFA. Hence those factors shown the contribution towards the Market
Associated Activities of Precision Farming.
4.6 SWOC ON PRECISION FARMING AS PERCEIVED BY FARMERS
After the implementation of any new practice, technology prior to further spread
it is inevitable to study the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges
(SWOC). There is no exception for this study also. Analysis of SWOC on Precision
Farming technologies has performed considering its strengths and weaknesses that
influence their attractiveness and also the stimulus to implement the technology. Its
potential benefits were taken as possible opportunities, while challenges mean the
barriers in adopting the method and its potential negative consequences.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges on Precision Farming as
perceived by the precision farm practitioners are given in this section.
Table 54. Strengths of PF as perceived by farmers (n=200)
More Moderate least

S.No Statements
No. per cent No. per cent No. per cent
1 Increases crop yield 160 80.00 28 14.00 12 6.00
2 Increases labour productivity 157 78.50 32 16.00 11 5.50
3 Improved product quality 158 79.00 34 17.00 8 4.00
4 Effective and efficient pest 145 72.50 32 16.00 23 11.5
management
5 Enhance bulk procurement of 168 84.00 28 14.00 4 2.00
inputs
6 Technical support from 169 84.00 25 12.50 6 3.00
stakeholders
7 Sharing of information with the 175 87.50 23 11.50 2 1.00
association members
8 Increases area of cultivation 165 82.50 24 12.00 11 5.50
9 Decreases human health risk 180 90.00 14 7.00 6 3.00
10 Uniform water distribution 182 91.00 12 6.00 6 3.00
11 Surface and ground water 185 92.50 12 6.00 3 1.50
conservation
12 Economized use of water 182 91.00 13 6.50 5 2.50
13 High economic efficiency 168 84.00 30 15.00 2 1.00
14 Minimized fertilizer loss 168 84.00 23 11.50 9 4.50
15 Change of cropping pattern 157 78.50 34 17.00 9 4.50
16 Easy disposal of produce 159 79.50 35 17.50 6 3.00
17 Gained skill in grading the 160 80.00 38 19.00 2 1.00
produce
18 Energy, water and soil 156 78.00 36 18.00 8 4.00
conservation
19 Greatest return on investment 158 79.00 32 16.00 10 5.00
on each input.
* Multiple responses
It could be observed from the table that, Surface and ground water conservation,
Uniform water distribution, Economised use of water and decreased human health risks
were perceived as major strengths in adopting Precision Farming techniques by more
than 90 per cent of the sample. With available water, more crops could be cultivated in a
unit area in a year through drip fertigation system. The major focus of Precision Farming
is the economised use of water and which could be acted as a cause for such an outcome.
The other strengths like sharing of information with association members, technical
support from stakeholders, bulk procurement of inputs, high economic efficiency,
minimised fertilizer loss, increased area of cultivation and gained skill in grading the
produce were stated by more than 80 per cent of the respondents. Similar result was also
proposed by Robert et al (1994) and Khosla (2008) that while the inputs like water and
fertilizer had fed to the crops at root zone in a precise quantity, the efficiency in
utilisation of available resources were more and thus it ultimately reflected, the increased
yield and improved product quality.
Further the precision farm practitioners organised an association in order to share

their experiences, constraints, bulk procurement of inputs, disposal of the farm produce
etc. Those aspects used to be discussed in the scheduled association meetings and also as
and when the situation is warranted, which were narrated in the table by nearly
three-fourth of the sample.
Through the Precision Farming activities, the stakeholders were in touch with
the farmers, which helped the practitioners gained skill in grading their produce,
increased the efficiency of labour, crop yield and assured return on investment. During
the course of investigation by employing Focused Group Discussion, every farmer
expressed their satisfaction in Precision Farming keeping away some of the constraints
and weaknesses.
Table 55. Weaknesses of PF as perceived by farmers (n=200)
More Moderate least

S.No Statements
No. per cent No. per cent No. Per cent
1 No initiative for assessing in-

field variation 140 70.00 35 17.50 25 12.50
2 Selectivity in usage of PF
technologies 145 72.50 34 17.00 21 10.50
3 High initial investment cost 138 69.00 29 14.50 33 16.50
4 Requires skilled labour 139 69.50 28 14.00 33 16.50
5 Additional maintenances cost 128 64.00 29 14.50 43 21.50
6 Requires quality water 135 67.50 32 16.00 33 16.50
7 Clogging of emitters 139 69.50 29 14.50 32 16.00
8 Difficulty in intercultural
operations 142 71.00 32 16.00 26 13.00
9 Non-suitability to all areas /

crops / soil types 135 67.50 35 17.50 30 15.00
10 Lack of technical know – how 129 64.50 38 19.00 33 16.50
11 Fragmentation of land holdings 139 69.50 28 14.00 33 16.50
12 Damage of drip lines by rats

and rodents 140 70.00 29 14.50 31 15.50
Among the twelve weaknesses in Precision Farming, selectivity in the usage of

PF technologies (72.50 per cent) occupied the first position. This was closely followed by
difficulty in intercultural operations, no initiative for assessing in-field variation, damage
of drip lines by rats and rodents, clogging of emitters, fragmentation of land holdings,
requirement of skilled labour, high initial investment, requires quality water , not suitable
to all crops/areas/soil types were indicated as weaknesses by more than two-thirds of the
sample.(67.00 per cent to 71.00 per cent).
A sizeable proportion of the sample expressed the fragmentation of landholdings
as one of the major weaknesses .No doubt, Indian Agriculture is characterized by small
and marginal operational holdings. About 85 per cent of total cultivated land has been
fragmented into less than 10-hectare land. About 60 per cent of farmland is less than
4 hectare in size. The average size of land holdings is very small (less than 4 hectares)
and is subjected to fragmentation due to land ceiling acts. Such small holdings are often
over-manned, resulting in disguised unemployment and low productivity of labour.
(FICCI, 2012)
In line with the study conducted by Kavitha (1999) on drip irrigation, here also
high initial investment cost was expressed by 69 per cent of the PF practitioners. Once
the drip fertigation system is installed, it could be maintained for 3-5 years, depends on
its quality and the management techniques by involving the stakeholders especially from
drip firms. Most of the other weaknesses were concerned with the nature of soil,
environment and quality of irrigation water. Assessing the in-field variation is the prime
technology in Precision Farming followed by managing the in-filed variation. However,
it has not yet been taken up in Tamil Nadu condition as per the available records. If it
would have been studied, most of the other weaknesses indicated in the table could not be
emerged. It goes without saying that every field has its own variation and the
technologies if any adopted in the particular unit area considering those variations will
definitely come out with anticipated outcome.
Table 56. Opportunities of PF as perceived by farmers (n=200)
More Moderate least

S.No Statements
No. per cent No. percent No. percent
I Economic
1 Provision of bank loan 150 75.00 35 17.50 15 7.50
2 Availability of subsidies 152 76.00 37 18.50 11 5.50
3 Increased agricultural 155 77.50 34 17.00 11 5.50
commodity prices
4 Resolves food security issues 157 78.50 38 19.00 5 2.50
S. More Moderate least
Statements
No No. per cent No. percent No. percent
5 Approach to attain sustainable 158 79.00 29 14.50 13 6.50
agriculture
6 Contributes to economic growth 145 72.50 32 16.00 23 11.50
by increasing yields
II. Political
7 Financial support from 148 74.00 34 17.00 18 9.00
government
III. Social
8 Protecting environmental quality 152 76.00 36 18.00 12 6.00
9 Development of specialist 159 79.50 38 19.00 3 1.50
consultant sector
10 Involvement of private agency 160 80.00 34 17.00 6 3.00
11 Modernization of production 153 76.50 32 16.00 15 7.50
12 More free time 158 79.00 34 17.00 8 4.00
13 Attracting the farm youth 154 77.00 29 14.50 17 8.50
14 Low migration rates 159 79.50 28 14.00 13 6.50
IV. Technological
15 Improvising of extension 157 78.50 29 14.50 14 7.00
services
16 Less pollution of underground 149 74.50 28 14.00 23 11.50
water with fertilizer residues
As observed from Table 56, the opportunities for Precision Farming were
assessed under four dimensions viz., Economic, Political, Social and Technological.
Innovative farming coupled with high tech agricultural practices are the inevitable modes
in the cultivation process. In order to meet out the requirement of growing population,
with the decline in the availability of lands, aiming the sustainability in agriculture with
mani-fold food production is the ultimate target. This situation reflects on the responses
of sample under economic opportunities viz., approach to attain sustainable agriculture,
resolves food security issues, increased agricultural commodity prices and availability of
subsidies as stated by 89 .00 to 97.50 per cent of the sample.
More than 80 percent of the growers stated that possibilities of getting huge
financial support from government as the opportunity under political aspect. Involvement
of private agency, development of specialised consultant sector, low migration rate of
rural people from rural to urban, semi urban, periphery and attracting the farm youth
were expressed as social opportunities by 92.50 to 98.50 per cent of the respondents.
It is obvious that more private agencies are involved in Precision Farming and
they acted as consultants along with the other stakeholders. Also as stated elsewhere in
the discussion, modernised production with high quality produce, environmentally safe
techniques and well connected market network are the lucrative factors in Precision
Farming. These factors prevent the migration of rural youth to semi urban and urban
areas and envisaged the farm youth to retain in agriculture. These were projected as
social opportunities by 92.50 to 98.50 per cent of the respondents.
Improvising of extension services and less pollution of underground water with

fertilizer residues were enlisted under technological opportunities by more than three-
fourth of the sample. The services of the stakeholders namely, extension personnel of
Agriculture, Horticulture, Agricultural Engineering and Agricultural Marketing, Input
agents, Drip marketers, Agri Consultants etc., were consistently and continuously
involved in the process of Precision Farming. That could be the possible reason for
expressing the said aspect as one of the technical opportunities. The right amount of
water soluble fertilizer is applied at the right place( i.e) the root zone which focussed the
farmers to indicate the less pollution in the ground water.
The results of David Jochinke et al (2006) also supported that, in addition to

economic benefits, Precision Farming has certain environmental benefits such as reduced
greenhouse gas emissions and offsite contamination from pesticides or fertilisers.
Table 57. Challenges on PF as perceived by farmers (n=200)
More Moderate least

S.No Statements
No. percent No. percent No. percent
I. Economic
1 High cost of water soluble
fertilisers 178 89.00 19 9.50 3 1.50
2 Underdeveloped market
infrastructure 175 87.50 22 11.00 3 1.50
II. Political
3 Unstableness of government
policies 165 82.50 24 12.00 11 5.50
III. Social
4 The time period to realise the
return on investment is more 169 84.50 19 9.50 12 6.00
5 The price of PF tools are viable
only for larger enterprises 168 84.00 18 9.00 14 7.00
6 Unskillfulness of labour
resources 164 82.00 17 8.50 19 9.50
7 Farmers expectations on future
political changes 170 85.00 18 9.00 12 6.00
8 Weak awareness of farmers on
advantages of the technology 169 84.50 20 10.00 11 5.50
IV. Technological
9 Inadequate availability of spare
parts 168 84.00 21 10.50 11 5.50
10 Lack of domestic technology
supply 170 85.00 22 11.00 8 4.00
11 No Free flow of water in the
undulated topography 169 84.50 19 9.50 12 6.00
12 Poor electricity supply 158 79.00 18 9.00 24 12.00
The Challenges in Precision Farming were assessed under Economic, Political,

Social and technological dimensions. Twelve different challenges were expressed by
more than 80 per cent of the sample irrespective of the dimensions. High cost of water
soluble fertiliser was the foremost (89.00 per cent) followed by Underdeveloped market
infrastructure (87.50 per cent). While introducing a high tech farming like Precision
Farming it is inevitable to develop a market network for easy, continuous and assured
disposal of the farm produce which alone ensure the large scale adoption of the
innovative approach without hesitation. The existing market system in the study zones
had not fulfilled the requirement of the sample and hence such an outcome.
As observed earlier, the initial investment is more in Precision Farming.

The infrastructure established in the farm could be retained upto 5 years. Realising
the Return On Investment (ROI) usually takes much time, is also endorsed by
Pedersen et al., (2000) also.
The opportunities available with the current political scenario may not be assured
in the forthcoming years. The policy, benefits and support received from the existing
government motivated the farmers to take up this new venture. Also much skillfulness
in operating the Precision Farming is required. The output in terms of monitory return
was not well aware by the PF practitioners. Hence, those aspects were perceived as
challenges in the years to come.
Presently the technologies have been disseminated to all the Precision Farming
areas as general recommendation. The domestic technologies supply is lacking as stated
by 96 .00 per cent of the sample. No free flow of water in the undulated topography,
inadequate availability of spare parts and poor electricity supply were the other technological
challenges expressed by the sample presently. The percentage of sample stated these
challenges were ranged from 79.00 to 84.00 per cent. However, these challenges may not be
persistent and tends to change in due course. Only very few firms are supplying the drip
materials and hence such a type of challenge was expressed by the sample.
Performing SWOC analysis involves, the generation and recording of the

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges in relation to a particular task or
objective. It is inevitable for the analysis to take account of internal resources and
capabilities (strengths and weakness) and factors externally affecting the task
(opportunities and threats). This analysis on SWOC analysis was carried out in all
possible dimensions and come out with maximum strengths and opportunities. It clearly
indicates that, Precision Farming is undoubtedly relevant to Indian agriculture in the context
of improving agricultural production and Stakeholders‟ income and minimizing
environmental impact. Further efforts need to be taken to reduce the observed weaknesses by
improving the stakeholders‟ intervention constructively. The Challenges identified may not
be persistent and it may get minimised or even nullified over a period of time.
Technological and managerial up gradations of farm operations will definitely

hold the youth in Agriculture and can help them to lead the decent living. Unless farming
becomes both intellectually stimulating and economically rewarding, it will difficult to
attract or retain rural youth in farming. (M.S. Swaminathan, 2001). But, this may happen
only when the way, in which farming is practiced to be changed. Precision Farming,
have to be concentrated to get rid of unproductive conventional farming and also route to
marketing outlets in a smoother way. By reducing the migration of farm youth to urban
and retain them in agriculture, it is un-complicated to attain double the yield and triple the
income of the farmers.
4.7 Intervention of stakeholders as perceived by them
Table 58. Intervention of stakeholders as perceived by them (n=50)
On the Basis of
Sl.
Stakeholders Project Need Voluntary
No
No Per cent No Per cent No Per cent
1. Researcher/ Extension 19 38.00 24 48.00 14 28.00

personnel
2. Input Dealers -- -- 8 16.00 -- --
3. Drip Marketers 2 4.00 2 4.00 -- --
4. Produce Marketing Personnel -- -- 10 20.00 10 20.00
5. Agri Clinics 3 6.00 6 12.00 -- --
*Multiple Responses
It is exposed from the table that, nearly half of the Researchers/ Extension
personnel intervened in the Precision Farming Process only on need based. On the other
hand, 38 per cent stated that, their type of intervention was project oriented. Voluntary
intervention was observed with the rest of the sample. All the input dealers, drip
marketers, produce marketing personnel and the consultants of agri clinics were
intervened on need basis. Whereas their project based intervention was observed to be
less. The Project based intervention is concerned much with the Researchers and
Extension personnel who are the people primarily responsible for designing, initiating and
operating the project. Hence, their intervention was observed on the three areas viz., project,
and need based and voluntary. From sowing till marketing of the produce their intervention is
unavoidable, in the innovative farming like Precision Farming. Whatever produced must be
disposed and the benefits to be realised by the farmers. That shows the effect of the
intervention made by the stakeholders concerned. While considering the other stakeholders,
their intervention was mainly on need basis as they are commercially oriented. However,
they were also join hands with the Researchers/ Extension personnel during the initiation of
Precision Farming process and sometimes while supervising the activities.
Regarding the input supply all the precision farmers have been organised in the
form of association. The association members procure the inputs required for the
members and keep it in a common storage point. Through this bulk purchase they could
able to save a transport cost and reduce the input rates. This type of activity leads to not
much relying on the input dealers available in the study area. Only two drip
manufacturers and marketers viz., Jain irrigation and Netafirm were involved in the state.
Those consultants of agri clinics who were actively involved in the Precision
Farming process were considered as the sample their intervention was studied. Their
project based intervention was restricted, need based orientation was more.
Type of intervention of stakeholders
During the course of investigation, the stakeholders involved in the process were
asked to indicate the type of intervention they made in the Precision Farming. While
planning for the Precision Farming, selection of crops, technical advice, solving field
problems, organising farmers association and market tie-up were the major areas of
intervention of Researchers/Extension personnel as referred by them. This market tie-up
was reflected through the net work of SAFAL marketing, functioning in the cities like
Bangalore. The PFA has connected with the said market and also tied with the
apartments in the city. The daily vegetable requirement of the apartment dwellers is being
supplied by the PFA operating in Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri districts.
While considering the input dealers, their major intervention was in terms of
supply of Water Soluble Fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs as and when required. At
the initial stage of PF process infrastructural requirement like, installation of drip unit
was the major intervention of drip marketers. However, need based intervention like,
acid treatment for cleaning of laterals, and for removal of salt encrustation were made by
the drip marketers.
In addition to this, exposing the farmers on the availability of market outlets and
helping them in disposing the farm produces were the type of intervention made by
produce marketing personnel. These personnel were purely commercially oriented and
they were acting as middle men. Unlike the SAFAL market the net profit is less in this
case. As stated earlier in the study, those who were operating small size holdings and
availed pre harvest contract amount from the middle men were not in a position to avoid
the middlemen interference.
With regard to the agri clinics, the personnel acting as a consultant intervened in
the process in terms of giving guidance, counselling, supply of inputs and solving field
problems. Because of the existence of the PFA the role of input dealers and agri clinics
were found to be less. Also the continuous intervention of Researchers/Extension
personnel made the other stakeholders intervention ass limited.
4.8 ASSESSMENT ON SKILLS OF STAKEHOLDERS
4.8.1 Management Skills
In the Precision Farming process multi stake holders viz., Researchers, Extension
personnel, Officials of State Department of Agriculture (SDA), State Department of
Horticulture (SDH), input dealers, drip marketers, Agri clinic consultants and marketing
personnel have been involved from the planning stage itself. Some of the stakeholders
involvement was more in the early stage of the farming practices and as and when
required their services have been sought by the sample.
Accordingly, mostly on need basis, their services were made available to the farmers.
There are two major skills viz., Management and Facilitation skills are much essential to
carry out their tasks, pertaining to Precision Farming. As much as skill they possessed in the
said aspect, their competency in tackling the issues related to farming will be higher. Under
this section the management skill was assessed in terms of Strategic, Influencing, Leadership,
Implementation Skills and Personal factors were assessed.
In this part, the stakeholders themselves have been requested to give their
response in terms of the importance on each item, as they felt and also the relative
competency he possessed against each. The responses thus collected have been furnished
in Table 59.
Strategic Skill
It is quite interesting to observe that all the seven items under this skill were felt as
important by the stakeholders. No item was indicated under not important. Among the items,
Strives for continuous improvement (48 per cent), Able to manage the Changes effectively,
(46 per cent),brings innovative ideas, concepts to the farmers(44per cent), demonstrate critical
thinking(40 per cent) were felt as very important by nearly half of the sample.
Also the items like the stakeholders are oriented towards customers (70 per cent).
Keeps abreast of changes in the commercial environment (64 per cent), Innovative and
critical thinking (60 per cent) were expressed as important.
In general, it could be concluded that the stakeholders perceived their roles

perfectly and hence they felt all the seven items as important in concern with their
strategic skill.
With regard to competency level, it has been noticed that more than 60 per cent of
them expressed their competency on innovative and tries new approaches, demonstrates
critical thinking, strives for continuous improvement, brings innovative ideas, concepts to
the farmers and keeps abreast of changes in the commercial environment. However, the
competency in the items like, manages changes effectively, keeps abreast of changes and
oriented towards customer needs improvement as stated by them.
Influencing Skill
The stakeholders, to what extent they possess the skill in influencing the clients
was studied on five items as furnished below.
Here also no one was found under not important category. All the five items were felt
as important to very important by the stakeholders in order to build effective relationships,
Negotiates win-win outcomes, influencing skills are very important as felt by them.
While observing the competency level, build effective relationships, clear

communicator, Negotiates win-win outcomes, they possess competency. Despite exhibits
flexibility, influence effectively and directly, needs improvement as stated by more than
one-third of the sample.
Leadership Skill
Being a stake holder an individual must have the ability to organise and lead the
team towards the direction deemed desirable. For which, he must equipped with the
leadership skill. This was assessed on five items.
All the five items assessed under leadership skills were felt as important to very
important. However, a few sample had not felt the importance on four items.
Regarding the competency, 94 per cent of the sample had high competency in the
item leads a high performing team. And empower the farmers to achieve result (64 per cent).
The competency level needs improvement on managing performance (44 per cent) and
Creates a sense of shared purpose (26 per cent) as expressed by the sample.
Implementation Skill
Success of any programme depends on the extent to which it is implemented as

programmed .In order to bring out the success the stakeholders involved in the process
must possess skill on implementation process. Five items were included to assess the
implementation skill of stakeholders and the results have been furnished in Table 59.
Among the item studied under implementation skill, all the items were felt as
important to very important by 74 per cent to 90 per cent of the sample. Whereas 10 per cent
to 26 per cent of the sample in varied degree placed as not important on the five items.
While observing the competency level of the sample on implementation skill, it is
revealed that 92 per cent of them had the competency in demonstrating effective
organisational skills followed by plans ahead to meet the needs of the client.
However, 48 per cent and 22 per cent of the sample respectively needs improvement
on the skills viz., sees things through, despite setbacks and manages time effectively.
Personal Factors
Among the skills studied under major dimensions of management skill, how a
stakeholder assesses his own personal factors in terms of its important and the
competency he had on those items were discussed under the personal factors.
As observed in other types of skills, here also the importance of each item viz.,
integrity, flexibility, self development were felt by the sample as important and a
negligible portion of the sample found under not important.
Interestingly, except flexibility in all the other 3 items more than 70 per cent of
the sample stated their competency level. Highly competent was observed with 14 to 22
per cent of the sample on the items assessed. More than one-third of the sample
expressed that the flexibility level is to be improved.
The foregoing discussion on the 25 items studied under five dimensions of

management skill revealed that majority of the sample felt the importance of the items
studied. Only a meagre portions indicated some of the items as not important. However,
no item was felt as not important under strategic and influencing skills. This showed that
every stakeholder when performing a function, acting as a manager. He plays the
management role in the entire process of a event like Precision Farming.
Under this process the skill, possessed by stakeholders played a major role in
influencing the clients and take up the new venture and helping them in implementing
the same.
The success totally rest with the skills, the stakeholders possessed. The skill
component reflects on their competency level. The study also revealed that majority
indicated their competency on various skills and also suggested some of the areas need to
be improved. The competency in skill and their technical knowledge have to be
complementary. That also served in the technological utilization pattern, perceived
effectiveness and market associated activities of the precision farmers stated elsewhere in
the report. The result thus indicated that the stakeholders performed their roles as
expected in the Precision Farming approach.
4.8.2 Facilitating Skills
In the technology dissemination process, it is unavoidable for the stakeholder to

see that the delivered information should reach the clients and adopted in their areas
concerned. The continuous personal touch is essential for enabling the clients to take up
without any inhibition. Here the facilitating process of stakeholders plays a vital role. In
this study, the facilitation skill of the stakeholders were studied under five dimensions
viz., Presentation skill, Relationship skill, Learning Environment Management,
Continuous learning attitude, Relationship skill Empathic attitude. Totally 20 items were
assessed under these major five sub components. The responses were obtained on a four
point continuum viz., rarely, sometimes, frequently and always and plotted in Table 60.
Presentation Skill
Among the presentation skills, Maintaining eye contact with group members was
followed by cent per cent of the sample. This was closely followed by effectively and
accurately capturing participants comments (90 per cent) and being clear and to the point
were also frequently followed. As far as the presentation skill is concerned, speaking in
easily understandable language and ensuring body language and speak in appropriate
voices were sometimes and rarely followed by more than two-fifths of the sample.
Relationship Skill
The degree of relationship possessed by a stakeholder with the farming

community will ensure the guidelines, directions if any passed on by them will easily be
accepted by the farmers. This will speed up the Precision Farming activity. Relationship
skill of the stakeholders was studied on six items as indicated. It could be observed that
Showing respect for participants‟ diverse experience and perceptions and Demonstrating
the ability to listen were always followed by 80 per cent of the sample. Showing
sensitivity to participants different learning and developmental situations and displaying
congruence between words, tone and body language were also frequently followed by
more than two-thirds of the sample. Whereas maintaining a high level of positive regard
for participant‟s diverse capabilities was sometimes followed by 44 per cent of the
sample.
Learning Environment Management
The effective learning environment provided by the facilitators will help the
participants to learn more and gain much experience on the subject/ skills taught. In order
to create an effective environment for learning the stakeholders must possess the
facilitating skill to the expected level. The skill was assessed on three items in terms of,
self-esteem positive learning and self-directed learning.
About 44 per cent to 74 per cent of the sample effectively managed the learning
environment. That showed that they might have possessed good facilitation skills. All the three
items assessed under this sub component was followed by the sample in varied frequency.
Continuous learning attitude
This part deals with Continuous learning attitude of the stakeholders in terms of
learning capacity, co-learning and non-defensive reaction. The result showed that
principle of co-learning and non-defensive reaction was frequently followed by the
sample whereas half of the sample alone frequently learns from the participants.
Empathic attitude
Establishing and maintaining the relationship with the precision farmers and
place empathy on the clients is one of the successful factors required for a facilitator.
That will ensure him to play his role according to the level of the clients. Two items
studied showed that more than two-thirds of stakeholders frequently followed this items.
It would be inferred among the sub components studied on the facilitation skill of
the stakeholders that being clear to the point, maintain eye contact with group members,
giving clear instructions, showing respect for participants‟ diverse experience, ability to
listen, sensitivity to participants, self-esteem, self directed learning, Co-learning, non-defensive
reaction, respect for another person were frequently followed by the stakeholders.
Being a facilitator in the process of Precision Farming the skills he possessed as

stated above certainly helping the precision farmers to learn and gain more from
stakeholders. The stakeholders intervention as and when required by the sample was
observed to the expected level as stated elsewhere.
The need based and voluntary intervention was also noticed in the study as
perceived by the sample. This result could be substantiated for such a type of observation
among the sample.
4.8.3 Principle Component Analysis skill required by stakeholders
The data on the skill levels of the stakeholders were subjected to Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) to identify the underlying structures (components) in the
data. For PCA analysis, the data was entered as correlation matrix and the components
were extracted. After extraction, the components were rotated using varimax approach.
The PCA estimates Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.63 was above the
minimum level of 0.5, and a significant Bartlett‟s Chi-square (χ2 = 217.80, p<0.01)
indicated that the sample size chosen for this investigation was adequate (Field, 2000).
The PCA extracted six factors that exceeded the Eigen value of one and explained
71 per cent of the total variance in the data, which is close to the minimum level of 60 per cent
variance necessary for social science research (Hair et al., 1998). Since the sample size is
50, a factor loading of 0.72 was used as a lower cut-off value for selection of variables
for each factor (Field, 2000). The rotated component matrix showing the principal
components along with loaded variables is given in the following table.
Table 61. Rotated component matrix of stakeholder skills
S. Principle Component Loadings*

Skills
No PC1 PC2 PC3
1 Strategic Skill 0.855 -0.052 0.099
2 Influencing Skill 0.874 -0.061 0.107
3 Leadership Skill 0.818 0.210 -0.192
4 Implementation Skill 0.751 0.136 -0.190
5 Personal Factors 0.765 -0.171 0.429
6 Presentation Skill -0.105 0.281 0.819
7 Relationship Skill -0.056 0.398 0.738
8 Learning environment -0.036 0.877 0.180
9 Continuous Learning Attitude 0.140 0.771 0.125
10 Empathic attitude 0.128 0.293 0.771
Eigen Value 3.31 2.65 1.06
Variance explained 32.28 % 20.30 % 17.50 %
* Values shown in bold letters indicate significant loading (>0.72)
The data displayed in the above table shows that the Strategic, Influencing,
Leadership, Implementation skills and Personal factors loaded significantly on PC1,
which explained 32.28per cent variation in the data. Based on the factors loaded, this
component may be named as “Management skills”. Learning environment and
continuous learning attitude have loaded in PC2 (20.30per cent) which may be termed
as “Learning skills”. The presentation, relationship and emphatic skills loaded in PC3
(17.50 per cent) which may be named as “Human relation skills”.
4.8.4 Analysis of Variance
Analysing the intervention of stakeholders is one of the objectives of the study.

In order to perform their intervention role they require some specific skills. And it is
necessary to know whether there exist any significant difference among the sub components
studied. Strategic, Influencing, Leadership, Implementation skills and personal factor were
the sub components assessed under the management skill. In order to find out the differences
if any, ANOVA was used and results have been presented in Table 62.
Table 62. Analysis of Variance of Management Skills
Anova: Single Factor
Groups Count Sum Mean Variance
Strategic skill 50 677 13.54 5.967
influencing skill 50 490 9.8 3.102
Leadership skill 50 490 9.8 1.306
Implementation skill 50 516 10.32 5.405
Personal factors 50 404 8.08 3.013
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 796.304 4 199.076 52.958 4.12E-32 2.408488
Within Groups 920.98 245 3.759102
Total 1717.284 249
SED(0.05) 0.274193
CD (0.05) 0.540077
The result showed that stakeholders possessed high level of strategic skills closely
followed by Implementation skill, Influencing Skill and Leadership Skill whereas the
personal factors was observed to be low among the stakeholders. The „F‟ value (52.958)
was found to be significant at 1per cent level. This indicates that there existed significant
differences among the skill components. Based on the Estimated Mean value the skills
were placed under three groups. The strategic skill was placed in the first level,
Implementation, Leadership and Influencing skills under second level and personal factor
under third level based on mean value.
It could be inferred that the skill placed under third level must be concentrated
and strengthened through capacity building programmes.
The stakeholders skills placed under level two were on par with each other
which indicated that they possessed those skills at same level and their performance on
those skills would also be similar.
The one way analysis of variance results on facilitating Skills was performed
with its sub components and the results have been incorporated in Table 63.
The result showed that the stakeholders skill on presentation and relationship
were high and they were on par in those skills whereas the skills on learning environment
management and continuous learning attitude were almost in the same level. However,
the sample possessed very low skill in empathic attitude.
Table 63. Analysis of Variance of Facilitating Skills
Anova: Single Factor

Groups Count Sum Mean Variance
Presentation skill 50 1040 20.8 2.734
Relationship skill 50 1018 20.36 14.357
Learning Environment
Management 50 480 9.6 3.959
Continuous learning
attitude 50 462 9.24 4.104
Empathic attitude 50 351 7.02 1.040
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 8782.576 4 2195.644 419.0748 2.9E-108 2.40848
Within Groups 1283.62 245 5.239265
Total 10066.2 249
SED(0.05) 0.323706
CD(0.05) 0.634463
The „F‟ value (419.0748) was found to be significant at one per cent level which
revealed that there existed significant difference among the skills. Based on the estimated
mean value the skills could be placed in three levels such as presentation and relationship
skills in level1, learning environment management and continuous learning attitude in
level two and empathic attitude in level three. As that of the personal factors under
management skill the empathic attitude of facilitation skill was also at low level. Hence,
relevant capacity building programmes may be taken up to ensure those skills also raised
to the higher level.
4.9 SWOC ON PRECISION FARMING AS PERCEIVED BY STAKEHOLDERS
SWOC analysis is a tool which assists the stakeholders to evaluate the Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges involved in any enterprise. This Part deals
with the SWOC analysis on Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders which
ultimately reflect on framing appropriate strategies in the process of Precision Farming.
The same items selected by RWMS for assessing the SWOC on Precision
Farming by the Precision farmers were taken for the stakeholders study also.
STRENGTHS
Table 64. Strengths of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders (n=50)
More Moderate Least

S.
Statements
No Per Per Per
No. No. No.
cent cent cent
1 Increases crop yield 45 90.00 4 8.00 1 2.00
2 Increases labour productivity 40 80.00 8 16.00 2 4.00
3 Improved product quality 40 80.00 7 14.00 3 6.00
4 Effective and efficient pest management 35 70.00 11 22.00 4 8.00
5 Enhance bulk procurement of inputs 40 80.00 8 16.00 2 4.00
6 Technical support from stakeholders 42 84.00 5 10.00 3 6.00

More Moderate Least
S.
Statements
No Per Per Per
No. No. No.
cent cent cent
7 Sharing of information with the association

members 44 88.00 4 8.00 2 4.00
8 Increases area of cultivation 43 86.00 2 4.00 5 10.00
9 Decreases human health risk 38 76.00 8 16.00 4 8.00
10 Uniform water distribution 39 78.00 8 16.00 3 6.00
11 Surface and ground water conservation 42 84.00 5 10.00 3 6.00
12 Economized use of water 41 82.00 7 14.00 2 4.00
13 High economic efficiency 39 78.00 8 16.00 3 6.00
14 Minimized fertilizer loss 43 86.00 5 10.00 2 4.00
15 Change of cropping pattern 44 88.00 4 8.00 2 4.00
16 Easy disposal of produce 45 90.00 2 4.00 3 6.00
17 Gained skill in grading the produce 37 74.00 11 22.00 2 4.00
18 Energy, water and soil conservation 44 88.00 4 8.00 2 4.00
19 Greatest return on investment on each input. 39 78.00 8 16.00 3 6.00
Table 64 clearly displayed that Increased crop yield, Increased labour

productivity, Improved product quality, Enhancing bulk procurement of inputs,
Technical support from stakeholders, Sharing of information with the association
members, Increases area of cultivation, Decreases human health risk, Surface and ground
water conservation, Economized use of water, Minimized fertilizer loss, Change of
cropping pattern, Easy disposal of produce Energy, water and soil conservation were
considered as major strengths of adopting Precision Farming Technologies perceived by
the 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the stakeholders , whereas 70 per cent to 80 per cent of
the stakeholders perceived the rest of the statements as strengths.
Under strengths the 19 statements measured with the farmers were also placed
before the stakeholders. The sample farmers‟ perception was also in the similar line as
observed earlier. It is a proven fact that Precision Farming enhances the yield,
productivity and increases the area under cultivation because of the high water use
efficiency. The tie-up made with the markets enabled the adopters in easy disposal of the
produces without the involvement of middlemen. These type of arrangements from
planning to market were taken care by the stakeholders themselves, which certainly
envisaged them to place their perception on strengths of Precision Farming as explained.
Hence there exists no difference in the perception of farmers and the stakeholders.
WEAKNESSES
Table 65. Weaknesses of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders (n=50)
More Moderate Least

S.No Statements Per Per Per
No. No. No.
cent cent cent
1 No initiative for assessing in-field
variation 38 76.00 10 20.00 2 4.00
2 Selectivity in usage of PF technologies 37 74.00 9 18.00 4 8.00
3 High initial investment cost 37 74.00 9 18.00 4 8.00
4 Requires skilled labour 35 70.00 8 16.00 7 14.00
5 Additional maintenances cost 35 70.00 9 18.00 6 12.00
6 Requires quality water 36 72.00 9 18.00 5 10.00
7 Clogging of emitters 38 76.00 8 16.00 4 8.00
8 Difficulty in intercultural operations 37 74.00 7 14.00 6 12.00
9 Non-suitability to all areas / crops / soil
types 35 70.00 6 12.00 9 18.00
10 Lack of technical know – how 36 72.00 5 10.00 9 18.00
11 Fragmentation of land holdings 36 72.00 6 12.00 8 16.00
12 Damage of drip lines by rats and rodents 37 74.00 7 14.00 6 12.00
From the Table 65, it is quite visible to note that, nearly three-fourths of the
sample perceived most of the items as “more” weakness and 10 to 20 per cent of the
sample mentioned the weaknesses as moderate.
While comparing this with responses of the Precision Farmers, only a meagre
difference was observed especially in the items like, lack of technical know-how and
requires quality water.
The perception of stakeholders was also exhibiting the same as that of farmers in
most of the items. As far as any new techniques of farming are concerned, the
competency of the technocrats especially the stakeholders of SDA, SDH etc., is one of
the most important requisites to work in the field situation. To fulfill this demand, skill
based participatory training programmes is to be organised to equip with advanced
techniques.
It was observed under the sub component skill viz., implementation skill that
some of the items were indicated as need improvement by the stakeholders and that could
be the possible reason for such an outcome under weaknesses as perceived by the
stakeholders. It is possible to tackle the other weaknesses by the drip marketers.
OPPORTUNITIES
Table 66. Opportunities of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders (n=50)
More Moderate Least

Sl.No Statements
No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent
I Economic
1 Provision of bank loan 34 68.00 14 28.00 2 4.00
2 Availability of subsidies 35 70.00 11 22.00 4 8.00
3 Increased agricultural 36 72.00 11 22.00 3 6.00

commodity prices
4 Resolves food security 37 74.00 9 18.00 4 8.00

issues
More Moderate Least
Sl.No Statements
No. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent
5 Approach to attain 32 64.00 15 30.00 3 6.00

sustainable agriculture
6 Contributes to economic 29 58.00 18 36.00 3 6.00

growth by increasing
yields
II. Political
7 Financial support from 26 52.00 22 44.00 2 4.00

government
III. Social
8 Protecting environmental 28 56.00 20 40.00 2 4.00

quality
9 Development of 29 58.00 18 36.00 3 6.00

specialist consultant
sector
10 Involvement of private 31 62.00 15 30.00 4 8.00

agency
11 Modernization of 32 64.00 15 30.00 3 6.00

production
12 More free time 35 70.00 11 22.00 4 8.00
13 Attracting the farm 37 74.00 10 20.00 3 6.00

youth
14 Low migration rates 35 70.00 11 22.00 4 8.00
IV. Technological
15 Improvising of 32 64.00 14 28.00 4 8.00

extension services
16 Less pollution of 31 62.00 17 34.00 2 4.00

underground water with
fertilizer residues
Nearly 70 per cent 80 per cent of sample placed the items viz., Availability of
subsidies, Increased prices of agricultural commodity, Resolves food security issues
under more opportunity category, whereas the Provision of bank loan, Contributes to
economic growth by increasing yields were expressed as opportunities by 68 per cent and
58 per cent of the sample respectively.
This finding varies with the SWOC on Precision Farming by Precision farmers.
Interestingly, farmers visualised the opportunities on higher side than the stakeholders.
The farmers have been experiencing the benefits through Precision Farming
economically and gained satisfaction. Hence such an outcome.
Nearly an equal proportion placed their perception on more and moderate level
financial support from government, which also varies with SWOC results from farmers.
The state government has increased the subsidy to cent per cent for the installation of drip
system. Because of that, the farmers anticipating such subsidy for water soluble fertilizers
and other inputs.
Contrary to this, during discussion, the stakeholders expressed that financial

support/ subsidy given by Government may not be extended in future for any other
inputs. They also added that while introducing the Precision Farming in an area, those
farmers who are taking up the farming as a first time will be provided with cent per cent
subsidy for drip installation as onetime benefit. This could be the reason for such an
outcome.
More free time, Attracting farm youth, Low migration rates were expressed as
opportunities nearly three-fourths of the sample whereas the rest of the items under
Social sub component are projected by around 60 per cent of the sample. Likewise
around 65 per cent of the stakeholders expressed the Improvising extension services, less
pollution of underground water with fertilizer residues as technological opportunities.
In a nutshell, the opportunities perceived by farmers varied with the stakeholders.

Since the Precision farmers were experiencing better yield with economised use of
water, optimal use of fertilizers, harvested quality produce, availing the guidance and
suggestion from Precision Farmers Associations and thus by exploring the market
avenues, disposing the quality farm produces in a appropriate time and also not worrying
about health risks involved in conventional farming and thus by getting convinced and
they realised farming as better experience.
From this result, it could be informed that the farmers were with the visualisation
and expectations that they will get financial and other supports of state government
continuously in all dimensions. In fact in order to popularise the Precision Farming
technologies and bring more area under this process, considering the limited availability
of water and increase the productivity to meet the growing demands, the government has
taken such initiatives. Both the stakeholders and the farmers had perceived the
opportunities favourably.
CHALLENGES
Table 67. Challenges of Precision Farming as perceived by Stakeholders (n=50)
More moderate Least

S.No Statements
Per Per Per
No. No. No.
cent cent cent
I. Economic
1 High cost of water soluble

fertilisers 40 80.00 9 18.00 1 2.00
2 Underdeveloped market
infrastructure 41 82.00 8 16.00 1 2.00
II. Political
3 Unstableness of government
policies 39 78.00 9 18.00 2 4.00
III. Social
4 The time period to realise the

return on investment is more 38 76.00 11 22.00 1 2.00
5 The price of PF tools are viable

only for larger enterprises 39 78.00 9 18.00 2 4.00
6 Unskillfulness of labour resources 38 76.00 11 22.00 1 2.00

More moderate Least
S.No Statements
Per Per Per
No. No. No.
cent cent cent
7 Farmers expectations on future

political changes 39 78.00 9 18.00 2 4.00
8 Weak awareness of farmers on

advantages of the technology 40 80.00 8 16.00 2 4.00
IV. Technological
9 Inadequate availability of spare

parts 38 76.00 10 20.00 2 4.00
10 Lack of domestic technology

supply 39 78.00 9 18.00 2 4.00
11 No Free flow of water in the

undulated topography 43 86.00 5 10.00 2 4.00
12 Poor electricity supply 39 78.00 8 16.00 3 6.00
About 80 per cent of the sample projected as High cost of water soluble fertilisers,
Underdevelopment of market infrastructure, Unstableness of government policies were
the challenges articulated by the stakeholders and thus reflected on challenges. The
remaining items viz., Delayed realisation of the return on investment, price of viability
PF tools for larger enterprises, Unskilfull labourers, Farmers expectations on future
political changes, Weak awareness of farmers on advantages of the technology were the
challenges disclosed by three-fourths of the stakeholders.
In order to meet the demand for spare parts, Custom service centres may be
established at block level. This centres will also attend the repairs and maintenance of
farm machineries and tools. Identified potential rural youths, unemployed agricultural
diploma holders may be trained on these areas and encouraged to open such centres.
Ultimately this will curtail the migration of farm/rural youth. Also it helps for
entrepreneurial development among the rural youth.
It is obvious that the tie up with the market was well established in the Precision
Farming areas with the support and guidance of stakeholders. However, the infrastructure
for the marketing, yards for storing the produces, cold storage etc., were lacking. Also in
the study it was indicated that to a certain extent, middle men were involved and huge
investment initially made could not be realised in a single term or two, which also
depends on the extent of area brought under Precision Farming.
It is not assured of getting the support given by the existing government will also
be available in the next government may be because of changes in policies and political
situations. This was indicated in the Table 67 that the long term benefits of the Precision
Farming have not been felt by the farmers. This further acted as a cause for
non-expansion of area under Precision Farming by an individual farmer and hindering the
speedy spread of the Precision Farming in neighbouring district in the state.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In conventional agriculture, spatial variability over the landscape is ignored and

fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides etc. are applied at a uniform rate
throughout the crop field. Precision Farming emphasizes on the infield variability which
is first recognized, located, quantified and recorded, then managed by applying farm
inputs in specific amounts at specific time and at specific locations.
Precision Farming is facilitating the prospects and scope for switching over to
modern agriculture leaving the traditional one by utilizing right resources in right time
and management, which results an environment friendly sustainable agriculture.
Precision farming provides a new solution using a systems approach for today's
agricultural issues such as the need to balance productivity with environmental concerns.
It is based on the implementation of advanced information technologies. It includes
describing and modelling variation in soils and plant species, and integrating agricultural
practices to meet site-specific requirements. It aims at increased economic returns, as
well as at reducing the energy input and the environmental impact of agriculture.
Precision farming requires some degree of competence in the use of software and
hardware on the part of growers and/or crop consultants. Indeed the success of precision
farming largely depends on creation of management systems, which will involve some
combination of computerized decision support systems and the wisdom of farmers.
Growers will adopt information technologies only if they are reliable and easy to use,
offer some competitive advantage and can be introduced into farming without too much
difficulty or expense.
The advantages of precision farming is that it offers opportunities to improve

agricultural productivity and product quality, reduces agro-chemical wastage through
efficient application and resulting in minimizing environmental pollution and energy
conservation. However adoption of any innovation is hampered or hastened mainly by
farmers‟ characteristics and also the environment in which they live.
The scenario explained has paved way for further probing of precision farming in
the developing countries. Hence, an attempt has been made to analyse the extent of
support of precision farming in improving the socio-economic status of the precision
farming practitioners through the intervention of stake holders.
Specific objectives
1. To study the socio- psychological determinants of the Precision Farm practitioners.

3. To analyse the effectiveness of Precision farming as perceived by the Precision
Farm practitioners.
4. To study the market associated activities performed by the practitioners of
Precision Farming.
5. To analyse the intervention of stakeholders viz., Researchers/ Extension
personnel, Input Dealers, Drip Marketers, Produce Marketing Personnel,
5.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Among the seven agro climatic zones in Tamil Nadu two zones viz., Northern
Zone and North western Zones were purposively selected for conducting the study. In the
North western zones the districts Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and in western zone
Coimbatore and Erode were the study areas. Two blocks from each district in which the
Precision Farming cultivation is intensive were selected. Thus the study covers eight
blocks in four districts. Simple random sampling procedure was followed to arrive 200
precision farming practisioners totally @ 25 from each block and 50 Stakeholders viz.,
Researchers/Extension personnel, Input dealers, Drip marketers, Produce marketing
personnel and Agri clinics personnel @ 25 from each zone.
5.2 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.2.1 PROFILE OF PRECISION FARM PRACTISIONERS
 Almost an equal proportion of the sample were observed in young and middle
aged category (44 percent each).
 Majority (87.50 per cent) of the sample had their education from middle school
to diploma level.
 More than half of the sample possessed medium size holding of up to 10 ha
followed by 31.50 per cent had up to 4 ha of land of semi-medium in size. Above
2.5 ha of land was operated by 76 per cent of the sample who were observed
under high farm size.
 More than two –thirds (68.50 percent) of the sample had more than 4 years of
experience in precision farming. Majority of the sample (83 per cent) possessed
medium level of experience in farming followed by 16 per cent under low
experienced category.
 The irrigation potentiality of the sample revealed that 86 per cent had medium
and high level and the rest (14 per cent) were found under low level.
 Nearly two-thirds (62.50 per cent) earned the income upto 4.5 lakhs. About 22 per cent
were under the low category of 3lakhs per annum. Upto 5.5 lakhs were earned by
16 per cent of the total sample. More than half of the sample were getting the
income of upto 5 lakhs from Precision farming, whereas 24 per cent and 22 per cent
respectively were found under low and high income category.
 Majority of the sample had medium level of orientation with Research Station and
Training was emerged as the major activity in which 92.50 per cent of the sample
attended regularly.
 Majority (80.50 per cent) of the sample had moderate to high level of innovators.
56.50 per cent possessed the medium level of risk bearing ability followed by
31.50 per cent under low category.
 Majority (83.00 per cent) had medium level of extension participation followed by
16 per cent in the low category. Majority (83.50 percent) of the sample had moderate to
high level of economic motivation followed by low level (16.50 per cent).
 More than half (51.50 per cent) of sample had moderate level of credit orientation
followed by low and high levels where as 67 percent of the sample had medium
access to credit facilities whereas 21.50 per cent and 11.50 percent respectively
had low and high access to credit facilities.
 Overall leadership potential was moderate to high (85.00 per cent) and only one-
fourth had low leadership potential.
 Moderate level employment generation was expressed by 73.50 per cent of the
sample.
 More than half of the sample recorded their moderately favourable attitude
towards Precision Farming. This was closely followed by the highly favourable
category by 27 per cent and less favourable attitude (19.50 per cent).
 Information seeking pattern of 58.00 per cent of the sample was moderate level,
followed by low and high levels (42.00 per cent). Friends were expressed as a
major source for sharing of information regularly (44.00 per cent), followed by
members of Precision Farmers Association (36.00 per cent). Relatives/family
members and neighbours were also considered by 27.00 per cent and 19.50 per cent
of the sample.
 Joint decision was taken regarding association activities (56.50 per cent) and for
obtaining credit (43.50 per cent) in consultation with the members of Precision
Farmers Association as stated by more than two-fifths of the sample. Joint
decisions with stakeholders were taken by 53.50 per cent each of the sample while
planning and initiating the Precision Farming activities.
 The aspiration level of the sample was moderate level as opined by 73.50 per cent
and this was closely followed by 20.00 per cent at high level
5.2.2 TECHNOLOGICAL UTILIZATION PATTERN
 Moderate to high level utilisation of technologies were observed with more than
90 per cent of the sample. The rest were found under the low level utilisation
category.
 Except Remote Sensing Technology, the rest eight technologies were adopted by
the sample. Among them three technologies were followed by cent per cent of the
sample.
5.2.3 INTERVENTION OF STAKEHOLDERS AS PERCEIVED BY THE
FARMERS
Among the five categories of stakeholders studied, Researchers, Extension

personnel, Officials of State Department of Agriculture, Horticulture were frequently
intervened in the PF activities as stated by 76 per cent of the sample. Input dealers,
Produce marketing personnel were perceived as occasionally intervened sources as stated
by more than 60 per cent. The intervention of drip marketers was rare (48 per cent) and
occasionally (43.50 per cent).
5.2.4 PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
5.2.4.1 Direct Effects
 Increased income was expressed by the majority of the sample (93.30 per
cent).They were able to increase their standard of living(72.50 per cent) and
provided higher education for their children(61.50 per cent).
5.2.4.2 Indirect Effects
 Improvement in the existing land was expressed by 47 per cent of the sample
followed by purchase of new implements, tools, equipments (32.50 per cent),
 More than two –thirds (68.50 per cent) of the sample repaid their old loan
followed by increased the savings/deposits (56.00 per cent)
 The participation in farm science clubs, farmers‟ forum, Precision Farmers
Association etc., was increased as perceived by 73 per cent of the sample.
 Got social recognition (70.50 per cent), increased outside contact (44.50 per cent),
increased sharing and consultation with fellow farmers, become an effective
communicator (37 per cent) and increased opportunities to know about
development activities (31 per cent) were the personal changes occurred among
the sample as a result of the adoption of Precision Farming.
5.2.5 MARKET ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES
5.2.5.1 Market Assessment and Assistance
 Moderate level market assistance was expressed by half of the sample. Almost an
equal proportion was found under low and high level categories.
 Forecasting market price of commodities was from moderate to high level
(74.50 per cent) followed by market tie-up (66.00 percent), market trend and
choice of crops (51.50 per cent) and information on demand based
production(47.50 per cent).
 Assured price and sale of the produce (43.00 per cent) were also indicated as
moderate to good level.
5.2.5.2 Activities of Precision Farmers Association
 Status of establishment of community nursery was at poor level (61.50 per cent),
followed by price fixation (47 per cent), eliminating middle men (46.50 per cent)
and relationship building with stakeholders (45.00 per cent).
 The association activities were good in the bulk Purchase of inputs (42.50 per
cent), Sharing of farm related information and Sharing of responsibilities to the
tune of 38.00 per cent and 31.00 per cent.
 Activities of PFA enabled the sample in sharing the farm related information and
Sharing of responsibilities, bulk Purchase of inputs, availing financial assistance,
fixing price for the produce and bulk disposal of produce.
5.2.5.3 Commodity Transportation
 Small truck was the major mode of transport for 82 per cent of the sample,
followed by personally carrying the commodities (52 per cent).
 Transport of commodity was made through trucks in tar topped roads, by hiring
vehicles and expressed that the conveyance used were much reliable.
 Moderate to high level commodity transportation was indicated by 84 percent of
the sample and the rest 16 percent found under low level
5.2.5.4 Market Infrastructure
 Commercial markets (66.00 per cent) were the major source of disposal of farm
produce. Traditional market (45.00 per cent), to a certain extent mobile markets
were also exploited by the sample for marketing their produce.
 The cost for market infrastructure was said to be reasonable by two –thirds of the
sample and 32.00 per cent opined as expensive.
 About 40.00 to 50.00 per cent of the sample expressed that, they were marketing
their produce directly, without involving middlemen.
5.2.6 ASSOCIATION AND CONTRIBUTION OF PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE

WITH DEPENDENT VARIABLES
5.2.6.1 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Technological

Utilization Pattern
 The variables viz., land holding size (X3), area under precision farming(X4),
experience in precision farming (X5), annual income from farming (X8), annual
income from precision farming (X9), innovativeness (X12), risk bearing ability
(X13), extension participation (X14), credit orientation (X16), leadership
potential(X18) had shown positive significant association with the dependent
variable Technological utilization pattern at 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability.
 R2 value was 0.615 which revealed that 61.50 per cent variation in the
Technological utilization pattern was explained by twenty five independent
variables selected for the study.
5.2.6.2 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Perceived

Effectiveness
 Among the 25 independent variable taken for the study, factors viz.,age (X1), size
of land holding (X3), experience in precision farming (X5), extension
participation (X14), attitude towards precision farming (X21),decision making
pattern(X24) and level of aspiration (X25) were exhibited the association with
the dependent factor perceived effectiveness.
 R2 value indicated that the 25 independent variables put together accounted for
76.50 per cent variation in the perceived effectiveness.
5.2.6.3 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Market

Assessment and Assistance
 Age (X1), land holding size (X3), experience in precision farming (X5), extension
participation (X14), attitude towards precision farming (X21), decision making
pattern (X24), level of aspiration (X25) except information sharing pattern (X23)
which has shown negative association at 0.01 per cent of probability.
 F value (24.143) was found to be significant at one per cent level, observed from
the table. R2 value indicated that the 25 independent variables collectively
accounted for 77.60 per cent variation in Market Assessment and Assistance.
5.2.6.4 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Activities of

Precision Farmers Association
 Experience in precision farming (X5), total farming experience (X6), annual

income from farming (X8), orientation with research station (X10) had
contributed positively to the activities of precision farmers association at one
per cent level. participation in research station activities (X11), innovativeness
(X12) and information sharing pattern (X23) had shown the positive contribution
to the dependent variable at five per cent level of probability.
 R2 value indicated that the 25 independent variables put together accounted for
64.80 per cent variation in the dependent variable Activities of Precision Farmers
Association.
5.2.6.5 Association and Contribution of independent Variables on Commodity

Transportation
 The „t‟ value in the table explained that the variables viz., age (X1), land holding size
(X3), area under precision farming (X4), experience in precision farming (X5),
farming experience(X6), innovativeness (x12), risk bearing ability (X13), extension
participation (X14), attitude towards precision farming (X21), decision making
pattern(X24) had influence the dependent variable commodity transportation at five per
cent level of probability except the variables viz. age (X1) and attitude towards
precision farming (X21) which at one per cent level of probability.
 R2 value indicated that all the independent variables collectively responsible for
57.40 per cent variation in the dependent variable Commodity Transportation.

Infrastructure
 F value (6.776) showed its significance, and all the independent variables
collectively accounted about 49.30 per cent to the dependent variable which has
been reflected through R2 value.
 The variables viz., Age (X1), Experience in Precision Farming (X5),
Innovativeness (X12), Extension Participation (X14), and Attitude towards
precision farming (X21) had shown the negative contribution at one per cent
level of probability whereas Farming experience(X6) and leadership potential
(X18) which exposed to positive contribution at five per cent level of probability.

Associated Activities
 Land holding size (X3), farming experience (X6), annual income from precision
farming (X9) and attitude towards precision farming (X21) had exhibited the
contribution with dependent variable at five per cent level of probability. whereas
the variables viz., area under precision farming (X4), experience in precision
farming (X5), irrigation potentiality (X7), annual income from precision farming
(X8), orientation with research station (X10), information sharing pattern (X23)
and decision making pattern (X24) had shown the contribution to the dependent
variable.
 F value (22.905) as significant and R2 value 76.70 per cent which explained the
independent variables collectively accounted to the dependent variable.
5.2.7 SWOC ON PRECISION FARMING AS PERCEIVED BY FARMERS
 Surface and ground water conservation, Uniform water distribution, Economised

use of water and decreased human health risks were perceived as major strengths
in adopting precision farming techniques by more than 90 per cent of the sample.
 Among the twelve weaknesses in precision farming, expressed by the sample,
selectivity in the usage of PF technologies (72.50 per cent) occupied the first
position. This was closely followed by difficulty in intercultural operations, no
initiative for assessing in-field variation, damage of drip lines by rats and rodents,
clogging of emitters, fragmentation of land holdings, requirement of skilled
labour, high initial investment, requires quality water, not suitable to all
crops/areas/soil types were indicated as weaknesses by more than two-thirds of
the sample.(67.00 per cent to 71.00 per cent).
 Under economic opportunities viz., approach to attain sustainable agriculture,
resolves food security issues, increased agricultural commodity prices and
availability of subsidies were stated by 89 .00 to 97.50 per cent of the sample.
 More than 80 percent of the growers stated that possibilities of getting huge
financial support from government as the opportunity under political aspect.
Involvement of private agency, development of specialized consultant sector, low
migration rate from rural to urban, semi urban, periphery and attracting the farm
youth were expressed as social opportunities by 92.50 to 98.50 per cent of the
respondents.
 High cost of water soluble fertilizer was the foremost (89.00 per cent) followed by
underdeveloped market infrastructure (87.50 per cent). The domestic technologies
supply is lacking as stated by 96 .00 per cent of the sample. No free flow of water in
the undulated topography, inadequate availability of spare parts and poor electricity
supply were the other technological challenges expressed by the sample.
5.2.8 INTERVENTION OF STAKEHOLDERS AS PERCEIVED BY THEM
Nearly half of the Researchers/ Extension personnel intervened in the Precision

Farming Process only on need basis. Their intervention was majorly project oriented.
All the input dealers, drip marketers, produce marketing personnel and the
consultants of agri clinics were intervened on need basis.
5.2.9 ASSESSMENT ON SKILLS OF STAKEHOLDERS
5.2.9.1 Management Skills
5.2.9.1.1 Strategic Skill
Strives for continuous improvement (48 per cent), Able to manage the Changes
effectively, (46 per cent),brings innovative ideas, concepts to the farmers (44per cent),
demonstrate critical thinking (40 per cent) were felt as very important by nearly half
of the sample.
5.2.9.1.2 Influencing Skill
While observing the competency level, build effective relationships, clear

communicator, Negotiates win-win outcomes, they possess competency.
5.2.9.1.3 Leadership Skill
Regarding the competency, 94 per cent of the sample had high competency in the
item leads a high performing team. And empower the farmers to achieve result
(64 per cent). The competency level needs improvement on managing performance
(44 per cent) and Creates a sense of shared purpose (26 per cent) as expressed by the sample.
5.2.9.1.4 Implementation Skill
Competency in demonstrating effective organizational skills followed by plans

ahead to meet the needs of the client was observed with 92.00 per cent of the sample.
5.2.9.1.5 Personal Factors
Integrity, flexibility, self development were felt by the sample as important and a
negligible portion of the sample found under not important and in all the other 3 items
more than 70 per cent of the sample stated their competency level.
5.2.9.2 Facilitation Skills
5.2.9.2.1Presentation Skill
Maintaining eye contact with group members was followed by cent per cent of the
sample. This was closely followed by Effectively and accurately capturing participants
comments (90 per cent) and being clear and to the point were also frequently followed.
5.2.9.2.2Relationship skill
Showing respect for participants‟ diverse experience and perceptions and

Demonstrating the ability to listen were always followed by 80 per cent of the sample.
Showing sensitivity to participants different learning and developmental situations and
displaying congruence between words, tone and body language were also frequently
followed by more than two-thirds of the sample. Whereas maintaining a high level of
positive regard for participant‟s diverse capabilities was sometimes followed by
54percent of the sample.
5.2.9.2.3 Learning Environment Management
About 44 per cent to 74 per cent of the sample effectively managed the learning
environment.
5.2.9.2.4 Continuous learning attitude
Principle of co-learning and non-defensive reaction was frequently followed by

the sample whereas half of the sample alone frequently learns from the participants.
5.2.9.2.5 Empathic attitude
More than two-thirds of stakeholders frequently followed the two items studied.
5.2.10 SWOC ON PRECISION FARMING AS PERCEIVED BY

STAKEHOLDERS
 Increased crop yield, Increased labour productivity, Improved product quality,

Enhancing bulk procurement of inputs, Technical support from stakeholders,
Sharing of information with the association members, Increases area of
cultivation, conservation were considered as major strengths of adopting Precision
Farming Technologies perceived by the 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the
stakeholders.
 Nearly three-fourths of the sample perceived most of the items as “more”
weakness and 10 to 20 per cent of the sample mentioned the weaknesses as
moderate.
 Nearly 70 per cent 80 per cent of sample placed the items viz., Availability of
subsidies, Increased prices of agricultural commodity, Resolves food security
issues under more opportunity category, whereas the Provision of bank loan,
Contributes to economic growth by increasing yields were expressed as
opportunities by 68 per cent and 58 per cent of the sample respectively.
 About 80 per cent of the sample projected as High cost of water soluble
fertilizers, Underdevelopment of market infrastructure, Unstableness of
government policies were the challenges articulated by the stakeholders.
5.3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
 Joint Decision making with PFA members and peer group was observed in the study,
it has to be fortified by the intervention of stakeholders so that the thorough flow of
information could be possible among the PFA members.
 The sample was found with moderate to high level extension participation,
Orientation with Research station, and its activities. If the stakeholder has more
contact with Precision Farmers with frequent intervals, it could be lift up.
 It was noted that a portion of land was allotted for Precision Farming from their total
area under cultivations. The size of Precision Farming was semi medium to medium
size, despite they could earn Rs. 5 lakh as annual income. If the area under Precision
farming is increased that will have the positive reflection on the livelihood status of
the farmers.
 Though there is ample scope for sharing the farm information through PFA, moderate
level of sharing pattern was observed. The monitoring team motivates the PFA
members to share and discuss every aspect in their areas.
 Among the core technologies recommended for Precision farming, Remote Sensing
the prime technology was not at all aware by the sample. The infield variation could
be assessed based on remote sensing only. Without considering such in field
variation, the other technologies even if followed as recommended will not bring the
anticipated output. The Precision Farming Development Centres (PFDC) established
at National level have not yet initiated this process. The effectiveness of remote
sensing in this regard has been utilized in the developed countries. Such attempt may
be taken up by the Regional Remote Sensing Service Centres (RRSSC) located across
the country, established by National Natural Resources management System
(NNRMS). The stakeholders especially the service providers of public sectors could
obtain the results and adopt the same as a trial in every Precision Farming area. The
performance of such approach will enable the farmers to develop awareness and the
importance of the use of remote sensing incidentally it will diffuse into the system.
 The use of quality seed and seedlings is the important component of Precision
Farming for producing quality farm produces. The supply of seedlings through Hi-
tech community nursery is one of the technologies which was not up to the expected
level in the study area. As that of Self Help Groups (SHGs) farm women groups may
be organized by the stakeholders in the Precision Farming areas and be involved in
the production of seedlings through Hi-tech community nurseries. In order to
overcome the initial hurdle, in establishing the nursery, the groups may be provided
with a reasonable budget as a seed money from the government as revolving fund.
Those groups may be linked with PFA for the supply of seedlings. All these activities
will be assisted and monitored by the stakeholders of the public sectors. Through this
attempt, in addition to the supply of quality seedlings, entrepreneurial development
could also be achieved.
 The Precision Farmers Association (PFA) operating in the Precision Farming areas
need to be strengthened. It is ensured as a mandate that every Precision Farm
practitioner is to be enrolled as a member. A team may be constituted by the
administrators which includes the stakeholders, the progressive farmers of the region
and also the office bearers of PFA. PFA activities are to be monitored with fixed
time interval by any of the stakeholders alternatively. This will facilitate the
following aspects.
 collective decisions about the choice of crops on demand based
 Supply of agricultural inputs at lesser price with assured quality by

developing direct contact with the manufacturing companies
 Eliminating middlemen by developing direct contact with exporters.
 Availing common transport.
 In order to lessen the burden of Precision Farmers, the state level administrators
may take the initiative to build tie-up with the input production companies to
supply Water Soluble Fertilizers and other required agro inputs with high
quality on concessional rate to the Precision Farmers Association. Also through
this mode the actual demand could be assessed by the units so that the bulk
transport could be materialized. Moreover assured return is also possible for the
production companies.
 As reported in the study the intervention of stakeholders especially Researchers
and Extension functionaries was more frequent than the others. As far as the drip
marketers, input agents are concerned they restricted their intervention with the
initial establishment. The stakeholders should not work in isolation as observed
during data collection. In every activity of the Precision Farming their roles to be
made as complementary. The implementing agency of Precision Farming should
work out a strategy of involving every one‟s role by interlinking their activities
throughout the process. This will further strengthening and sustaining the
Precision Farming activities at all levels.
The success and experiences of the precision farming activities need to be
regularly and continuously shared among the stakeholders through publications,
websites, newsletter , CDs and other media.
Stakeholders meet on Precision Farming during crop seasons may be

taken up at various levels and their services or technological intervention in time
without missing the season make the precision success.
 Stakeholders involved in Precision Farming process are both public and private
sectors. Technology delivery process mainly concerned with the public sectors.
The assignment of public sector stakeholders proceeds till the disposal of the
produce. In order to perform their roles effectively, they should be competent in
their managerial and facilitating skills. Being play the influential role, they have to
be trained adequately to equip with the said skills which help them to perform their
assigned tasks without delay and deviation as designed. The capacity building
should not be a habitual rather the training programmes may be taken up in the
reputed management centres periodically.
Such programmes will help in developing OCTAPACE culture which

stands for Openness, Collaboration, Trust, Authentication, Pro action, Autonomy,
Confrontation with Problems and Experimentation among the stakeholders.
If the said culture is developed among the stakeholders, naturally they will
discharge their tasks effectively without lapses.
 The scope of Precision Farming in all its dimensions could be strengthened by

involving multidisciplinary team of Researchers in various fields including
Agricultural Engineers, Manufacturers, Economists etc., Such a team may be
constituted by the planners at state and district level.
 The forecast on Demand of the market will definitely influence the choice of the
crops and production. This could be attended by the PFA and the monitoring team.
 Warehousing centres, Cold Storage facilities and Ripening chambers need to be
established at district level in the major production centres so as to reduce the post
harvest losses. These infrastructures may be established jointly in coordination
with the drip marketers, NGOs and other agencies working in that zone. This will
support the Precision farmers to store the farm produces to store for a reasonable
period to fetch the reasonable price.
 Buffer storage through precision platform ensure the produce available throughout
the year in the market so as to get premium price and gaining the confidence of
customers with the assurance of its availability.
 The possibility of establishing Fruits and Vegetables Processing centres and
value addition centres at Zonal level may be explored to exploit the surplus
produces when the market price is low.
 Creating a logo and having brand name was found with only very few of the PFA
in Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri districts. It should be encouraged by the
stakeholders so that labelled and packed produce leads to traceability and winning
the confidence level of the buyers which will improve the price of the produces
on par with branded goods.
 The administrators may assess the possibility of establishing mobile markets,
farmers own mega markets, Farmers retailers markets, so that the farm
produces could reach the local customers at their door steps without the middle
men intrusions.
 In order to meet the demand for spare parts, Custom service centres may be
established at block level. This centres will also attend the repairs and maintenance
of farm machineries and tools. Identified potential rural youths, unemployed
agricultural diploma holders may be trained on these areas and encouraged to open
such centres. Ultimately this will curtail the migration of farm/rural youth. Also it
helps for entrepreneurial development among the rural youth.
5.4 Suggestions for future Research
 A study on Developing a training module for capacity building of the
stakeholders involving in Precision Farming Process may be taken up.
 A crop specific comparative study on the performance of Precision Farming
among agro climatic Zones may be taken up.
 A feasibility study of intercropping in annual and perennial crops under precision
Farming system may be attempted.
 An exclusive study on stakeholders‟ intervention in supply chain management of
Precision Farming system may be attempted.
REFERENCES
Ademu, W.A. 2006. The informal sector and employment generation in Nigeria:
The role of credit. Nigeria Economic Society, Annual Conference.
Adiguru, P. 1991. Integrated programme for the development in Pondicherry union

territory: An analysis. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC & RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Agnet. 2004. Making farm credit work for the small-scale farmers.
<<http://www.agnet.org/
Alsagoff, S.A.A., H.A. Clonts and C.M. Tolly. 1990. An Integrated Poultry Multi-species
Aquaculture for Malaysian Rice Farmer: A Mixed Integrated Programming
Approach. Agriculture Systems, 32(3): 207-301.
Anand, G.2003. Marketing behaviour of banana growers of Thiruchirapalli District.

Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Andhari Viresh, 2005. A study on integrated management practices adopted by paddy

farmers. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Anusuya, R. 1997. Impact of Farmers Field School on farming community. Unpub.

M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Anyanwu, C.M. 2004. Microfinance institutions in Nigeria: Policy, practice, and

potentials. Paper presented at the G24 Workshop on “Constraints to Growth in
Sub Saharan Africa,” Pretoria, South Africa, November 29- 30.
Arnholt, M. Batte.T, Prochaska, 2001. A survey of precision farming adopters in central

Ohio: Changing farm management practices, The Ohio University, USA.
Arularasan, G.S. 1992. Ex-post facto Analysis of Self-Employment Training on

Vocational Settlement Pattern of Rural Youths. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis,
AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Arun. 1994. Integrated Farming and Social Status. In: Proceedings of Summer Institute
on Integrated Farming System Research and Management for Sustainable
Agriculture, 6-15th June 1994, AC &RI, TNAU, Coimbatore: 245-251.
Astonoliver 2012 .Enhancing the role of informal sector in food security and poverty
reduction in Malawi-Policy implications and Recommendations, Unpub.
M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis, KAU, Thrissur.
Athreya V.B and K.S. Rajeshwari, 1998. Women Particaipation in Panchyat Raj: A case
study from M.S. Swaminathan Foundation, Chennai,Tamil Nadu.
Balasubramaniam.P.S. Manickam and R. Vijayaraghavan (2009), Consequences of

adoption of Micro-irrigation systems in canal command area. Journal of
Extension Education. Vo1.21(1) : 4152-4157
Banumathy, S. 2003. An analysis on technological gaps and adoption of improved

rainfed practices in rice. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Barrett, C.B. and T. Reardon. 2001. Asset, Activity and Income Diversification among
African Agriculturalists: Some Practical Issues. In: Income Diversification and
Livelihoods in Rural Africa - Cause and Consequence of Change. Working Paper
– 2000. Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
Batte, M.T. & VanBuren, F.N. 1999. Precision farming – Factor influencing productivity.
Paper presented at the Northern Ohio Crops Day meeting, Wood County, Ohio.
Batte, M.T., Pohlman, C., ForsterL.D, and F.Sohngen. 2003. Adoption and Use of
Precision Farming Technologies: A Survey of central Ohio Farmers, Report
Series: AEDE-RP-0039-03. The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Beierle, T.C., 2002. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis 22(4):
739–749.
Beulah, S.M. 2004. Potentialities and Prospects of Medicinal Plants Cultivation - An

Analysis, Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI TNAU, Coimbatore.
Blackmore, B.S. (1994). Precision farming; An Introduction. Outlook on Agriculture,

275-280
Blackmore. B.S., Griepentrog, H. W., Pedersen, S. M. and S. Fountas. 2004. Precision

Farming in Europe. In “Precision Farming; A Global Perspective”, (ed) Ancha
Srinivasan. The Haworth Press, Inc., USA.
Bos, R., D.O. Parawan, G.A. Bautish, H.B. Ovalo and D.P. Catbayan. 2000. A Pilot
Project on Integrated Livestock-Fish-Crop Farming in The Southern Philippines.
Resources and Conservation, 13: 265-272.
Broke Anil and Copergaon. 2004. Drip irrigation. Agriculture Today, 7(10):26-27.
Chess, C., Purcell, K., 1999. Public participation and the environment – Do we know
what works. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(2): 2685–2692.
Chi, T.T.N., Duong Van Chin, D.V. Franz-Michael Rundquist and Magnus Jirstrom. 2003.
Agricultural Diversification in Can Tho : Farm Level. Omonrice, 11: 117-120.
Cook SE, O‟Brien R, Corner R J (2003). Is Precision Agriculture relevant to developing

countries? Proceedings of the 4th European conference on precision agriculture,
The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 115–119.
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Annual Report 2008-09,
Hyderabad, A.P., India.
Daberkow, Stan, G., and W.D.Mc Bride, 1998. Adoption of Precision Agriculture
technologies by US corn producers, Precision Agriculture: Proceedings of the
fourth international conference. 1821-1831.
Danish Agricultural Council 2000. Facts & Figures – Agriculture in Denmark,

(The Agricultural Council of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark), p. 32
Darren Hudson and Diane Hite, 2001, Adoption of Precision Farming technology in
Missisipi: Results from producer survey, research report-001, Missisipi state
university, USA.
Das, S.K., S. Sharma, K.L. Sharma, Neelam Saharan, N.N. Nimboler and Y.V.R. Reddy.
1993. Land Use Options on a Semi-Arid Alfisol. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, 8(1): 34-39.
David Jochinke, Bernard Noonan and Nick Wachsmann (2006) Paper on Precision
Agriculture in the Victorian Wimmera – Grower perspectives. Presented in
Australian Agronomy Conference.
Deepa, M .K. 2003. A study on technological gaps in the adoption of eco-friendly
technologies of vegetables, Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU,
Coimbatore.
Deepabarathi, M.2003. Adoption and marketing behaviour of senna growers. Unpub.

Deoghare, K. 1997. Farming Systems Research - A Critical Appraisal. Rural

Development Paper No.6. East Lansing, Michigan State University, USA.
Deoghare, P.K. and N.K. Bhattacharya. 1993. Economic Analysis of Goat Rearing in the
Mathura District of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Animal Science, 63: 439-444.
Desingurajan, R. 2005. Medicinal plant (Coleus sp) cultivation in Salem district of Tamil
Nadu – A critical analysis. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Devanathan, M.K. 1997. An Essay on Experiences of a Farmer with Parambur Tank

Irrigation Association in Pudukottai District Tamil Nadu. Agricultural Extension
Review, 12(4): 19-22.
Devendra, C. 1998. Improvement of Small Ruminant Production Systems in Rainfed

Agro-ecological Zones of Asia. Annuals of Arid Zone, 37(3): 215-232.
DHAN. 1998. Self Help Groups. DHAN Foundation, Madurai, pp.29-43.
Edwards, A.L. 1969. Techniques of attitude scale construction. Vakils, Feffer and
Simmons Private Limited, Bombay.
Elizabeth, S. 2001. Integrated Dry Farming System in Tamil Nadu – A Feasibility Study.
Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.), Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.
Ellis, F. 2004. Hot Topic Paper: Occupational Diversification in Developing Countries and
Implications for Agricultural Policy. Programme of Advisory and Support Services to
DFID (PASS). Project No. WB0207. University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Environmental Management, 214–228.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Daberkow, S., and McBride, W.D. 2001. Decomposing the size
effect on the adoption of innovations: Agro biotechnology and Precision
Agriculture. Agriculture Bio Forum, 4(2): 124-36.
FICCI. Agriculture overview; 2012. Available: http://www.ficcib2b.com/sector-

overview- pdf/Sector-agri.pdf.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced techniques
for the beginner. London: Sage publications.
Floralavanya, V.2007. Sustainable water management through drip irrigation in Madurai

district –An explorative study. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.)Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU.
Fountas, S., Sorensen, C.G., Pederensen, H.H and D.S. Blackmore. 2002. Information
sources and decision making on Precision Farming. 6th International conference on
Precision Agriculture and ther Precision Resources Management, Minnesota, USA.
Gajja, K., K.Lal and M.S.Nehi. 1999. Comparative Economics of Silvipasture,

Hortipasture and Annual Crops on Marginal Agricultural Lands of Arid Zone of
Rajasthan. Annuals of Arid Zone, 38(2): 173-180.
Ganesha Moorthy, R. 2005.A study on adoption and marketing behaviour of Turmeric

growers in Erode of Tamilnadu. Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag.)Thesis, AC&RI,
TNAU, Coimbatore.
Ganguly, N. 1990, Rural Industrialisation need and relevance of agro based

industries, Kurukshetra, 34(1): 54-58
Garrett, H.E. and R.S. Woodworth. 1973. Statistics in psychology and education. Vakils,
Feffer and Simons Private Limited, Bombay.
World Bank,(2006). Malawi Poverty and vulnerability assessment, Investing in future.

Lilongwe, Malawi. 335p.
Grisso, R.B. Alley, M. Phil McClellan, Dan Brann and Steve Donohue. 2002. Precision
Farming: A Comprehensive Approach. 442-500. Virginia Cooperative Extension,
Virginia State University, USA.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis. 5th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. India.
Hall, J. 1969.Conflict Management Survey. Teleometrics, Inc., Austin, Texas.
Harshal, E., Premod, Chaudhari, M., 2006, Precision agriculture: A new form of
agriculture to maximize crop production and minimize the environmental
damage, Agricultural Update, 1 (2): 24-25.
Hill, M. 2004. Farming Incomes 'Shrink by Half'. British Broadcasting Corporation

(BBC) dt: 14 October, 2004. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/uk_
news/3741506.stm
Idris, Olabode ,2011. Review of small farmer access to agricultural credit in Nigeria,
Policy Note, Nigeria Strategy Support Program, IFPRI.
Ilayaraja.N.M. 2001. A study on knowledge level and adoption behaviour of grape

growers.Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.)Thesis, Annamalai University, Annamalai
Nagar, Chidambaram.
Indira priyadarshini, I. 2002. Self help groups (SHGs) - A Beneficiary Analysis. Unpub.
M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC& RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Ingram, J., 2008. Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of
sustainable soil management? An analysis of farmer and advisor views. Journal
of Environmental Management , 214–228.
Jaiswal, H.S., Gurqbal Singh and J.S. Brar. 2001. Pulses hold the key in Dryland
Agriculture. Indian Farmers Times, 3(6): 11-12.
Jayashree, B.S. 2004, A study on integrated water management technologies

demonstrated under AICRIP on water management. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis,
Jebapreetha, D. 2007. A study on environmental issues in the intensive

cropping area- Theni district. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Jegadeesan .M. 2001. Privatization of agricultural extension service-An analysis. Unpub.
M.Sc. (Ag.)Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Jeyasankar, R.2000. Awareness, knowledge and extent of adoption of sugarcane

technologies by registered cane growers of two sugar factories-A comparative
study. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Annamalai University,Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram.
Jeyalakshmi, M. 2000. Existence of Knowledge and Technological Gap Between System and
Contributing Factors- An Analysis. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, TNAU, Madurai.
Jha Premchandra , 2004. Drip irrigation bottlenecks in technology dissemination. Agriculture

Today, 7(10) 50.
Johnson, B. 2002. Socio-economic impact of cashew cultivation and marketing. Unpub.

M.sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Joubert R. 2012 Precision farming – suitable for large or small farms. Available:
http://www.farmersweekly.co.za/
Justin Arockiam, W.2007. Agripreneurship under Tamil Nadu precision farming project
– A case study”. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Kamaraj, T. 1996. Knowledge and Adoption of Technologies for Rainfed Crops. Unpub.
M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Kanakasaba, S.Gandhi. 2002. Use of eco-friendly technologies among the cotton

growers- An analysis. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Kandasamy, O.S. 1998. An Economic Analysis of Integrated Farming System in

Dharmapuri District. Tamil Nadu Farming Systems, 14(1&2): 29-33.
Karthikeyan,C. 1997. An experimental study to develop an effective training module for

potential growers of export oriented cut flowers. Unpub. Ph.D. Thesis, AC&RI,
TNAU, Coimbatore.
Karunajeba, Mary M.V. 2012, Impact of Dynamics of Self Help Groups o n Rural
Women Empowerment–A Critical Analysis, Unpub. P.hD. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI,
TNAU, Coimbatore.
Kasthuri, R.2003. A study on the technology transfer process through Farmers Field
Schools (FFS). Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Kavitha, 1999. Socio-technological analysis of drip irrigation and reinvention of farm

level. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Kavitha,K.2011, Impact Of Participation Of Farm Women In Hi-Tech Nursery

Management- An Ex - Post Facto Study, Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI,
TNAU, Coimbatore.
Kerlinger, F.M. 2007. Foundation of Behavioural Research. Rinehart and

Winston.Inc.New York.
Kerlinger, F.N.1964. Foundations of Behavioural research. Surgeet publication, New Delhi.
KHDP. 2000. A Profile on the Activities of Thrissur District. Kerala Horticulture

Development Programme, (KHDP), Cochin.
Khosla R (2008), Paper presented on Precision Agriculture In: The 9th International
Conference on Precision Agriculture July 20-23.
Kothari, U., 2001. Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Development.
In: Cooke, B., Kothari, U. (Eds.), Participation: the New Tyranny? Zed Books,
London, 139–152.
Kothari, C.R. 2008. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New

Age International Publishers, New Delhi.
Krause, M.A., and Black, J.R. (1995) Optimal Adoption Strategies for No-Till
Technology in Michigan, Review of Agricultural Economics, 17:299-310.
Kurian, B.1999. Swashraya Karshaka Vipani -A Proven Marketing System of Pioneering

Models in Self -reliance. Journal of Horticulture Development Programme.
7(3):59-61.
Ladha, J. K., Fischer, A. K., Hossain, M., Hobbs, P. R., Hardy, B., (ed)
2000. Improving the productivity and sustainability of rice-wheat systems
of the Indo-Gangetic plains: a systematic synthesis of NARS-IRRI
partnership research. IRRI Discussion paper Series No. 40. Makati City
International Rice Research Institute, Philippines.
Lowenberg-DeBoer, D.M. Lambert, and J. Peone. 2004. Precision Farming:
Adoption, Profitability and making better use of data, Site Specific
Management Center - Purdue University.
Maheshwari, S.2000. Training needs of vegetable growers in organic farming. Unpub.

M.Sc.Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Mankai, D.2005. Commercial cultivation of vegetables by small and marginal farmers of

Palani Taluk in Tamil Nadu- an exploratory study. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis,
AC&RI , TNAU, Coimbatore.
Mcbratney Alex, Brett Whelan, Tihomir Ancev. 2005 Future Directions of Precision
Agriculture, Precision Agriculture. (6):7–23.
Mondal Pinaki, 2009 Adoption of precision agriculture technologies in India

and in some developing countries: Scope, present status and strategies. Progress
in Natural Science. (19) :659–666.
Mulla, D.J., 2000. Geo Statistics, Remote Sensing and Precision Farming. In
Precision Agriculture: Spatial and Temporal Variability of Environmental
Quality (Eds. J.V. Lake, G.R. Bock and J.A. Goode) John Wiley & Sons,
New York.100-119.
Mukta, B.1998. Women in Local Governance-Macro Myths, Micro Realities,

Social Change, 28(1):87-100.
Mwandira, 2009. The marginal labour market in small and medium sized
enterprises, Routledge, London.
Nalini, M. 2004. Eco-friendly technologies utilization among paddy farmers. Unpub.

Namboothiripad, K. 2000. A Study on Commercial Vegetable Cultivation in

Oddanchatiram Area and its Socio-economic Impact on the Growers. Unpub.
Narayanareddy, L. 2009. Diversified Farming Systems – The Narayanareddy Column.

LEISA – INDIA, 11(1): 28.
National Research Council. 1997. Precision agriculture in the 21st century: Geospatial
and information technologies in crop management. National Research Council.
pp 2-5, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Nell, W.T and Napier. 2005. The Journey to Farming Success. A Strategic Approach.
Wim Nell Agricultural Management Consultants, Bloemfontein. South Africa.
Niklaus. E.A. (2005) Informal sector support and poverty reduction. Jerster consulting.
Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO).12-14.
Niranjan, S. 1999. Impact of Irrigation Management Transfer in Maharashtra - An

Assessment, Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC & RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Nirmala devi, S. 2000. Behaviour of cotton farmers towards IPM technologies. An

empirical analysis. Unpub.Ph.D. Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Nouri J, Karbassi A.R and Mirkia S (2008). Environmental management of coastal

regions in the Caspian Sea. International Journal of Environment Science
Technology, 5(1): 43-52.
Nowak, P. 1997. A sociological analysis of site specific management. In:The

state of site specific Management for Agriculture, American society of
Agronomy. 397-422.
Okojie, C., A. Monye-Emina, K. Eghafona, G. Osaghae, and J.O. Ehiakhamen. 2010.

Institutional environment and access to microfinance by self-employed women in
the rural areas of Edo State. NSSP Brief No. 14. Washington. D.C.: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Omore, W.W., P.F. Phillip and W.R. Schmehl. 1997. Farming Systems Research and
Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries. West view Press, Boulder.
Padma, S. R. 2001. Training needs of farm women for entrepreneurial development. Pub.
Palanisamy,A.(2011) Impact Of TN - IAMWARM Project on the Farm and Home of

Precision Farming Beneficiaries – An Analysis, Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag.)Thesis,
AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Pandian, S. 1999. Video Education: A Tool for knowledge gain by farm women. Unpub.
M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis,AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Parkavi, R. 2003. Knowledge and Adoption behaviour of Cardamom planters.Unpub.

M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Pedersen, S.M., Ferguson, R.B., and Lark, M. 2000. A Comparison of Producer

Adoption of Precision Agricultural Practices in Denmark. The United Kingdom
and the United States, SJFI – Working Paper no. 2/2000.
Pederson, S.M., Ferguson, R.B., and M.Lark. 2001. A Multinational survey of precision
farming early adopters. Farm management, 11(3):147-162.
Phillip, D., E. Nkonya, J. Pender, and O.A. Oni. 2009. Constraints to increasing
agricultural productivity in Nigeria: A review. Nigeria Strategy Support Program
(NSSP) Background Paper No. 006.
Pierce F.J and Nowak P (1999). Aspects of Precision Agriculture, Hand book on
Advances in Agronomy, 1-85.
Ponnipriya, J.2008. A Multidimensional study on women panchayat president in Madurai

district. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Agricultural College and Research Institute,
AC&RI,TNAU, Coimbatore.
Prabaharan, P. 2000. Impact of medicinal plant Cultivation. in Nilgiris District.Unpub.

M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Prameela, K. 1992. An ex-post facto study on communication channels utilization

behaviour of farm women. Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Puhazhendi, V. and B. Jayaraman, 1999. Increasing Women Participation and

Employment Generation among Rural Poor-An Approach through Informal
Groups. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54(3): 287-295.
Rahji, M.A.Y., and S. A. Fakayode. 2009. A multinomial logit analysis of agricultural credit
rationing by commercial banks in Nigeria. International Research Journal of
Finance and Economics, 24: 91.http://www.eurojournals.com/finance.htm;
Rajput, T.B.S. 2004. Using Right Drip component for efficient irrigation. Agriculture Today
7(10): 34-35.
Raja, N. 2000. Study on communication technologies adopted by extension workers in

transfer of technology in Preiyar-Vaigai irrigation system and participation
pattern by farmers. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Rajasekaran, R.1995. Knowledge, Adoption and communication behaviour of TANWA

trainees. Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag.)Thesis, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram.
Rajeshkanna, K.2006. Evaluation of Market-Led-Horticulture under Tamil Nadu

Precision Farming Project. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Rakesh, K. 2010. Precision farming in sugarcane – A diagnostic Study. Unpub. M.Sc.

(Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Ramani, R. 2004. Yield Gap analysis and Constraints in Grape Cultivation. Unpub. M.Sc.
(Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Ramasubramanian, M. 2003. Developing Strategies for Sustainable Dry farming. Unpub.

Ph.D. Thesis, AC&RI,TNAU, Coimbatore.
Ramya, R. 2005. Socio Economic Impact and Marketing Behaviour of Curry Leaf.
Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI TNAU, Coimbatore.
Rangasamy, A., V.S. Shanmugasundaram, S. Sankaran and M. Subbarayalu. 1990.

Integrated Farming System Management: A Viable Approach. Research Bulletin,
TNAU, Coimbatore.
Rangasamy, A. 1994. Approaches to Farming Systems Research. In: Summer Institute

Manual on Integrated Farming Systems Research and Management for
Sustainable Agriculture, 6-15th June 1994, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Rangasamy, A., R. Venkittasamy, C. Jayanthi, S. Purushothaman and S.P. Palaniappan. 1995.

Rice Based Farming System: A Viable Approach. Indian Farming, 44(11): 27-29.
Rao, D. Raghavva. 1983. Statistical techniques in agricultural research. Oxford and IBH
publishing Co., New Delhi.
Rathore, S.S. and B.P. Bhatt. 2008. Productivity Improvement in Jhum Fields through
Integrated Farming System. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 53(3): 167-171.
Ratnagar, P.S. 1998. Group Marketing in relevance to KHDP in the Horticulture Sector
of Kerala. Journal of Horticulture Development Programme, 64(3): 277-295.
Ravi, N. and Jagadeesha, C.J., 2002, Precision Agriculture, Training course on

Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Agriculture, May 27th –7th
June, 2002, RRSSC- Bangalore : 225-228.
Reardon, T. 1997. Using Evidence of Household Income Diversification to Inform Study

of the Rural Non-Farm Labour Market in Africa. World Development, 25(5):
735-747.
Richards, C., Blackstock, K.L., Carter, C.E., 2004. Practical Approaches to Participation
SERG Policy Brief No. 1. Macauley Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen.
Robert, P.C. and Bauer, M., 1994. Mapping wild Oats infestation using digital
imagery for site-specific management. Proceedings of Site-Specific
Management for Agricultural system. 227-230, Minneapolis, 495-503.
Rogers, E.M. and Floyd F.Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of Innovation – A Cross

Cultural Approach. The Free Press, New York.
Rosaiah, Y. 2001. An Analysis of Knowledge Gap on IPM Technologies of Cotton – A

Systems Approach. Unpub M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Rowe, G., Marsh, R., Frewer, L.J., 2004. Evaluation of a deliberative conference in
science. Technology and Human Values 29, 88– 121.
Saadullah, M. 2002. Experiences with Goat Project as a Tool in Human Development:

Goats for Poor Women in Bangladesh. Available at http://www.bgd.toolnet.org
Sakthi,B. 2008. Knowledge and adoption level of Bt cotton growers in Perambalur

district. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Sangeetha, S. 2009. Study on factors influencing the adoption of precision farming

technologies in tomato cultivation. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU,
Coimbatore.
Sanjay Arora. 2005. Precision agriculture and sustainable development, Kurukshetra,
54 (2): 18 to 22.
Santhi, P., K. Ponnusamy and V.S. Shanmugasundaram. 1996. Role of Goats as a

Component in Mixed Farming System under Lower Bhavani Project Areas of
Tamil Nadu. Farming Systems, 12(1&2): 22-25.
Santha Govind. 1992. Integrated Pest Management in rice: Achievements and

opportunities. Unpub.Ph.D. Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Saravanan, R. 1999. A study on privatization of agricultural extension service. Unpub.

M.Sc. (Ag.)Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Saravanapriya, M. 2005. Environmental consciousness among vegetable growers: A

critical analysis. Unpub.M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Sathyasundaram, I. 2006. Micro irrigation and drought management. Kurukshetra,

54(8):32-34.
Savithiri, A. 1992. A Study on knowledge, attitude and adoption of dry land technologies
by farm women – An ex-post facto analysis. Unpub. Msc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI,
TNAU, Madurai.
Sharma.K.1999, Women in Panchayats of Madhya Pradesh, Kurukshetra, 47(5),33-35.
Suganthi, N.S. 2004. Technological Gap in Cashew Production - A Critical Analysis,

Schueller, 1997 J. K., in Precision Agriculture (ed.) Stafford, J. V., BIOS Scientific
Publishers Ltd, 1: 33–44.
Seema 1999. Marketing behaviour of coconut growers in Andaman and Nicobar islands.
Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.)Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Segarra, E. 2002. Precision agriculture initiative for Texas high plains. Annual
Comprehensive Report. Lubbock, Texas A&M University Research and
Extension Centre.
Selvamalathi, S. 2003, A Study on shift in cultivation from cotton to pulses in rainfed

tract. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Senthilkumar, S. 2001. Drip irrigation economic and market potential in Coimbatore
District. Unpub. Msc. (Ag.)Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Senthilvadivoo, K. 2003. Integrated wasteland development programme – A Critical

analysis. Unpub. M.sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Shinogi, K.C. 2007. Empowerment of vegetable farmers through Marker led-

Extension. Unpub. M.Sc thesis, KAU, Thrissur.
Shiraj R.Chandra, 2001. Effectiveness of eco-friendly cultivation practices in paddy: An

analysis. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Singh, A.K. 1986. Tests, Measurements and Research Methods in Behavioural Sciences.
Tata Mc Graw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
Singh, A.K. 2008. Test, Measurements and Research Methods in Behavioural Sciences.
Bharati Bhawan Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi.
Sivasankaran, D., R. Venkitasamy, C. Chinnusamy and V.S. Shanmugasundaram. 1995.

A Sustainable Integrated Farming System for Drylands. Madras Agricultural
Journal, 82 (6&8): 458-460.
Sorensen, C.G., Pederensen, H.H., Blackmore.D, S., Fountas, S., 2002. Information
sources and decision making on Precision Farming. 6th International
conference,Minnosota,USA.
Stringer, L.C., Prell, C., Reed, M.S., Hubacek, K., Fraser, E.D.G.,Dougill, A.J., 2006.
Unpacking „participation‟ in the adaptive management of socio-ecological
systems: A critical review. Ecology and Society,11: 39
Subrata Kr. Mandal and Atanu Maity,2013, Precision Farming for Small Agricultural
Farm: Indian Scenario, American Journal of Experimental Agriculture,3(1):
200-217,
Sudha, T. 2008. Prospects of precision farming in Dharmapuri district – A

multidimensional analysis, Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Sudhakar, B. 2001. Knowledge and adoption of post harvest technologies of tobacco

growers. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Suganthi, N.S. 2004. Technological Gap in Cashew Production - A Critical Analysis,
M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis,AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Sujaivelu, T. 2002. Adoption and marketing behaviour of registered and non-registered

mango growers – A comparative study. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Annamalai
University, Annamalai Nagar. Chidambaram.
Sukitha, R. 2003. An analysis of technological utilization by grape growers. Unpub.

Sukumar, C.R 2003 Precision farming may turn a reality. Business line Financial Daily
from The Hindu group of publications. Hyderabad.
Sultana, P., Abeyasekera, S., 2007. Effectiveness of participatory planning for

community management of fisheries in Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental
Management, 201–213.
Suresh, R. 2001. Farmers adoption of agricultural technologies in tank fed area of Gundar
River basin of Ramanathapuram district in Tamilnadu. Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis,
Swamidasan, S. 1994. Knowledge, adoption and marketing behaviour of betelvine

growers. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Swaminathan,M.S.2011. Youth as Catalysts of accelerated agricultural and rural

development. LEISA -INDIA, Vol.13:6-7.
Tamilselvi.T. 2003. Role Performance of Self Help Group Leaders-An Analysis,

Unpub. M.Sc.(Ag) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Thangaraja, K. 2008. Study on the impact of precision farming in Dharmapuri district.

Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) thesis, AC&RI,TNAU, Coimbatore.
Thirumurugan, K. 2002. Whole Farm Approach for Sustainable Dryland Production,

Unpub. Ph.D. Thesis,AC&RI, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Tippett, J., Handley, J.F., Ravetz, J., 2007. Meeting the challenges of sustainable
development – A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory
ecological planning. Progress in Planning ,67, 9–98.
Thurstone, L.L. and E.J. Chave. 1929. The Measurement of attitude. Chicago University,
Chicago Press, Chicago
Tiwari, P.A., D. Byerlee and L. Harrington. 1999. Farming Systems Research. In :

Agricultural Development in the Third World. Johns Hopkins University Press.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2002. USA Census of Agriculture,

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, USA.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2008. SWOT analysis-A tool for
making better business decisions. United States Department of Agriculture, Risk
Management Agency.
Usharani, V.R. 2003. Tamil Nadu Afforestation project in Dharmapuri District – A

critical analysis.Unpub.M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, Madurai.
Vaidyanathan, R. 1994. Water Research. Indian Journal of Marketing, 13 (6): 23-25.
Veena, V. and M.K. Tiwari. 2009. Mr. Bairwa‟s Diverse Farm : Farmers Diary. LEISA –
INDIA, 11(1): 27.
Venkatesan, S.2000.Awareness knowledge and adoption level of recommended tomato

cultivation practices in Tamil Nadu. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU,
Coimbatore.
Venkattakumar, R. 2002. Socio Economic Analysis of Commercial Coconut Growers.

Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI TNAU, Coimbatore.
Vijayalakshmi, K. 1999. Cultivation of Medicinal Plants and Contract Farming, J. Horti

.Tech. (1): 39-40.
Vilas Andhari Viresh . 2005. A study on integrated management practices adopted by

paddy farmers. Unpub. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, AC&RI, TNAU, Madurai.
Wimalasuriya, R.K., H.P. Ariyaratne, W.H.D. Kularatne, G.D. Siripala, B.M.K. Perera
and H. Peiris. 1993. Crop or Livestock Integration to Enhance the Sustainability
of Rainfed Upland Farming in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka. Journal of Asian
Farming Systems Association, 2(1): 29-44.
Yu, M. 2000. Economic and environmental evaluation of precision farming practices in

irrigated cotton production. Diss. Texas Tech University.
APPENDIX-I
Dr. T. RATHAKRISHNAN, Ph.D.,

Director Students Welfare,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore –3.
Sir /Madam,
Mrs. S. R. PADMA Ph.D scholar, Department of Agricultural Extension &Rural
Sociology is undertaking a Research entitled “PERSPECTIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS ON
PRECISION FARMING” as part fulfilment of her Ph.D. programme under my supervision.
As part of her study she has programmed to develop an attitude scale to measure the
attitude of farmers towards Precision Farming. By examining similar studies and discussion with
extension scientists, the universe of statements pertaining to the attitude of farmers towards
Precision Farming has been prepared and presented in Annexure –A. Based on review of
literature, various possible and important independent variables have been identified and given in
Annexure –B. One of the objectives of the study is SWOC analysis on Precision Farming. By
examining similar studies, discussion with social scientists, Scientists of Horticulture, Scientists
involved in Precision Farming activities, Stakeholders of precision Farming etc., the universe of
items pertaining to the SWOC on Precision farming have been prepared and presented in
Annexure C.
Considering your competency, I am very much pleased to seek your valuable judgment
on the relevancy of these components and its weightages given in Annexure –A, B & C. Kindly
record your valuable judgement by putting (√) mark in the appropriate column. If you feel any
more important variables, kindly add the same with your judgment.
Thanking in advance for your kind contribution in completing this portion of her research
work.
The schedule duly filled shall be mailed back at your earliest convenience in the enclosed
self-addressed stamped envelope.
With kind regards,
Yours Sincerely,
(T.RATHAKRISHNAN)
Encl:
1. Schedules-Annexure-A, B & C
2. Self -addressed, stamped envelope
ANNEXURE-A
ATTITUDE OF PRECISION FARM PRACTITIONERS

TOWARDS PRECISION FARMING
Please state the following statements given below for its favourableness/
unfavourableness with respect to attitude of farmers towards Precision Farming. You may please
indicate your opinion in the five point continuum ranging from Most unfavourable to Most
Favourable with scores ranging from one to five respectively. Kindly note that it is not intended
to measure your attitude towards precision farming, but to assess the degree of favourableness
or unfavourableness of the statements so as to construct an attitude scale as suggested by
Thurstone and Chave (Equal appearing interval scale)
A---------------------B---------------------C---------------------D-----------------------E
1 2 3 4 5
Most unfavourable Neutral Most

Favourable
MUF-Most Unfavourable; UF-Unfavourable; N-Neutral; F-Favourable;
MF-Most Favourable
S.No Statements MUF UF N F MF

1. Huge financial investment is needed for Precision
Farming.
2. Precision Farming requires good linkage
with nearby markets
3. Precision Farming is one of the means to stabilize
farmer’s income
4. Precision Farming helps in the conservation of natural
resources.
5. Precision Farming prevents migration of farmers to urban
areas in search of employment.
6. Precision Farming does not help in the growth of allied
sectors.
7. Employment opportunity throughout the year is less in
Precision Farming.
8. Precision Farming could be possible only by big farmers
9. Precision Farming encourages commercial agriculture.
10 Precision Farming practices cannot be implemented with
the available natural resources at farm level.
11 Retaining people in agriculture is impossible
through Precision Farming.
12 Precision Farming consumes more agricultural labour
and hence increases the cost of cultivation.
13 Specialized skills are required to practice Precision
Farming.
14 Precision Farming makes agriculture as a business or
profession
15 Precision Farming will attract farm youth towards
farming.
16 Prior training is not essential to take up Precision
Farming.
17 Precision Farming encourages cultivation of high value
crops.
18 Precision Farming is the shift from conventional method
of farming.
19 Without loan assistance/subsidy, its impossible to take up
Precision Farming.
20 Precision Farming provides more avenues for income
generation.
21 Precision Farming least considers the utilization of under
used resources.
22 Precision Farming does not involve value addition and
processing activities.
23 Precision Farming helps the farm family to carry on the
farming tradition, over years.
24 Precision Farming does not require management skills.
25 Precision Farming consider judicious and scientific use
of farm inputs
26 Market forecast is an essential component for successful
Precision Farming.
27 Precision Farming creates very less opportunities for off

farm employment.
28 Precision Farming does not provide opportunity for the

farmer to increase skills in different activities
29 Innovative farmers are always prefer to take up Precision

farming.
30 Farmers with inadequate finance cannot go for Precision

Farming.
31 Nature of Precision Farming varies according to agro-

climatic zones
32 Precision Farming requires constant technical guidance

for effective farming.
33 Expansion of business network is least possible in
Precision Farming
34 Precision farming can be taken up as much land as the
farmers can personally care for.
35 Eco-friendly crop management technologies are not
36 Lack of planning affects Precision Farming.
37 The indiscriminate uses of agricultural chemicals are
restricted in Precision farming.
38 Precision farming is only for the educated farmers.
39 I will definitely advise a farmer to take up Precision
Farming for increasing his farm income.
40 One of the principles of Precision Farming is reduces the
environmental deterioration.
41 Precision Farming technologies are too complex to
follow.
42 Precision Farming requires regular contact with
Scientists.
43 Precision Farming technologies are not risky to adopt.
44 Practicing Precision Farming is the only way to increase
farm income.
45 Precision Farming is said to be a good practice, but the
economic situation of most farmers does not permit it.
46 Precision Farming require regular contact with

Agriculture consultants.
47 If the neighbouring farmers want to form an association
for the purpose of adopting Precision Farming, I will join
the association.
48 I think Precision Farming increases the profits of
Agricultural Products.
49 Precision Farming is feasible for the rich farmers only.
50 Precision Farming is said to be a good practice but trials
have to be made to prove its worth before adoption.
51 Adoption of Precision Farming can improve the Socio
economic conditions of the farmers.
52 I have no trust on Precision Farming strategy.
53 Precision Farming opens and enhances new export
markets.
54 Precision Farming involves simple technologies.
55 Precision Farming is entirely a new practice and so I am
reluctant to adopt it.
56 I think Precision Farming makes agricultural producers

more competitive.
57 Precision Farming makes me highly dependable on

scientists.
58 I feel Precision Farming is useful for more rational use of

pesticides.
59 Precision farming will decrease the production cost by

reducing the input purchases.
60 Precision farming will troublesome the farmers because it

needs more attention.
61 Management skills are very much required to Precision

Farming.
62 Precision Farming has complicated practices to adopt.
63 Developing Good entrepreneurs can be possible through

Precision Farming.
64 Training helps in developing positive attitude of farmers

towards Precision Farming.
65 Precision Farming creates more opportunities for off farm

employment.
66 Training on Precision Farming is essential to improve the

skill and competence of Precision practitioners.
67 Precision farming association improve coordination

among the members.
68 Risk taking is the important characteristic of a successful

precision farming practitioner.
69 Market linkage is a very important factor to take up

Precision Farming.
70 Meeting of precision farmers contribute in exchange of

their experiences.
71 Precision farmers association can get loan from financial

institution than individual.
72 Practicing Precision farming facilitates to get good

guidance from the extension functionaries.
73 Formation of Precision Farmers association is must for

better development in Precision Farming.
74 Precision farming increases power to take decision in

farm activities .
75 Precision farming requires better contact with extension

officer and other extension agencies.
76 Constant guidance is needed for effective operation of

Precision farming
77 Precision farming envisages significant improvement in

the economic conditions of the farmers.
78 Practicing Precision farming increase the risk taking

79 Precision farming serve as one of the indicators for

measuring the status of a farmer.
ANNEXURE -B

OBJECTIVES
1. To study the socio- psychological determinants of the Precision Farm practitioners.
3. To analyse the effectiveness of Precision farming as perceived by the Precision Farm
practitioners.
4. To study the market associated activities performed by the practitioners of Precision
Farming.
5. To analyse the intervention of stakeholders viz., Researchers/ Extension personnel,
Input Dealers, Drip Marketers, Produce Marketing Personnel,
Kindly record your judgement by putting (√) mark in the appropriate column. If you feel
any more important variables, kindly add the same with your judgment.
S.No. Independent variables Most relevant Relevant Not relevant
1. Age
2. Education
3. Land holding size
4. Area under Precision Farming
5. Experience in Precision Farming
6. Farming Experience
7. Cropping intensity
8. Irrigation intensity
9. Annual income from Farming
10. Annual Income from precision
Farming
11. Orientation with Research station
12. Innovativeness
13. Risk bearing ability
14. Extension participation
15. Economic motivation
S.No. Independent variables Most relevant Relevant Not relevant
16. Credit orientation
17. Access to credit facilities
18. Leadership potential
19. Employment generation
20. Availability of agro inputs
21. Attitude towards precision
Farming
22. Support received from
Agri,/Horti. Development
programmes
23. Information Sharing behaviour
24. Decision making pattern
25. Level of aspiration
26. Need satisfaction
27. Orientation with agriculture
consultants
28. Facilitation Skill
29. Management skills
30. Participation in Precision farmers
Association
31. Participation in Agriculture
/Horticulture developmental
programmes.
SIGNATURE
NAME AND ADDRESS

ANNEXURE C

SWOC Analysis has been operationalised as S (Strengths)- Any internal asset viz.,
Technological know-how, motivation, finance, which will help to meet demands and to fight off
challenges. W (Weaknesses)- internal deficits hindering the farmers in meeting demands.
O (Opportunities)- Any external circumstance or trend that favours the demand for
farmers specific competence. C (Challenges)- Any external circumstance or trend which will
decrease the demand for the farmers competence.
Based on your expertise and experience in Precision Farming kindly indicate the relevancy
weightage score for each of the item under each component from 1 to 10.
SWOC Components Weightage Scores (1 to 10)

S-Strengths
1. Increases crop yield
2. Increases labour productivity
3. Improved product quality
4. Effective and efficient pest management
5. Enhance bulk procurement of inputs
6. Technical support from stakeholders
7. Sharing of information with the Association members
8. Increases area of cultivation
9. Decreases human health risk
10. Diversification of crops
11. Uniform water distribution
12. Surface and ground water conservation
13. Economized use of water
14. High economic efficiency
15. Minimized fertilizer loss
16. Increases overall efficiency of the land
17. Change of cropping pattern
18. Easy disposal of produce
19. Gained skill in grading the produce
20. Energy, water and soil conservation
21. Greatest return on investment on each input.
W-Weakness
1. No initiative for assessing in-field variation
2. Selectivity in usage of PF technologies
3. High initial investment cost
4. Requires skilled labour
5. Additional maintenances cost
6. Requires quality water
7. Clogging of emitters
8. Difficulty in intercultural operations
9. Non-suitability to all areas / crops / soil types
10. Lack of technical know – how
11. Fragmentation of land holdings
12.Damage of drip lines by rats and rodents
O-Opportunities
I Economic:
1. Provision of bank loan
2. Availability of subsidies
3. Increased agricultural commodity prices
4. Resolves food security issues
5. Approach to attain sustainable agriculture
6. Contributes to economic growth by increasing yields
II. Political:
7. Financial support from government
III. Social:
8. Protecting environmental quality
9. Development of specialist consultant sector
10. Involvement of private agency
11. Decreased Poverty
12. Modernization of production
13. More free time
14. Attracting the farm youth
15. Low migration rates
IV. Technological:
16. Improvising of extension services
17. Less pollution of underground water with fertilizer
residues
C-Challenges
I. Economic:
Economic:
1. High cost of water soluble fertilizers
2. Dependence on Import
3. Lack of fund to extend modern technology
4. Underdevelopment of market infrastructure
II. Political:
5. Unstableness of government policies
6. Non-agricultural policy priorities
III. Social:
7. The time period to realize the return on investment is
more
8. The price of PF tools are viable only for larger
enterprises
9. Unskillfulness of labour resources
10. Water is a celestial body.
11. Farmers expectations on future political
changes
12. Weak awareness of farmers on advantages of the
technology
IV. Technological:
13. Inadequate availability of spare parts
14. Lack of domestic technology supply
15. No Free flow of water in the undulated topography
16. Poor electricity supply
APPENDIX 1I (A)
Attitude Statements with Equal appearing Intervals , Scale values and Q values
Sl. Statement Equal appearing
Scale value Q value Compartments
No. No. class intervals
1. 17 0.125 1.384 0.125 I
2. 13 0.214 0.973
3. 63 0.214 0.224
4. 14 0.333 -1.661
5. 40 0.333 -0.033
6. 5 0.510 0.256
7. 9 0.510 0.252
8. 20 0.511 -0.166 0.672 II
9. 36 0.512 -0.833
10. 39 0.513 -0.750
11. 56 0.514 0.215
12. 78 1.701 1.600 1.219 III
13. 79 1.702 1.575
14. 77 1.785 1.453 1.766 IV
15. 66 1.834 1.506
16. 51 1.836 1.507
17. 37 1.837 1.496
18. 44 1.838 1.466
19. 47 1.839 0.413
20. 53 1.841 0.496
21. 59 1.845 1.497
22. 64 1.846 1.498
23. 71 1.847 1.499
24. 75 1.850 1.506
25. 76 1.851 1.507
26. 67 1.875 1.150
27. 3 1.900 1.566
28. 25 1.902 1.567
29. 32 1.904 1.569
30. 48 1.906 1.571
31. 69 1.908 1.566
32. 65 1.919 1.178
33. 68 1.932 1.156
34. 73 1.934 1.189
35. 74 1.946 1.184
36. 4 2.010 1.253
37. 45 2.021 1.256
38. 54 2.034 1.256
39. 58 2.042 1.257
40. 61 2.054 1.254
41. 70 2.064 1.258
42. 72 2.071 1.354
43. 15 2.130 1.854
44. 34 2.154 1.352
45. 43 2.172 1.174
46. 26 2.250 1.500
47. 29 2.253 0.916
48. 19 2.304 1.050
49. 21 2.327 1.054
50. 24 2.349 1.058
51. 31 2.300 0.966 2.313 V
52. 23 2.512 1.255
53. 50 2.534 0.833
54. 35 2.667 0.411 2.859 VI
55. 18 2.723 0.954
56. 2 3.254 0.916
57. 10 3.325 2.553
58. 27 3.565 1.504
59. 30 3.502 1.250 3.406 VII
60. 49 3.506 3.166
61. 42 3.667 1.424
62. 12 3.712 1.955
63. 16 3.725 1.458
64. 28 3.741 1.457
65. 55 3.785 1.543
66. 8 3.833 2.150
67. 33 3.835 3.083
68. 38 3.837 1.080
69. 52 3.839 3.083
70. 7 3.903 0.907
71. 11 3.904 0.576
72. 22 3.908 2.155
73. 46 3.900 0.508 3.953 VIII
74. 1 4.102 1.009
75. 41 4.124 1.078
76. 57 4.143 2.256
77. 60 4.154 2.084
78. 6 4.166 1.173
79. 62 4.500 3.750 4.500 IX
APPENDIX II (B)
Selected Attitude Statements with Scale values and corresponding Q values
Scale Q
S.No Statements
values values
1. Huge financial investment is needed for Precision Farming. 4.102 1.009
2. Precision Farming requires good linkage

with nearby markets 3.254 0.916
3. Precision Farming is one of the means to stabilize farmer’s

income 1.900 1.566
4. Precision Farming helps in the conservation of natural

resources. 2.010 1.253
5. Precision Farming prevents migration of farmers to urban areas

in search of employment. 0.510 0.256
6. Precision Farming does not help in the growth of allied sectors. 4.166 1.173
7. Employment opportunity throughout the year is less in

Precision Farming. 3.903 0.907
8. Precision Farming could be possible only by big farmers 3.833 2.150
9. Precision Farming encourages commercial agriculture. 0.510 0.252
10. Precision Farming practices cannot be implemented with the

available natural resources at farm level. 3.325 2.553
11 Retaining people in agriculture is impossible

through Precision Farming. 3.904 0.576
12 Precision Farming consumes more agricultural labour

and hence increases the cost of cultivation. 3.712 1.955
13 Specialized skills are required to practice Precision

Farming. 0.214 0.973
14 Precision Farming makes agriculture as a business or profession 0.333 -1.661
15 Precision Farming will attract farm youth towards farming. 2.130 1.854
16 Prior training is not essential to take up Precision Farming. 3.725 1.458
17 Precision Farming encourages cultivation of high value 0.125 1.384

crops.
Scale Q
S.No Statements
values values
18 Precision Farming is the shift from conventional method of

farming. 2.723 0.954
19 Without loan assistance/subsidy, its impossible to take up

20 Precision Farming provides more avenues for income 0.511 -0.166

generation.
21 Precision Farming least considers the utilization of under used

resources. 2.327 1.054
22 Precision Farming does not involve value addition and

processing activities. 3.908 2.155
23 Precision Farming helps the farm family to carry on the

farming tradition, over years. 2.512 1.255
24 Precision Farming does not require management skills. 2.349 1.058
25 Precision Farming consider judicious and scientific use of

farm inputs 1.902 1.567
26 Market forecast is an essential component for successful

27 Precision Farming creates very less opportunities for off farm

employment. 3.565 1.504
28 Precision Farming does not provide opportunity for the farmer

to increase skills in different activities 3.741 1.457
29 Innovative farmers are always prefer to take up Precision

farming. 2.253 0.916
30 Farmers with inadequate finance can not go for Precision

Farming. 3.502 1.250
31 Nature of Precision Farming varies according to agro-

climatic zones 2.300 0.966
32 Precision Farming requires constant technical guidance for

effective farming. 1.904 1.569
33 Expansion of business network is least possible in Precision

Farming 3.835 3.083
Scale Q
S.No Statements
values values
34 Precision farming can be taken up as much land as the

farmers can personally care for. 2.154 1.352
35 Eco-friendly crop management technologies are not

recommended in Precision Farming. 2.667 0.411
36 Lack of planning affects Precision Farming. 0.512 -0.833
37 The indiscriminate uses of agricultural chemicals are restricted

in Precision farming. 1.837 1.496
38 Precision farming is only for the educated farmers. 3.837 1.080
39 I will definitely advise a farmer to take up Precision Farming

for increasing his farm income. 0.513 -0.750
40 One of the principles of Precision Farming is reduces the

environmental deterioration. 0.333 -0.033
41 Precision Farming technologies are too complex to follow. 4.124 1.078
42 Precision Farming requires regular contact with Scientists. 3.667 1.424
43 Precision Farming technologies are not risky to adopt. 2.172 1.174
44 Practicing Precision Farming is the only way to increase

farm income. 1.838 1.466
45 Precision Farming is said to be a good practice, but the

economic situation of most farmers does not permit it. 2.021 1.256
46 Precision Farming require regular contact with

Agriculture consultants. 3.900 0.508
47 If the neighbouring farmers want to form an association for

the purpose of adopting Precision Farming, I will join the
association. 1.839 0.413
48 I think Precision Farming increases the profits of

Agricultural Products. 1.906 1.571
49 Precision Farming is feasible for the rich farmers only. 3.506 3.166
50 Precision Farming is said to be a good practice but trials have

to be made to prove its worth before adoption. 2.534 0.833
51 Adoption of Precision Farming can improve the Socio

economic conditions of the farmers. 1.836 1.507
Scale Q
S.No Statements
values values
52 I have no trust on Precision Farming strategy. 3.839 3.083
53 Precision Farming opens and enhances new export markets. 1.841 0.496
54 Precision Farming involves simple technologies. 2.034 1.256
55 Precision Farming is entirely a new practice and so I am

reluctant to adopt it. 3.785 1.543
56 I think Precision Farming makes agricultural producers more

competitive. 0.514 0.215
57 Precision Farming makes me highly dependable on scientists. 4.143 2.256
58 I feel Precision Farming is useful for more rational use of

pesticides. 2.042 1.257
59 Precision farming will decrease the production cost by

reducing the input purchases. 1.845 1.497
60 Precision farming will troublesome the farmers because it

needs more attention. 4.154 2.084
61 Management skills are very much required to Precision

Farming. 2.054 1.254
62 Precision Farming has complicated practices to adopt. 4.500 3.750
63 Developing Good entrepreneurs can be possible through

64 Training helps in developing positive attitude of farmers

towards Precision Farming. 1.846 1.498
65 Precision Farming creates more opportunities for off farm

employment. 1.919 1.178
66 Training on Precision Farming is essential to improve the skill

and competence of Precision practitioners. 1.834 1.506
67 Precision farming association improve coordination among the

members. 1.875 1.150
68 Risk taking is the important characteristic of a successful

precision farming practitioner. 1.932 1.156
69 Market linkage is a very important factor to take up Precision

Farming. 1.908 1.566
Scale Q
S.No Statements
values values
70 Meeting of precision farmers contribute in exchange of their

experiences. 2.064 1.258
71 Precision farmers association can get loan from financial

institution than individual. 1.847 1.499
72 Practicing Precision farming facilitates to get good guidance

from the extension functionaries. 2.071 1.354
73 Formation of Precision Farmers association is must for better

development in Precision Farming. 1.934 1.189
74 Precision farming increases power to take decision in farm

activities . 1.946 1.184
75 Precision farming requires better contact with extension

officer and other extension agencies. 1.850 1.506
76 Constant guidance is needed for effective operation of

Precision farming 1.851 1.507
77 Precision farming envisages significant improvement in

the economic conditions of the farmers. 1.785 1.453
78 Practicing Precision farming increase the risk taking

ability of the growers. 1.701 1.600
79 Precision farming serve as one of the indicators for measuring

the status of a farmer. 1.702 1.575
Final Items selected to measure the attitude of farmers towards Precision Farming
S. Statement Scale
Q Value Statement
No. No. Value
Precision Farming encourages cultivation of
1. 17 0.125 1.384
high value crops.
Precision Farming provides more avenues for
2. 20 0.511 -0.166
income generation.
Practicing Precision Farming increase the risk
3 78 1.701 1.600
taking ability of the growers.
Precision Farming envisages significant
4 77 1.785 1.453 improvement in the economic conditions of the
farmers.
Nature of Precision Farming varies according
5 31 2.300 0.966
to agro-climatic zones
Eco-friendly crop management technologies
6 35 2.667 0.411
are not recommended in Precision Farming.
Farmers with inadequate finance can not go
7 30 3.502 1.250
for Precision Farming.
Precision Farming requires regular contact with
8 46 3.900 0.508
agriculture consultants.
Precision Farming has complicated practices
9 62 4.500 3.75
to adopt.
APPENDIX III
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE-UNIT-I
PART I
General Particulars
Name of the District:
Name of the block:
Name of the Revenue Village:
Name of the Respondent:
1. Age : -------------- years Young/Middle/Old
2. Educational status : Illiterate / Functionally literate / Primary Education /Middle

school Education / Secondary Education / Collegiate
3. Land Holding Size :------------- acres. Marginal/Small/Medium/Big
4. Area under Precision

Farming :----------------- acres.
Specify the Crop..
1.
2.
5. Experience in PF : ---------Years.
6. Farming experience : --------Years.
7.Irrigation Potentiality :
Sources of irrigation Total area under irrigation Size of holding in acres

Well
Bore well
Canal
Total
8. Annual Income from
Farming :
9 . Annual Income from
Precision Farming :
10. Orientation with Research station :
A. How often you are visiting the research station and getting information on precision
farming?
1. Frequency of the contact?
a. Daily
b. Once in a week
c. Twice in a week
d. Once in a fortnight
e. Once in a month
f. Rarely
g. Never
2. Purpose of contact
a. Exclusively for Precision farming
b. Other crops
c. General
11. Participation in Research station Activities

Please specify the your participation in research extension activities.
Sl.No Activities Yes No
1. Scientists –Farmers Discussion
2. Farmers Day
3. Field Day
4. Study tour
5. On farm testing
6. Front line demonstration
7. Training
8. Others
12. Innovativeness:
S.No Statements Very True True Never

1 Always I seek innovative farming approaches.
2 On receipt of the new idea I try it on
experimental basis.
3 If the new idea satisfy my requirement, I will
certainly adopt.
4 I diffuse the new idea to my peer group through
farmers forum
13. Risk bearing ability:
Response
S.No. Statements
SA A UD DA SDA
1. Precision farmers should grow large number of crops to
avoid greater risk involved in growing one or two crops.
2. A Precision farmer should rather take more of chances in
making a huge profit than to be content with smaller but
less risk of profit.
3. Precision farmer who is willing to take greater risk than
the average farmer usually does better financially.
4. It is good for a Precision farmer to take risk when he
knows his chance of success is fairly high.
5. It is better for a Precision farmer to try new farming
methods.
6. Trying an entirely new method in farming by a Precision
farmer involves risk but it is worth.
14. Extension participation:

Sl.No Activities Frequency of participation
1. Meetings Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
fortnight /Once in a month /Rarely/Never
2. Demonstration Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
3 Training Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
4 Front line demonstration Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
5 On farm trial Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
6 Campaign Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
7 Field Visit Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
8 Field day Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
9 Special Occasions Once in a week /Twice in a week /Once in a
15. Economic Motivation:
Please state your agreement, disagreement and un decidedness on the following
statements;
Sl.No Statements SA A UD DA SDA
1. A farmer should work towards large yields and
economic profits.
2. The most successful farmer is one who makes the most
profit.
3. A farmer should try and any new fare ideas which may
earn him more money.
4. A farmer should grow cash crops to increase monetary
profits in comparison to growing of food crops for
home consumption
5. It is difficult for farmer’s children to make good start
unless he provides them with economic assistance.
6. A farmer must earn his living, but the most important
thing in life can not be defined in economic terms.
16. Credit orientation:

1. What is your opinion towards credit facilities?
Sl.No Statements SA A UD DA SDA
1. Only when there are no other alternatives, you would
avail credit.
2. You would be ready to avail credit even when there is
risk involved
3. You would invest capital only within your means if at
all you start an enterprise
2.Do you think that borrowing is

a. Very essential
b. Good
c. Tolerable
d. Must be avoided
e. Not interested
f. Sin
17. Access to credit facilities:
Please tick where appropriate on the following information on access to credit facilities.
1. Proximity to your nearest lending institution/agency.
a. Very near
b. Not far
c. Far away
d. Don’t know where it is
2. Whom do you approach when you need a small loan?
a. Bank
b. Government agencies
c. NGO
d. Private money lender
e. Neighbour or friends
f. None at all.
3. How would you rate the interest rate?
a. Very high
b. High
c. Reasonable
d. Low
e. Very low
f. Don’t know
4. How would you rate the loan procedures?
a. Tedious
b. Difficult
c. Somewhat difficult
d. Okay
e. Easy
f. Don’t know
5. How fast do you get a loan when you apply for it?
a. Very fast
b. Fast
c. In reasonable time
d. Slow
e. Never done
6. Have you received any credit facility?------------------------------------------
7. How much was the loan?----------------------------------------------
8. What was the agreed period for repayment?-------------------
9. Which micro finance institutions provide credit facilities in your area?
a. --------------------------
b. --------------------------
c. --------------------------
18. Leadership potential:

Sl.No Criteria Agree Disagree
1. I can give clear directions
2. In a difficult situation,
usually I will know what to
do
3. I feel comfortable being a
group leader
Sl.No Criteria Agree Disagree
4. Others usually come to me
for opinion
5. Give a choice, I would like
to be a group member than a
leader.
6. Mostly leaders have more
responsibilities and less
recognition
19.Employment Generation:
1. How many persons in your family are involved in Precision Farming ?
2. Approximately how much time does your family spend on Precision Farming
technologies?
3.How many persons are hired?
4. At what frequency do you need hired labour?
a. Once per month
b. Twice per month
c. Thrice per month
d. Specify.
5 How much is the rate of wage per day for hired?------
20. Availability of agro inputs:

1. How would you rate availability of agro inputs?
a. Easily available
b. Available
c. Difficult
d. Not available
2. Which agro input dealers provide services in your area?----------------
3.How would you rate prices of agro inputs?
a. Very expensive
b. Expensive
c. Reasonable
d. Cheap
f. Very cheap
4.How reliable are the agro inputs?
a. Very reliable
b. Reliable
c. Not very reliable
d. Problematic
5. Do you get all types of farm inputs you require?
a. Yes
b. No.
c. Not sure
6. Which companies supply agro inputs in your area?
a. ---------------------
b.----------------------
c.----------------------
21. Attitude towards Precision farming:
Sl.No Statement SA A UD DA SDA
1. Precision Farming encourages cultivation of high value
crops.
2 Precision Farming provides more avenues for income
generation.
3. Practicing Precision farming increase the risk taking
4. Precision farming envisages significant improvement
in the economic conditions of the farmers.
5. Nature of Precision Farming varies according to agro-
climatic zones
6. Eco-friendly crop management technologies are not
7. Farmers with inadequate finance can not go for
Precision Farming.
8. Precision Farming require regular contact with
Agriculture consultants.
9. Precision Farming has complicated practices to adopt.
22. Information seeking pattern
Frequency
S.No Sources
Frequently occasionally Rarely
A. Institutional Sources
VAO
DRDA Official
Block level officers
Panchayat office
Training organization
Bank officials
Others(if any)
B. Non-Institutional Sources
Co-operatives
Progressive farmers
Friends
Relatives
Neighbours
Farm Leaders
Frequency
S.No Sources
Frequently occasionally Rarely
C. Media Sources
1. Radio
2. T.V.
3. Video
4. News papers
5. Wall paintings
6. Field boards
7. Posters/Charts
8. Folders/pamphlets/Leaflets
9. Telephone
10. Mobile phone
11. Internet
12. Farm and home visits
13. Tours/Field trips
14. Group meetings/Discussions
15. Campaigns
16. Exhibitions
17. Field days
23. Information sharing pattern

To whom do you disseminate
S.No regularly rarely Never
the information you know
1 Friends
2 Relatives / Family members
3 Neighbours
4 Other PFA members in the
village and outside the village
5 Others if any
24. Farm Decision making:
S. Activities Type of Decision
No Joint decision
Joint Joint Joint Joint

Independent
decision decision decision with decision
Decision
with their with PF stakeholders with
family Forum friends and
members Members relatives.
1. Planning activities.
2. Obtaining credit
3. Initiating Precision
Farming
4. Participation in PF
activities
5. Participation in
precision farmers
6. Association
others
25. Level of aspiration:

1. What is the extent of education that your children schools have?
School level/ College Level/ Technical (or) Professional.
2. What kind of job or work your children should taken after their education?
Agriculture/ Government job/Business (or) Profession
3. Compared to previous years what would be your expectation of the increase in
standard of living for the next three years?
Moderate/Good/Very Good
4. What is the extent of awareness level that your group members should have?
Nil/ Partial/Full
5. What kind of improvement should be taken after joining Precision Farmers
Association?
More sharing with fellow farmers/ More contact with stakeholders/ Exposure to
Marketing avenues .
PART II
A. TECHNOLOGICAL UTILIZATION PATTERN
Sl.No Key Technologies Adopted Not Adopted

1. Remote sensing Technology
2. Chisel plough
3. Hi-tech Community Nursery
4. Drip System
5. Application of WSF
6. Grading
7. Sorting
8 Packing
9. Market tie up
10. Others
B.INTERVENTION OF STAKEHOLDERS AS PERCEIVED BY THE FARMERS
Type of Frequency of contact On the Basis of

Sl.No Stakeholders
intervention Daily Occ. Rare. Never Project Need Voluntarily
1. Researcher/
Extension
personnel
2. Input
Dealers
3. Drip
Marketers
4. Produce
Marketing
Personnel
5. Agri Clinics
PART III
PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
Please give your agreement and disagreement towards the statement which denotes various
impacts of direct and indirect consequences experienced by you in adopting precision
farming.
S.No Perceived Effectiveness Agree Disagree

A Direct Effects
1. Increased income
2. Provide higher education for children
3. Increased standard of living
4. Increased investment on other enterprises
B. Indirect Effects
i Purchasing of new lands
ii Improvement in existing lands
iii Deepened the existing well
iv Dug new well
v Purchase of additional livestock
vi Purchase of new implements tools, equipments
2. Material Changes
i Purchase of household materials
a. New jewel
b. Vehicle
c. TV
d. Radio
e. Tape
f. Phone
3. Economic Changes
i Diversified the cultivation to other crops
ii Increased savings/deposits
iii Repaid old loan
iv More money invested in farming
4. Social Changes
i Increased organization participation like PF
Association, Farm Science club, Farmer’s Forum etc.,
ii Increased Opinion leadership quality
iii Political participation
iv Personal Establishment in Near by city.
5. Personal Changes
i Increased consultation with fellow farmers
ii Outside contact increased
S.No Perceived Effectiveness Agree Disagree
iii Become an effective communicator
iv Got social recognition
v Increased opportunity to know about development
activities
vi Better extension contact
vii Emerged as a Leader
viii Increased the rate of media exposure
ix Subscribed for farm journal & general publication
PART IV
MARKET ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES
1. Marketing Assessment & Assistance

Sl.No Functions Responses
Good Moderate Poor
1. Information on demand based production
2 Exposure to successful PF Forum
3 Market trend and choice of crop
4 Forecasting Market Price of commodities
5 Market tie-up
6 Assured price and sale of the produce
7 Creating logo
2. Activities of Precision Farmers Association

Sl.No Functions Responses
Good Moderate Poor
1 Relationship building with stakeholders
2 Sharing of responsibilities
3 Sharing of farm related information
4 Establishing community nursery and pooling
of resources
5 Availing financial assistance
6 Bulk Purchase of inputs
7 Eliminating middle men
8 Price fixation
9 Bulk disposal of produce
3. Commodity Transportation:
Please provide your opinion about transportation of goods and mobility in your area.
1. How do you usually take your commodities to market?
a. Personally carry them
b. Animal driven cart
c. Small truck
d. Truck
e. Use Bicycles
f. Others---------------
2. How are the road facilities for you?
a. Concrete
b. Tarred road
c. Good mud road
d. Rough mud road
e. No proper road
3. How do you avail a conveyance?
a. Own
b. Borrowed
c. Hired
d. Public transport
e. Any other-----------------
4. How easily do you get transport facilities?
a. Very easy
b. Easy
c. Not easy
d. Difficult
e. Very Difficult
5. How would you rate the reliability of the conveyance?
a. Very reliable
b. Reliable
c. Not very Reliable
d. Problematic
6. How would you rate the transport expenses?
7. How far is your PF forum from your home?
8. How would you describe topography of your area?
a. Undulating
b. Hilly
c. Flat
d. Any other--------------
9. How wide is the road/path you to get your produce to market?
10. Which other markets outside your area, do you sell your produce?
a. -----------------
b. -----------------
4. Marketing Infrastructure
1. Where do you sell your products?
a. Near homes
b. Traditional markets
c. Near roads or path
d. Commercial markets
e. Mobile markets
f. Any others-----------------
2. Do you have any proper enclosures for selling/ keeping goods?
a. Use home premises
b. Locally constructed premises
c. Rented premises
d. Government constructed markets
e. Any others--------------
3. What facilities do you use for keeping/storing fresh produce?
a. Keep in baskets
b. Keep in shop shelves
c. Keep in well aerated rooms
d. Any other--------------
4. Do you support the importance of marketing infrastructure for your area?
a. Strongly support
b. Support
c. Not sure
d. Don’t support
5. How would you rate the marketing infrastructure expenses?
a. Very expensive
b. Expensive
c. Reasonable
d. Cheap
e. Very cheap
6. How do you take decision regarding marketing of produce?
a. Self-decision
b. Consulting family members
c. Consulting PF forum Members
7. Middleman involvement
a. Only through middleman
b. Partly through middleman
c. Direct sale to the firm
PART V
SWOC ON PRECISION FARMING
Based on your perceived importance of each item, kindly indicate your weightage as in the
columns.
S-Strengths More Moderate Least

1.Increases crop yield
2.Increases labour productivity
3.Improved product quality
4.Effective and efficient pest management
5.Enhance bulk procurement of inputs
6.Technical support from stakeholders
7.Sharing of information with the forum
members
8.Increases area of cultivation
9.Decreases human health risk
10.Uniform water distribution
11.Surface and ground water conservation
12.Economized use of water
13.High economic efficiency
14.Minimized fertilizer loss
15.Change of cropping pattern
16.Easy disposal of produce
17.Gained skill in grading the produce
18.Energy, water and soil conservation
19.Greatest return on investment on each
input.
W-Weakness More Moderate Least
1.No initiative for assessing in-field variation
2.Selectivity in usage of PF technologies
3.High initial investment cost
4.Requires skilled labour
5.Additional maintenances cost
6.Requires quality water
7.Clogging of emitters
8.Difficulty in intercultural operations
9. Non-suitability to all areas / crops / soil
types
10.Lack of technical know – how
11.Fragmentation of land holdings
12. Damage of drip lines by rats and rodents
O-Opportunities More Moderate Least
I. . Economic:
1.Provision of bank loan
2.Availability of subsidies
3.Increased agricultural commodity prices
4.Resolves food security issues
5.Approach to attain sustainable agriculture
6.Contributes to economic growth by
increasing yields
II. Political:
7.Financial support from government
III. Social:
8.Protecting environmental quality
9.Development of specialist consultant sector
10.Involvement of private agency
11.Modernization of production
12.More free time
13.Attracting the farm youth
14.Low migration rates
IV. Technological:
15.Improvising of extension services
16. Less pollution of underground water with
fertilizer residues
C-Challenges More Moderate Least
I. Economic:
1.High cost of water soluble fertilisers
2.Underdevelopment of market infrastructure
II. Political:
3. Unstableness of government policies
III. Social:
4. The time period to realise the return on
investment is more
5. The price of PF tools are viable only for
larger enterprises
6. Unskillfulness of labour resources
7. Farmers expectations on future political
changes
8. Weak awareness of farmers on advantages
of the technology
IV. Technological:
9. Inadequate availability of spare parts
10.Lack of domestic technology supply
11.No Free flow of water in the undulated
topography
12. Poor electricity supply
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE-UNIT-II
Name: Designation: Location:
A. INTERVENTION OF STAKEHOLDERS
On the Basis of
Sl.No Stakeholders Type of intervention
Project Need Voluntarily
1. Researcher/ Extension
personnel
2. Input Dealers
3. Drip Marketers
4. Produce Marketing
Personnel
5. Agri Clinics
B. SKILL REQUIRED
Read the following statements about your work environment and assess your
management competencies. First indicate the importance of this competency, at your work
on the following scale.
VI- Very important I-Important NI- Not important
For those competencies that you have rated Very Important or Important, assess
your level of competency using the following scale.
3-Highle Competent 2-Competent 1-Needs development
B1. Management Skills:
1. Strategic Skill
Importance Competence
S.No Skills Comments
(VI,I,NI) (3,2,1)
Brings innovative ideas,
1
concepts to the farmers
2 Demonstrates critical thinking
Keeps abreast of changes in
3
the commercial environment
Is oriented towards the
4
customer
Is innovative and tries new
5
approaches
Strives for continuous
6
improvement
7 Manages change effectively
2. Influencing Skills
(VI,I,NI) (3,2,1)
1 Is a clear communicator
Influences effectively,
2
directly, and indirectly.
3 Exhibits flexibility
4 Negotiates win-win outcomes
5 Builds effective relationships
3. Leadership Skills
(VI,I,NI) (3,2,1)
Creates a sense of shared
1
purpose
2 Leads a high performing team
Empowers the farmers to
3
achieve results
4 Manages performance
4.Implementation Skills
Skills Importance Competence Comments

S.No
(VI,I,NI) (3,2,1)
Plans ahead to meet the needs
1
of the farmers/clients
Demonstrates effective
2
organising skills
3 Manages time effectively
Demonstrates sound decision-
4 making and problem-solving
skills
Sees things through, despite
5
setbacks
5.Personal Factors
S.No Skills Importance Competence Comments

(VI,I,NI) (3,2,1)
1 Shows integrity
2 Develops self
3 Shows flexibility
4 Demonstrates drive and desire
to succeed
B2. Facilitating Skills:
Below is the list of several practices demonstrated by skilled facilitators. Rate

yourself on the 4 point scale based upon your current perceived level of proficiency
1. Presentation skill
Sl.
Skills Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
No
1. Being clear and to the point
2. Effectively & accurately capturing
participants comments
3. Maintaining eye contact with group
4. Speaking in easily understandable
language
5. Ensuring body language and voices
are appropriate
6. Giving clear instructions
2. Relationship skill:
Sl.
No
7. Showing respect for participants
diverse experience and
perceptions
8. Demonstrating the ability to listen
9. Acting in supportive and helpful
ways to participants
10. Maintaining a high level of
positive regard for participants
diverse capabilities
11. Showing sensitivity to
participants different learning and
developmental situations
12. Displaying congruence between
words, tone & body language
3. Learning Environment Management:

Sl.
No
13. Establishing an environment
supportive of individual self-
esteem, morale and commitment
to the organisation
Sl.
No
14. Demonstrating the view that
mistakes are positive learning
opportunities
15. Encouraging self-directed
learning
4. Continuous learning attitude:

Sl.
No
16. Demonstrating the capacity to
learn from participants
17. Applying the principle of co-
learning.
18. Demonstrating a non-defensive
reaction to feedback
5. Empathic attitude:
Sl. Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Skills
No
19. Using appropriate language
20. Maintaining an awareness and
respect for another person as he is
C. SWOC ANALYSIS ON PRECISION FARMING
Based on your perceived importance of each item, kindly indicate your weightage as in the
columns.
S-Strengths More Moderate Least

1.Increases crop yield
2.Increases labour productivity
3.Improved product quality
4.Effective and efficient pest management
5.Enhance bulk procurement of inputs
6.Technical support from stakeholders
7.Sharing of information with the forum members
8.Increases area of cultivation
9.Decreases human health risk
10.Uniform water distribution
11.Surface and ground water conservation
12.Economized use of water
13.High economic efficiency
14.Minimized fertilizer loss
15.Change of cropping pattern
16.Easy disposal of produce
17.Gained skill in grading the produce
18.Energy, water and soil conservation
19.Greatest return on investment on each input.
W-Weakness More Moderate Least
1.No initiative for assessing in-field variation
2.Selectivity in usage of PF technologies
3.High initial investment cost
4.Requires skilled labour
5.Additional maintenances cost
6.Requires quality water
7.Clogging of emitters
8.Difficulty in intercultural operations
9.Non-suitability to all areas / crops / soil types
10.Lack of technical know – how
11.Fragmentation of land holdings
12.Damage of drip lines by rats and rodents
O-Opportunities More Moderate Least
I. Economic:
1.Provision of bank loan
2.Availability of subsidies
3.Increased agricultural commodity prices
4.Resolves food security issues
5.Approach to attain sustainable agriculture
6.Contributes to economic growth by increasing
yields
II. Political:
7.Financial support from government
III. Social:
8.Protecting environmental quality
9.Development of specialist consultant sector
10.Involvement of private agency
11.Modernization of production
12.More free time
13.Attracting the farm youth
14.Low migration rates
IV. Technological:
15.Improvising of extension services
16.Less pollution of underground water with
fertilizer residues
C-Challenges More Moderate Least
Economic:
1.High cost of water soluble fertilisers
2.Underdevelopment of market infrastructure
II. Political:
3.Unstableness of government policies
III. Social:
4.The time period to realise the return on
investment is more
5.The price of PF tools are viable only for larger
enterprises
6.Unskillfulness of labour resources
7.Farmers expectations on future political
changes
8.Weak awareness of farmers on advantages of
the technology
IV. Technological:
9.Inadequate availability of spare parts
10.Lack of domestic technology supply
11.No Free flow of water in the undulated
topography
12.Poor electricity supply
APPENDIX IV (A)
Area under Principal crops in Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri district (2011-2012)
Dharmapuri Krishnagiri
S. No. Crops
Area (ha) % to total Area (ha) % to total
1. Paddy 4,485 2.80 11,512 5.90
2. Millets 66,924 41.81 75,687 38.80
3. Pulses 28,911 18.06 25,895 13.27
4. Sugarcane 4,341 2.71 1,219 0.62
5. Non food crops 24,965 15.60 35,268 18.08
6. Mango 5,177 3.23 34,626 17.75
7. Other fruits 847 0.53 1,561 0.80
8. Tapioca 16,274 10.17 434 0.22
9. Tomato 2,640 1.65 2,081 1.07
10. Other vegetables 7,59 0.47 2,537 1.30
11. Spices and condiments 3,796 2.37 2,578 1.32
12. Flowers 951 0.59 1,678 0.86
Total cropped area 1,60,070 100.00 1,95,071 100.00
Area under horticultural

3,0444 19.00 45,495 23.32
crops
S.No. Details Dharmapuri Krishnagiri

1. Area Under PF 6000 ha 8350 ha
2. PF following areas Morappur Hosur
(Blocks) Harur Thally
Karimangalam Shoolagiri
Palacode Kelamangalam
3. No. of PF 2008-2009 – 450ha 2008-2009 – 480ha
practitioners year 2009-2010 – 400 ha 2009-2010 – 670 ha
wise 2010-2011 – 500 ha 2010-2011 – 1200 ha
2011-2012 – 400 ha 2011-2012 – 1240 ha
2012-2013 – 440 ha 2012-2013 – 1220 ha
APPENDIX IV (B)
Land utilisation in Erode district
S. No Classification Area in Hectares
1. Forest 227511
2. Barren and Uncultivable uses 6270
3. Land put to Non-Agricultural uses 53004
4. Cultivable Waste 1707
5. Permanent Pastures and Other Grazing Land 101
6. Land Under Miscellaneous Tree Crops and Groves not 913
included in Net Area sown
7. Current Follows 64311
8. Other Fallow Land 19057
9. Net Area Sown 199389
10. Geographical Area according to Village Records 572264
11. Total Cropped Area 224786
12. Area cropped more than once 25397
Cropping pattern in Erode district
S. No Crops Area (ha)
1. Paddy 86,939
2. Cholam 11240
3. Pulses 31,498
4. Turmeric 12,664
5. Groundnut 55696
APPENDIX IV (C)
Land use pattern in Coimbatore district
Coimbatore
S. No. Particulars
Area (ha) Per cent
1. Forest area 6647 1.81
2. Uncultivable and barren lands 4787 1.30
3. Land put into non-agricultural use 74202 20.22
4. Cultivable waste 9062 2.45
5. Permanent pastures and other grazing lands 76 0.02
6. Miscellaneous trees not included in net sown area 3168 0.86
7. Current fallows 56219 15.32
8. Other fallows 30630 8.35
9. Net area sown 182306 49.67
10. Total geographical area 367000 100.00
I Area sown more than once 8841 2.41
II Gross cropped area 191147 52.08
Source: G - Returns of State statistical department, Coimbatore, Season and Crop report, 2011-
12, Government of Tamil Nadu
Coimbatore- Area Coverage Target 2012-13 (Ha)
Normal
Categories Crop Actual 2011- 2012 Target 2012- 2013 Achievement
Area
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total
Paddy SRI 1180 475 832 1307 500 700 1200 526
General 1407 812 476 1288 1900 300 2200 1553
Paddy Total 2587 1287 1308 2595 2400 1000 3400 2079
Millets Cholam 34448 13183 16421 29604 16000 21700 37700 21470
Maize 4839 1470 2978 4448 1500 3500 5000 4239
Ragi 59 6 14 20 100 500 600 14
Cumbu 195 73 22 95 200 0 200 47
Other Cereals 9 6 13 19 100 600 700 0
Millets Total 39549 14738 19448 34186 17900 26300 44200 25770
Pulses Red Gram 308 150 160 310 230 170 400 194
Black Gram 1183 615 776 1391 800 700 1500 848
Green Gram 1783 1343 580 1923 1300 700 2000 1498
Horse Gram 1914 403 1374 1777 470 1530 2000 1569
Bengalgram 1630 1 1311 1312 0 1300 1300 549
` 1110 0 1110 4230
Other Pulses 5990 3095 2438 5533 2900 1300 4200
Pulses Total 12809 5607 6639 12246 6810 5700 12510 8888
Oil Seeds Groundnut 7559 4879 2222 7101 5500 2300 7800 5285
Gingelly 478 549 92 641 550 130 680 456
Sunflower 15 6 32 38 100 40 140 10
Castor 75 26 6 32 50 20 70 74
Oil Seeds Total 8127 5460 2352 7812 6200 2490 8690 5825
Cotton Cotton 1047 753 94 847 500 601 1101 482
Sugarcane Sugarcane 2045 1048 379 1427 1100 300 1400 1442
Total 66164 28893 30220 59113 34910 36392 71301 44486

Perspectives of Stakeholders On Precision Farming PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perspectives of Stakeholders On Precision Farming PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSPECTIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS ON

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY

Thesis submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

S.R.PADMA, M.Sc (Ag.)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “PERSPECTIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS

award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION to

Place: Coimbatore Dr.T.RATHAKRISHNAN

Members: (Dr. V. RAVICHANDRAN)

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

III Interview schedule

IV (A) District details-Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri

IV (B) District details- Erode

IV (C) District details-Coimbatore

I extend my profound thanks to Dr.V.Ravichandran, Professor (Agricultural

I gratefully acknowledge SHASTRI Indo Canadian Institute, New Delhi for

I am very much privileged to learn from Dr.J. Vasanthakumar, Professor and

It is my pleasure to place on record the support and guidance extended by

I wish to acknowledge the timely help provided by Mr. K. Prabaharan, Assistant

I express my sincere thanks to Mr.M.Maruthachalam, Agricultural Supervisor, TNAU,

PERSPECTIVES OF STAKEHOLDERS ON PRECISION FARMING

Degree : Doctor of Philosophy (Agriculture) in

Chairman : Dr. T. RATHAKRISHNAN, Ph.D

The study entitled “Perspectives of Stakeholders on Precision Farming” aimed to

Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri districts in the North western zones, Coimbatore and

Researchers, Extension personnel, Officials of State Department of Agriculture,

Forecasting market price of commodities was from moderate to high level

Stakeholders possessed high level of strategic skills closely followed by

High cost of water soluble fertilisers, under developed market infrastructure,

PRECISION FARMING SYSTEM IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD

Farmers in developed countries typically own large farms (10-1000 ha or more)

The concept of “R”s does not mandate utilization of advanced technologies to

Much of the recent research particularly in precision nutrient management has

The right source

The right place

The right time

Availability of „active remote-sensors” that can be mounted on high clearance

The right amount

After the advent of precision technologies, the right amount of nutrient to be

In order to make sound management decisions good information is required. Precision

It is also important that a site-specific approach does not necessarily need to be a

PRECISION FARMING PROCESS

PF is a process where a large field is divided into a finite number of sub-fields,

Soil (Little or no control)

Husbandry (Full control)

Plant (Full control)

COMPONENTS OF PRECISION FARMING

4. Variable rate Applicator

1. Remote Sensing (RS)

2. Information System (GIS)

The Geographic Information System (GIS) contributes significantly to Precision

3. Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)

The Global Positioning System (GPS) technology provides accurate positioning

4. Variable Rate Applicator

The variable rate applicator has three components:

STEPS IN PRECISION FARMING

I. Identification and Assessment of Variability

a) Grid soil sampling

d) Use of precision technologies for assessing variability

II. Management of Variability

a) Variable rate application