Adoption of improved pulses production technologies and related constraints in Uttar Pradesh
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53550/jfl.v19i1.2294Keywords:
Adoption Index, Constraints, TechnologyAbstract
To study adoption of pulses production technologies two districts - Kanpur Nagar and Hamirpur were selected to represent irrigated and rainfed situations. In Hamirpur district, farmers used seeds of improved varieties more in case of chickpea (69.3) followed by lentil (58.6), pigeonpea (49.2) and urdbean (21.0). The adoption level of sowing time and seed rate was high in all the pulses. Plant protection measures were only followed in pigeonpea (15.6). In urdbean, farmers did not apply any fertiliser while in case of other pulses, adoption level of fertiliser use was high to low i.e. pigeonpea (80.9), chickpea (68.5) and lentil (22.3). Adoption index for quality seeds was high in pigeonpea and chickpea (65.8 and 75.6) in Kanpur Nagar district. Transfer of technology in relation to pulses should be strengthened in farmer participatory mode with active involvement of multidisciplinary team of scientists. Easy and timely availability of critical inputs at nearby market must be ensured. Creation of informal seed village system is required, where farmer to farmer seed production and distribution chain will ensure easy availability of quality seed.
References
Gupta, S.K. 2001. Economics of pulses production and identification of constraints in raising their production (a consolidated report of AERC studies). Ad-hoc Study Agro Economic Research Centre for Madhya Pradesh, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya. No.79, 177 pp.
Johansen, C., Duxbury, J.M., Virmani, S.M., Gowda, C.L.L.. Pande, S. and Joshi, P.K. 2000. Legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain: constraints and opportunities. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); Patancheru; India. 223 pp.
Joshi, P.K., Saxena, Raka and Saxena, R. 2002. A profile of pulses production in India: Facts, trends and opportunities. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(3): 326-339.




