| |
Title of Thesis
ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION INTERVENTIONS OF EXTENSION FIELD STAFF IN APPLE GROWING AREAS OF BALOCHISTAN (PAKISTAN) |
Author(s)
Badar Naseem Siddiqui |
Institute/University/Department Details
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad |
Session
2006 |
Subject
Agricultural Extension |
Number of Pages
276 |
Keywords (Extracted from title, table of contents and abstract of thesis)
apple growing areas, balochistan, extension field staff, communication interventions, apple, temperate fruit |
Abstract Apple is an important temperate fruit of the world. In Pakistan, the best climatic conditions for quality apple production prevail in the province of Balochistan. However, the per hectare yield of apple fruit in the province is quite low as compared to that obtained in many other countries of the world The low yield may be attributed to non-adoption of recommended horticultural practices by the apple growers. This in turn, may relate to the communication interventions of extension field staff (EFS) with the growers, because EFS are mainly responsible for the dissemination of recommended horticultural practices by using different communication methods. This lack of effective communication between the EFS and apple growers seems to be one of the main causes of low per hectare yield of apple fruit in the province. The present study had. There fore, been planned to analyze communication interventions of EFS with apple growers to explore the reasons for non-adoption of recommended horticultural practices by the growers. For this purpose, the data were collected from 355 farmer respondents selected at random from five randomly selected tehsils of five main apple growing districts of Balochistan. In addition, all the EFS of the selected tehsils were also taken as study respondents. A fair majority (56.60%) of the farmer respondents was illiterate, most of the respondents (43.38%) had small land holdings (up to 5 acres), and majority (63.94%) of the respondents had an apple orchard of small size (up to 5 acres). As information source, fellow farmers were found satisfactory and were ranked 1 among other sources of information, EFS came under the fair category und were ranked 2nd. FAs and AOs were found weak in almost all the attributes essentially required by them as information sources. Farm & home visits appeared to be the most effective and widely used method among others and EFS were found satisfactory in using these methods. Most of the basic essentials of communication methods were not properly observed by the EFS. They were not competent in using various communication channels and they needed further training in almost all the method,' they used Lack of interest on the part of farmers, unawareness about the venue of extension activities and non-cooperation of EFS were the main reasons for low participation by farmers in extension activities. Only 57.2 and 36.1% of the farmer respondents knew the FAs and AOs respectively. Farmer’s participation in different extension activities was found low except farm & home visits. Most of the recommendations like improved varieties, system of layout, and application of fertilizers. Pruning method, chemical control measures against insect/pests and disease, and Phyto-sanitary measures were known to and adopted by a lesser number of the respondents. Important reasons for non-adoption of recommended horticultural practice were: lack of awareness & finance, shortage of irrigation water, and small land holdings. A large majority of the farmer respondents (79.2%) was getting yield up to 15,000kgs/acre as against the yield potential of 53, 280kgs/acre. There existed highly significant positive relationship of age with awareness and information exposure, Education was found to have highly significant positive relationship with awareness, information exposure and farmers' participation in extension activities. There existed highly significant positive relationship of farmers' participation with awareness, adoption and information exposure. Size of land holding showed highly significant und positive relationship with farmers' participation in extension activities while size of apple orchard reflected significant negative relationship with adoption.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| S. No. |
Chapter |
Title of the Chapters |
Page |
Size (KB) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 1 |
0 |
Contents |
|
 504.53 KB |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 2 |
1 |
Introduction |
1 |
 520.22 KB |
| |
1.1 |
Horticultural production in Pakistan |
1 |
| |
1.2 |
Agricultural extension in Pakistan |
3 |
| |
1.3 |
Agricultural extension in Balochistan |
7 |
| |
1.4 |
Need for the project |
8 |
| |
1.5 |
Objectives |
12 |
| |
1.6 |
Assumptions |
12 |
| |
1.7 |
Limitations |
13 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 3 |
2 |
Review of Literature |
14 |
 1964.69 KB |
| |
2.1 |
Introduction |
14 |
| |
2.2 |
Competency level of extension field staff |
14 |
| |
2.3 |
Acquaintance of farmers with extension field staff |
19 |
| |
2.4 |
Communication contents |
20 |
| |
2.5 |
Communication channels |
23 |
| |
2.6 |
Farmers participation on extension activities |
34 |
| |
2.7 |
Awareness and adoption of recommended horticultural practices |
36 |
| |
2.8 |
Synthesis of review of literature |
41 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 4 |
3 |
Materials and Methods |
44 |
 1412.62 KB |
| |
3.1 |
Introduction |
44 |
| |
3.2 |
Study area at a glance |
44 |
| |
3.3 |
Selection of study area |
65 |
| |
3.4 |
Research population |
65 |
| |
3.5 |
Selection of sample for the study |
65 |
| |
3.6 |
Procedure adopted for the selection of respondents |
66 |
| |
3.7 |
Data collection |
66 |
| |
3.8 |
Difficulties faced during data collection |
70 |
| |
3.9 |
Analysis and reporting the data |
71 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 |
4 |
Results and Discussion |
73 |
 5401.61 KB |
| |
4.1 |
Introduction |
73 |
| |
4.2 |
Field work respondents |
144 |
| |
4.3 |
Observational data |
163 |
| |
4.4 |
Relationship between dependent and independent variables |
169 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 6 |
5 |
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations |
179 |
 792.17 KB |
| |
5.1 |
Summary |
179 |
| |
5.2 |
Conclusion |
180 |
| |
5.3 |
Recommendations |
195 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 7 |
6 |
Literature Cited |
198 |
 688.51 KB |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 8 |
7 |
Appendices |
224 |
 2481.06 KB |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |