CONSTRAINTS IN ADOPTION OF WHEAT PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PERCEIVED BY AFGHAN AND INDIAN FARMERS

A.R. MUKHTARZAI¹, P.K. CHAHAL²*, B.S. GHANGHAS³, A.K. ROHILLA⁴, R. MUKTESHWAR^5
1Department of Extension Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, Haryana, India
²Department of Extension Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, Haryana, India
³Department of Extension Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, Haryana, India
⁴Department of Extension Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, Haryana, India
⁵Department of Extension Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, Haryana, India
* Corresponding Author : pardeepchahal46@gmail.com

Received : 28-08-2022     Accepted : 27-09-2022     Published : 30-09-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 9       Pages : 11619 - 11621
Int J Agr Sci 14.9 (2022):11619-11621

Keywords : Input and production constraints, Technical constraints, Marketing and Financial constraints, Correlation, Association
Academic Editor : Dr Ruchi R Gangwar, Sushree Purabi Panigrahi
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Extension Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, Haryana, India. Authors are also thankful to GRAIN project, USA for financial support
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The field study was conducted in Haryana and Punjab states of India and Herat and Nangarhar provinces of Afghanistan purposively. The research was conducted under GRAIN project sponsored by USA. Hisar (Haryana), Mansa (Punjab) districts from India, Injil (Herat) and Behsood (Nangarhar) districts from Afghanistan were selected purposively because these are the major wheat growing districts in both the countries. Keeping in view the number of wheat growers, a convenient sample size of 15 farmers from each village was selected randomly. So, a total number of 180 wheat growers were selected to constitute a sample of the study. In Afghanistan, the wheat growers, faced constraints of input and production constraints with the mean score 2.16, technical constraints with the mean score 2.20, marketing constraints with the mean score 1.79, regarding financial constraints, the mean score was 1.82 and overall constraints’ mean score was 1.99. The technical constraints obtained highest mark (weighted mean score 2.20 with rank I), followed by input and production ranked II, financial III and marketing constraints ranked IV. But in India, input and production constraints’ mean score was 1.07, technical constraint’s mean score was 1.04 and marketing constraint’s mean score was 1.04. For financial constraints, mean score was 1.29 and overall constraints’ mean score was 1.11. The financial constraints obtained highest score (weighted mean score 1.29 and ranked I), followed by input and production ranked II, marketing and financial constraints ranked III. This showed a high degree of constraints in Afghanistan than India, which were the major reasons for low wheat production in Afghanistan. Association between independent variables and constraints were found positive to negative and non-significant correlated in Afghanistan, while negative and highly significant at the 0.01 level of probability in India

1. Anonymous (2017) Published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) STAT. www.fao.org.
2. Anonymous (2018) Progress Report of All India coordinated Wheat and Barley Improvement project 2017-18, Director’s Report, Ed. G.P ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal, India.
3. Anonymous (2018) Republic of Afghanistan Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, Department of Agricultural statistic and data arrangement, 4, 7-8.
4. Kumar D. (2010) Doctoral dissertation, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, India.
5. Mane N.P., Sarap, S.M. and Ingale S.N. (2015) Indian Agriculture Update, 10(4), 294-299.
6. Meena B.S. (2012) Agriculture Update, 7 (3/4), 283-286.
7. Rajbhar A.K., Jha K.K. and Yadav S.R. (2017) Plant Archives, 17(2), 895-900.
8. Sabi S., Natikar K.V. and Pati S.L. (2014) Karnataka Journal Agricultural Sciences, 27(4), 485-488.
9. Saxena A., Upadhyay T., Rai D., Varshney A.C. and Saxena M.J. (2019) Kaushambi, 6(1), 24-40.
10. Kumbhare N.V. and Singh K. (2011) Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, 11(3), 41-44.
11. Singh K., Singh P. and Lakhera J.P. (2012) Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education, 20, 112-116.
12. Samota S.D. and Dangi K.L.(2017) Agriculture Update, 12(4), 559-563.