An Assessment on the Knowledge Level of Farmers regarding Paddy Straw Management in Ludhiana, Punjab

INTRODUCTION

One of India’s staple cereals is rice. India is both the world’s second-largest rice producer and rice’s top exporter. Rice is a tropical plant that thrives in hot, humid weather, West Bengal, particularly the district of Burdwan, is the state of India that produces the most rice. Rain-fed regions with high annual rainfall are where rice is primarily cultivated. It is hence sometimes referred to as the “kharif crop” in India.  Domesticated rice, a cereal grain, is the most popular staple food consumed by more than half of the world’s population. The most important food crop in India, rice accounts for about one-fourth of all cultivated land and feeds almost half of the country’s population. Over the past 45 years, Punjab has made significant advancements in the productivity and production of rice. A record 121.46 million tonnes of rice are expected to be produced in the 2020–21 crop years, up from 118.87 million tonnes the year before [1].

Rice straw is a byproduct of rice production that is left over after harvest. The biomass of the residue is affected by various factors, including variety, soil and fertiliser management, and weather. Rice straw is heaped or distributed in the field during harvesting, depending on whether stationary threshers or self-propelled combine harvesters are used. The amount of rice straw removed from the field is mostly determined by the cutting height (the height of the stubble left in the field). After harvest, rice straw can be collected, burned, or allowed to degrade (soil integration). The “stubble”—the uncut portion of the rice straw after harvest— remains, and can be burned or incorporated into the soil in preparation for the next crop. The ratio of straw to paddy varies, ranging from 1.0 to 4.3 [2] and 0.74–0.79 [3]. Many organizations in Punjab had tried a variety of alternative strategies to reduce straw burning. The straw can be used as an input for businesses such as paper, energy, and packaging if the paddy is not burned. In-situ inclusion of paddy straw as a management strategy is the most efficient method that farmers may simply implement. This improves soil fertility for the next crop and is also financially beneficial to the farmers [4].

Paddy straw management is a key barrier to paddy farming in northwestern India (Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh). Paddy straw is used as animal bedding and for the production of biogas, fodder, and power and compost in states such as West Bengal, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and Jammu & Kashmir. According to research, in Punjab 30-70% of paddy residue is burned on fields [5]. On a local, regional, and global scale, burning agricultural biomass pollutes land, air, and water.

Rice straw is either scattered in the field, accumulated in piles, or baled and sold  for  other  purposes  such  as  for  mushroom production,  fuel  for  cooking,  ruminant  fodder,  stable bedding, and paper making. Rice residues are often burned in  the  field,  which  is  a  cost-effective  method  widely used, particularly in Asia [6]. Rice straw burning has advantages in terms of farm operations but constraints from an environmental perspective [7].

The government has launched a number of programmes or schemes to encourage farmers to use environmentally friendly paddy straw management technologies. The central government initiated a submission on agriculture mechanisation scheme, with 50% of the subsidy set for individual farmers and 80 per cent set for groups of farmers or cooperative societies. [8].

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study Area: The present study was conducted in the Ludhiana district of Punjab. The study area was purposively selected on the basis of availability of rice growers. The geographical area of the district is 3790 sq.kms. The cultivated area of rice crop in Ludhiana district is 2.57 lac ha. The district has four sub-divisions viz-Ludhiana, Khanna, Samrala and Jagraon and eleven development blocks viz.- Ludhiana, Mangat, Doraha, Khanna, Dehlon, Pokhwal, Samrala, Machiwara, Jagraon, Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar.

Sampling and data collection: A multistage sampling design was followed to select the study area and respondents for the study. At first stage, a major rice growing district i.e, Ludhiana was selected on the basis of highest availability of paddy growers. At the second stage, two blocks i.e, Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar were selected randomly from the district. At the last stage, two villages from each block i.e. Bhundri and Khudai Chak from Sidhwan Bet and Raqba and Boparai Kalan from Sudhar were selected randomly. Thus a total of four villages were selected for the study. Further, from each village 25 farmers were selected randomly, thus making a total sample of 100 farmers. The primary data were collected by personally interviewing the respondents. The schedule was prepared to assess farmer’s knowledge based on several aspects of managing paddy straw and constraints faced by them in paddy straw management.

Knowledge level test

Item difficulty index: Difficulty has been presumed to be linearly related. When any respondent correctly responded any item, it was presumed that the item was less difficult than the ability the respondent to cope with it. In the present investigation, the items with p values more than 12 were considered for final test.

It was calculated using the formula 

Pi=

where,

Pi = difficulty index in percentage of the ith item

ni = number of respondents giving correct answer to the ith item

Ni = the total number of respondents to whom the ith item was administered

Discrimination index: The discrimination index can be obtained by calculating the phi-coefficient. E 1/3 method used to find out item discrimination emphasised that this method was analogous to, and hence, a convenient substitute for the phi-coefficient. The E 1/3 formula was used in the study.

E 1/3 =

Status of land ownership: This was implemented to measure the land ownership status of the respondents. It was obtained by using the following formula:

Status of land ownership=  × 100

Coefficient of Correlation (r): It is used to study the relationship between dependent and independent variables and between the independent variables themselves, the coefficients of correlations were worked out with the following formula:

                                          r_xy =

where,

r = Coefficient of correlation

x, y= The variables between which the relationship is to be worked out.

N= Number of observations

å=Summation.

The value of correlation coefficient can be interpreted in the following manner:

If ‘r’ is equal to 1, then there is perfect positive correlation between two values;

If ‘r’ is equal to -1, then there is perfect negative correlation between two values;

If ‘r’ is equal to zero, then there is no correlation between two values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socio-economic attributes of respondents: According to Table 1, maximum number of farmers i.e, 48 per cent of farmers in Sidhwan Bet block and 46 per cent of farmers in Sudhar block were in the age group of 35-50 years old. The study explored that the younger people might not be as interested in farming, and they may have less experience and expertise agricultural field. This could be due to changing lifestyles, urbanization, and the appeal of non-agricultural careers. [9] and [10] has elaborated the similar findings are consistent with research done by, who also found similar trends in the age distribution of farmers and their involvement in agriculture. In Sidhwan Bet block, the majority of respondents were qualified up to the secondary level (42%), while in Sudhar block, 40 per cent of farmers had education up to the senior secondary level. It’s noteworthy that rice farmers generally had some level of education, with only a few having a low level of education. Interestingly, these findings were similar with the results [11]. Maximum number of respondents, 82 per cent in Block Sidhwan Bet and 80 per cent in Block Sudhar, belonged to nuclear families. The current study evaluated that most of the farmers surveyed were part of nuclear families, which means they lived with their immediate family members like parents, spouse and children. This aligns with the results reported by [12]. It also indicates that joint families, where extended family members live together, were less prevalent among the respondents in both blocks. It is apparent from data that the average family size in Sidhwan Bet was 4.7600±1.8245, while in Sudhar, it was 6.0200±3.7443. The majority of respondents in both Block Sidhwan Bet (72%) and Block Sudhar (70%) who were growing rice had small family sizes, with up to five family members. The majority of the farmers, typically consisting of up to five family members, suggests that most farming households were relatively small. These results are consistent with a study conducted by [13], which also found similar trends in family size among farmers. The size of a farming family can impact various aspects of agricultural practices, often influenced by cultural norms and access to healthcare services, education and awareness can impact family size. It can be noted that only 40 per cent of respondents belonged to block Sudhar and 48 per cent of respondents of block Sidhwan Bet were large farmers. The findings provide insight into distribution of farmers based on their land holding categories in both Block Sidhwan Bet and Block Sudhar, resulted that majority of farmers belonged to large land holding category, suggesting that a significant portion of respondents had substantial land holdings. These results are in line with [14] and [15], reported similar trends in land holding categories of farmers. Land holding pattern is crucial for tailoring agricultural policies and support programs to the specific needs of farmers in each category. The respondents were asked for information about any training or extension programmes they have attended. The resulting data shows that in Block Sidhwan Bet, the majority of respondents, 64 per cent never attended seminars or lecture programs organized by government officials. However, 36 per cent of the respondents did attend such programs.In Block Sudhar, the proportion of farmers who never attended any program on paddy straw management was 62 per cent while 38 per cent of them had received training on paddy straw management from Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, and PAMETI.It is evident that a significant number of respondents in both blocks were unaware of training or extension programs related to paddy straw management. Instead, they learned about such practices from other farmers and were less aware of the latest innovative technologies regarding paddy straw management.

Land ownership status of the respondents: The data presented in table 2 revealed that a significant proportion of farmers in both Block Sidhwan Bet and Block Sudhar have low land ownership status. Specifically, 44 per cent of farmers in Block Sidhwan Bet and 60 per cent of farmers in Block Sudhar, who were growing rice, had low land ownership status. On the other hand, 36 per cent of respondents in Block Sidhwan Bet and 24 per cent in Block Sudhar had high land ownership status. Furthermore, only 20 per cent of farmers in Block Sidhwan Bet and 16 per cent in Block Sudhar belonged to the medium land ownership status category. This study implies that the majority of respondents in both blocks have low land ownership status, indicating the prevalence of smaller land holdings among farmers in the studied area. Low land ownership status can be attributed to several factors such as land fragmentation, land scarcity due to high population density and urbanization.

Occupational status of the respondents: Common occupations include roles in agriculture, business, government service, private jobs and various other sectors. The data presented in table 3 revealed that the involvement of respondents from Sidhwan Bet block in different sectors: 90 per cent in agriculture, four per cent in agriculture + government service, and six per cent in agriculture + business. For farmers in Sudhar block, the distribution was 62 per cent in agriculture, only two per cent in agriculture + government service, and 34 per cent in agriculture + business. Interestingly, the pooled data from both blocks shows that only two per cent of farmers from Sudhar block are involved in agriculture + private job, while none of the farmers from Sudhar block practiced agriculture + private job. These figures indicate the diverse engagement of farmers in various sectors in both blocks, with agriculture being the primary occupation for most, followed by some participation in government service and business. It also highlights the difference in the distribution of farmers across different sectors between the two blocks. When comparing the two blocks, it’s evident that agriculture remains the dominant occupation but with varying degrees of involvement in other sectors. The availability of resources such as land, water, and agricultural inputs can influence the choice of occupation. Farmers choose agriculture as their primary income because they have access to farmland.

The Knowledge level among respondents regarding paddy straw management: Knowledge level was operationally defined as the level of factual knowledge that farmers had regarding the management of paddy straw. Table 4 demonstrated that the majority of farmers in both blocks were aware of the preferred rice variety for increasing the time period for straw management and the usage of a baler. However, 32 per cent and 52 per cent of farmers in Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar, respectively, were aware that straw burning entirely destroys nitrogen gas. Only six per cent of farmers in Sidhwan Bet and 40 per cent of farmers in Sudhar followed the advise of a happy seeder to sow wheat without burning straw. A similar proportion of respondents in both blocks were aware that rice straw includes 20 per cent lignin, while 32 per cent and 42 per cent of farmers in Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar, respectively, were aware that rice straw has 45 per cent cellulose. It was also observed that 34 per cent and 30 per cent of farmers in blocks Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar, respectively, were aware that paddy straw burning produced methane and carbon monoxide.

 Furthermore, 56 per cent of farmers in Sidhwan Bet and 62 per cent of farmers in Sudhar knew that burning paddy straw makes the land more prone to soil erosion. The proportion of farmers who were aware that heat generated by straw burning penetrated the soil, resulting in the loss of moisture and useful microbes was 54 and 38 per cent on block Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar, respectively, whereas 62 per cent of Sidhwan Bet farmers and 38 per cent of Sudhar farmers were aware that paddy straw act as a mulch negatively affects the weed population and were aware that paddy straw can be used in a specially designed biogas plant for biogas production. Farmers in blocks Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar knew that cotton paddy straw biochar reduces the negative effects of nitrogen deficiency, and 54 per cent of Sidhwan Bet and 34 per cent of Sudhar were aware that harmful gases released from paddy straw burning blur vision and cause road accidents, and fever is caused by open field burning. It was discovered that 100 per cent and 74 per cent of farmers in blocks Sidhwan Bet and Sudhar knew that straw integration should be promoted not just to minimise air pollution but also to boost soil fertility. The findings are in line with [16] and [17].

Categorization of Knowledge level of the respondents regarding Paddy Straw Management: The table 5 depicts the knowledge score of the respondents. The knowledge scores of the respondents were categorized into three levels: Low score, Medium, and High score. A total of 16 questions were asked from the respondents regarding paddy straw management. In Block Sudhar, 46 per cent of the respondents had the lowest knowledge score, 52% had a medium knowledge score, and only two per cent achieved the highest knowledge score. On the other hand, in  Block Sidhwan Bet 14 per cent of the respondents had the lowest knowledge score, and a majority of 86 per cent had a medium level score. Surprisingly, only two per cent of respondents had a high knowledge score. It is evident that there is varying awareness among farmers regarding different aspects of paddy straw management. Farmers who have access to agricultural extension services, training programs are more likely to possess accurate information about paddy straw management. Farmers often learn from their peers and farming community. It can be concluded that the overall knowledge of the farmers about paddy straw management was at a medium level. This suggests that while there is a reasonable level of understanding among farmers, there is still need for improvement and further awareness-building to enhance their knowledge and practices related to paddy straw management. The results were similar with [18] and [19].

Source: authors’ own survey results, 2023

Relationship between the knowledge level of paddy growers and their socio-economic characteristics: The study utilized a correlation coefficient to assess the relationship between the knowledge level of paddy growers and socio-economic factors such as age, education, family size, land holding and training. The data observed in table 6 revealed a strong and statistically significant positive relationship between the knowledge level and education as well as Training of the respondents. The results show positive and highly significant relationship between knowledge level and education as well as training of the respondents. This means the farmer who have more education and have received training about managing paddy straw tend to understand and know better. The positive correlation indicates that as education and training levels increase, the knowledge level of the paddy growers also tends to improve. This result supports the importance of providing education and training programs to farmers to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills for effective and sustainable paddy straw management practices.

CONCLUSION

The current study was conducted in the Ludhiana district of Punjab province of India, which contributes to largest area under rice production. The study showed that younger age group showed less interest and expertise in agriculture. Most of the respondents rely on agriculture as their primary occupation. Majority of farmers were having large land holding and a significant portion of farmers had below 10 lakh annual income. According to the results, most of the farmers had medium knowledge level regarding paddy straw management. The research found that relationship between knowledge level and education, training of respondents was positively and highly significant. Awareness campaigns and training programs should be conducted to educate farmers about harmful effects of straw burning. Famers’ knowledge regarding paddy straw management should be increased by strengthening the agricultural extension services and by formulating the appropriate policies.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement: We express our gratitude to the respondents for their efforts and participation in the successful data collection process.

REFERENCES

1. Anonymous. 2021. The Economics Times Retrieved from (//economictimes. indiatimes.com) on 25 August 2022.
2. Zafar, S., 2015. Rice straw as bioenergy resource. Bioenergy Consult, retrieved from (bioenergyconsult.com/tag/rice-residues/) on 24/7/2023.
3. Nguyen, V., Hung, Topno, S., Balingbing, C., Nguyen, V.C., Ngan, Roder, M., Quilty, J., Jamieson, C., Thornley, P., Gummert, M. 2016. Generating a positive energy balance from using rice straw for anaerobic digestion. Energy Reports, 2:117–122.
4. Chaudary, A. K. 2020. Adoption of paddy straw management techniques in selected villages of Sangrur district of Punjab state. M.Sc. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
5. Lohan, S. K., Jat, H. S., Yadav, A. K., Sidhu, H. S., Jat, M. L., Choudhary, M., and Sharma, P. C. 2018. Burning issues of paddy residue management in north-west states of India. Renew Sust Energ Rev, 81:693-706.
6. Gadde, B., Bonnet, S., Menke, C., & Garivait, S. 2009. Air pollutant emissions from rice straw open field burning in India, Thailand and the Philippines. Environ Pollut, 157(5):1554–1558.
7. Romasanta, R. R., Sander, B. O., Gaihre, Y. K., Alberto, M. C., Gummert, M., Quilty, J., and Wassmann, R. 2017. How does burning of rice straw affect CH4 and N2O emissions. A comparative experiment of different on-field straw management practices. Agri, Ecosys & Envi, 239:143–153.
8. Anonymous. 2020. SMAM Scheme, retrieved from (krishijagran.com/farm- mechanization/smam-scheme-get-50-to80-subsidy-on-agricultural-implements-direct-link-to-applyinside/) on 07/05/22.
9. Sangavi, M., Rani, A. J., Pushpa, J. and Prabakaran, K., 2020. Socio economic status of Tomato Growers in Madurai District of Tamil Nadu. Ind J Pure Appl Biosci, 8(6):511-514.
10. Saini, A., Sharma, P., & Iqbal, T. 2023. A             study on Knowledge Level of Farmers Regarding Paddy Straw Management in Punjab, India. Asian J Agri Ext Econ Soc, 4(2):26-30.
11. Boniphace, N. S., Fengying, N., and Chen, F. 2015. An analysis of smallholder farmers’ socio-economic determinants for inputs use: A case of major rice producing regions in Tanzania. Russ J of Agri & Socio-Econo Sci, 38(2):41-55.
12. Samarpitha, A., Vasudev, N., and Suhasini, K. 2016. Socio-economic Characteristics of Rice Farmers in the Combined State of Andhra Pradesh. Asian J of Agri Ext, Econo & Socio, 13(1):1-9.
13. Alam, M. M., Siwar, C., Murad, M. W., Molla, R., and Toriman, M. 2010. Socioeconomic profile of farmer in Malaysia: study on integrated agricultural development area in North-West Selangor. Agri Econo & Rural Develop, 7(2):249-265.
14. Hanumanaikar, R. H., Nagaraja, M. S., & Chandranath, H. T. 2011. Socio-economic profile and adoption of paddy cultivation practices by Siddhi tribal community farmers of North Karnataka. Agriculture Update, 6(1):47-50.
15. Kaur, N., Kaur, P., & Kumar, P. 2016. Problems Faced by the Farmers regarding Adoption of Water Saving Technologies . Ind J of Econ & Devel, 12(4),787-792.
16. Balamatti, A. M., Manjunath L., Sundraswamy, B., Vijay kumar H. S., Megeri, S. N., 2007. A study on paddy cultivation patterns of siddhi farmers and their socio-economic characterstics. Souvenir and abstracts, 253-254.
17. Roy, P., and Kaur, M. 2019. Comparison on Farmers’ Profile, Knowledge and Problems Association of Straw Management in Punjab and West Bengal. Indian J  Ext Edu, 55(3): 90-101.
18. Singh, J., Grover, D. K., and Dhaliwal, T. K. 2015. State agriculture profile Punjab. Agro economic research centre, Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana, Pp 1-3.
19. Lyngdoh, L., Dhaliwal, R. K., & Mohapatra, L. 2019. Knowledge of extension personnel and farmers regarding the effect of open burning in paddy and wheat cropping  system. J of comm mob and sust devel, 14(2):347-354.