Adoption of Different Potato Planting Techniques: Levels and Dynamics

Adoption of Different Potato Planting
Techniques: Levels and Dynamics
Binoy Tripura
Ph.D Scholar
Department of Agricultural Extension, Palli Siksha
Bhavana, Visva Bharati, Sriniketan

CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Review of Literature
3. Research Setting
4. Research Methodology
5. Results and Discussion
6. Summary and Conclusion
7. References

INTRODUCTION
• Food and nutritional security is an important national priority
globally.
• Potato is the one of most important non-cereal food crop of the
world.
• Developing countries produce 37% of world's total output of
potatoes.
• Growth of potato in developing countries, affirms its increasing
importance as a source of food for the ever-growing population,
rural employment and income.
• In comparison to 20 other major food crops on fresh weight
basis, potato ranks 6th in the developing countries, 4th in the
developed countries, 4th in the world and 3rd in India.
• India should identify and practice crops, which are not only highly
productive but nutritionally balanced. Potato meets both these
requirements (Shekhawat, 1999).

• The estimated area and production of potato during 2015-16 is
21.34 lakh hectare and 43.8 MT (Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare, Government of India)
• The productivity in India is low (19.76 t/ha) as compared to
Belgium (49.09 t/ha), New Zealand (45.0 t/ha), The Netherlands
(43.04 t/ha), UK (39.66 t/ha), Israel (38.71 t/ha) and USA (38.27
t/ha).
• This may be due to the fact that wide ranging variations are found
in agro-ecological setting of the different parts of the country.
• India is likely to have the highest growth rate in production and
productivity of potatoes during 2000-2020 and Demand for
potatoes is expected to increase by 40 per cent (International
Food Policy and Research Institute (IFPRI) and International
Potato Center (CIP))

Table 1.1 All India Area, Production and Yield of Potato from 2001-02 to 2015-16
Years Area
(,000 ha)
Production
(,000 tonne)
Average yield
(t/ha)
2001-02 1259.5 24456.1 19.4
2002-03 1337.2 23161.4 17.3
2003-04 1484.7 27925.8 18.8
2004-05 1523.9 28787.7 18.9
2005-06 1569.2 29174.6 18.6
2006-07 1743.0 28600.0 16.4
2007-08 1795.0 34658.0 19.3
2008-09 1828.0 34391.0 18.8
2009-10 1835.3 36577.3 19.9
2010-11 1863.0 42339.0 22.7
2011-12 1907.0 41482.8 21.8
2012-13 1992.2 45343.6 22.8
2013-14 1973.0 41555.0 21.1
2014-15 2060.0 44893.0 21.8
2015-16 2134.0 43800.0 20.5
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India

Potato Scenario in North-East India
• Nearly 10% of the total geographical area
in India comes under the NEH region and
has about 10% of the country's total
potato area.
• In all the NEH states, except Tripura,
potato yield has been low ranging
between 4-11 t/ha and much below the
national average (18.2 t/ha).
• The major constraints to potato
production in the NEH states are:
i) Topography, non-availability and high
cost of quality tuber seed,
ii) Inadequate availability of inputs like
fertilizers and plant protection chemicals,
iii) Poor management practices followed
by the potato growers and
iv) Perpetuation of serious potato
diseases like late blight, brown rot,
bacterial wilt, viruses, etc
Source:www.mapsofindia.com

Potato Cultivation Scenario in Tripura
o The productivity of potato is higher ( 20.32 t/ha) in the state than
the national average is 19.76 t/ha ( DoA, GoT, 2011-12.)
o A good source of income and employment generation.
o South district has produced more than 35 per cent of total
production of potato in the state in year 2015-16.
Districts Area (Ha) Production (MT) Productivity (MT/ha)
South 1950 35393
18.06
Gomati 1216 22042
Sepahijala 1115 20092
West 445 8010
Khowai 619 11049
Dhalai 954 17117
Unakoti 1059 19159
North 590 10714
Total 7948 14.3576
Table 1.2 District wise Potato Production in Tripura
Source: DoA, Tripura,2015-16

Problem Faced by Potato Farmers in Tripura
• Tripura due to its geographical isolation was suffering from
availability of potato seed tuber at reasonable price.
• No state in North-Eastern states were producing certified seed
tuber because of un-favourable agro-climatic condition.
• As a result the state had to remain dependent upon North
Indian seed tuber producing states by spending a huge
amount in transportation.
• Thus making the quality seed tuber available at higher price to
a limited number of farmers making the potato production a
costly venture.
• There are hardly 3-4 cold stores that too only in Tripura, which
are not sufficient enough even to accommodate seed
potatoes of all the farmers in the states.

TPS Production Scenario in Tripura
• To attain self sufficiency in potato production and to solve problem
relating availability of potato tuber
• To find out cheap and alternative way in solving the issue
particularly for the marginal farmers of the state.
• Horticulture Research Complex, Nagicherra, State Department of
Agriculture collaborated with International Potato Centre (C.I.P.),
South West and Central Asia Region, New Delhi
• From 1995-96 to 2014-15, about 3.9 ton Hybrid TPS was produced
at Horticulture Research Complex, Nagicherra.
• Department of Agriculture supply of quality potato seed at
reasonable prices to about 15,000 small potato growers in the
state.

Table 1.3 True Potato Seeds Production and Distribution From 1995-2015
Source : DoA, Tripura, 2014-15
Years Production
(Kg )
Distribution in (Kg) Remarks
Tripura N.E states Other state Export Total
1995-1996 120.805 29.567 29.743 28.105 10 97.415
1996-1997 161.799 57.02 14.992 5.777 77.789
1997-1998 359.895 304.78 12.046 35.006 351.832
1998-1999 370 335.89 27.48 0.54 363.91
1999-2000 184.04 152.65 13.045 1.4 14 181.095
2000-2001 114 89.809 3.19 1.615 94.614
2001-2002 129 78.685 24.76 3.56 20 127.005 South korea
2002-2003 191.905 121.68 1.82 4.1 127.6
2003-2004 188 160.79 3 8.5 2 174.29 Mexico
2004-2005 178.01 158.01 2.4 5.791 166.201
2005-2006 225.65 206.62 10 0.05 216.67
2006-2007 185.2 162.13 16.96 1.365 180.455
2007-2008 191 159.95 22.14 2.045 184.135
2008-2009 178 165.87 7.1 3.05 176.02
2009-2010 185.15 164.61 11.15 3.05 178.81
2010-2011 100 72.795 8.3 2.15 83.245
2011-2012 269.45 246.39 0.94 5.145 252.475
2012-2013 185 155 5.5 1.5 2 164 Mexico
2013-2014 198 148 8.2 4.12 160.32
2014-2015 204 175 9 8.2 192.2
Total 3918.904 3145.246* 231.766 125.069 48 3550.081

Present study was conducted to address following questions:
• How True Potato Seed technology was diffused, adopted and
changed over time across the state of Tripura?
• What are socio-economics, agro-economic and communicational
attributes of potato growers in Tripura?
• Which factors affect the adoption of True Potato Seed as potato
planting technique?
• How true potato seed is superior than existing methods of potato
planting technique?
• What are the pros and cons of TPS as a potato planting technique?
Research Questions

Objectives of the Study
1. To assess the spatio-temporal variations in adoption of potato
planting technique.
2. To explore the socio-personal, socio-psychological, agro-
economic and communication characteristics of the potato
growers.
3. To analyze the adoption behaviour of farmers growing potato
through TPS and the factors affecting it.
4. To identify backward and forward linkage mechanisms in
diffusion of TPS as potato planting technique.
5. To calculate cost-benefit of TPS as potato planting technique.
6. To find out the strength and limitations of TPS as potato
planting technique.

Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers
• Venkataramalu (2003) revealed that majority of potato growers are
primary school (25.83%) followed by illiterate (22.50%) and high school
(16.83%).
• Saikia and Tripathy (2006) found that majority of potato growers (65.63%)
had joint family and remaining (34.27%) had single family pattern.
• Singh et al. (2010) reported that majority of potato growers ( 86.67%)
were solely dependent on agriculture.
• Singh et al. (2010) found that higher the education level more the
adoption of improved potato cultivation technology.
• Mazumder et al. (2011) found that the age, education, family size, land
holding, income from winter vegetable were significantly associated with
the adoption behaviour of potato growers.

• Sharma and Singh (2002) reported that (50%) of the farm families had
small size of land holding (10 acres), while remaining (50%) were
distributed almost equally in large and medium size holding(above 11
acres) among the potato growers.
• Raghavendra (2005) concluded that majority of the potato growers
(15.00%) had annual income between Rs. 75,000 to Rs 1,00,000, whereas,
31.60 per cent of respondents had an annual income above Rs. 1,00,000.
Rest of them 23.30 per cent had an income between Rs. 20,000 to Rs.
75,000 per annum, whereas, only 10.00 per cent of them had income
below Rs. 20,000 per annum.
• Kalita et al. (2005) reported that cropping intensity has the highest
positive co-relation of innovation in potato production by the farmers .
Agro-economic Characteristics of Farmers

• Rai et al. (2000) concluded that majority of the farmers had partial
knowledge and lack of detailed knowledge about potato production
technology.
• Raghavendra (2005) reported that majority of the potato growers are
(45.00%) belonging to medium level of innovativeness category followed
by (29.16%) and (25.83%) of respondents belonging to low and high level
of innovativeness.
• Sidram (2008) found that majority of the potato growers are (46.67%)
belonged to low level of risk orientation followed by 29.17 per cent and
24.17 per cent of the respondents belonged to medium and high risk
orientation category.
Socio-psychological Characteristics of Farmers

Communication Characteristics of Farmers
• Dantare et al. (2001) reported that 100 percent farmers obtained farm
information through VLWS, followed by contact farmers (94%), progressive
farmers (92%), friends and neighbours (90%), farmer`s day and leaflets or
bulletins (80%), research and extension officers meetings (75%).
• Kalita et al. (2005) found that utilization of sources of information showed
the highest positive co-relation to adoption of innovation in potato
production.
• Gandhi et al. (2008) conducted a study on adoption practices among
potato growers revealed that mass media exhibited positive significant
relationship with adoption.
• Singh et al. (2010) found that mass-media exposure had positive
correlation but were found to be non-significant with the adoption of
commercial potato cultivation technology.

Adoption Behaviour Characteristics of Farmers
• Kubde et al. (2000) concluded that the potato growers in majority had
partial adoption in respect of spacing, manures, fertilizers, plant protection
measures on potato crop and in storage measures to control the insect
pests, non-adoption of practice of seed treatment preventing sprouting of
potato.
• Sharma et al. (2000) reported that potato growers need training in
cultivation such as digging of potato, fertilizer dose, production technology
method, sowing and fertilizers application, seed rate, diseases and pest
control, intercropping and carrying of potato in the order of merit.
• Kumar et al. (2010) found that the highest adoption level was found in soil
selection of large potato growers (83.33%) and lowest 66.00% of marginal
potato growers.
• Singh et al. (2010) concluded that 82 percent of the potato growers had low
or medium adoption of commercial potato cultivation practices. It means
medium adopters were more energetic, knowledgeable and dynamic.

Perceived Constraints of Farmers
• Kumar (2008) found that method of potato planting was comparable with
the recommended method in terms of yield and economics. TPS
technology was found a potential alternative to mitigate the problem on
non-availability of quality seed.
• Biswas and Nath (2013) found out that major Constraints in adoption of
recommended True potato seed (TPS) production technology in Tripura
were small cultivable land followed by scattered land, low level of
education and large family size.
• Biswas and Nath (2013) revealed that socio economic constraints such as
lack of adoption of technology in large scale followed by lack of
agricultural labour, lack of sufficient loan and low yield were reported as
the major constraints.

Macro Research Setting
 Tripura: General Information at a Glance
• Attained statehood in: 1972, 21st January.
• State Capital: Agartala
• Area: 10,491.69 sqkm
• Altitude: 12.80 meters
• Longitudes: 91°09' and 92°20' East.
• Latitudes: 22°56' and 24°32' North.
• Population : Persons 3,671,032 (Census-
2011)
• Males : 1,871,867 (Census-2011)
• Females : 1,799,165 (Census-2011)
• Temperature (Summer) : 20 to 36 degree C
• Temperature (Winter) : 8-27 degree C.
• Rainy Season : June to August
• Average rainfall : 2500 mm per annum
• Cropping intensity: 187 %
Source: DoA, GoT, 2011 Source:www.mapsofindia.com

Table 3.1 District wise Administrative Set-up
Districts
Sub-
division
Block Panchayats
Revenue
Villages
TTAADC
Villages
AMC/NP
West Tripura 3 9 90 96 77 4
Shepahijala 3 7 112 119 52 3
Khowai 2 6 55 78 58 2
Gomati 3 8 70 134 95 2
South Tripura 3 8 99 138 70 3
Dhalai 4 8 41 146 96 2
Unokoti 2 4 59 78 28 2
North Tripura 3 8 69 89 51 2
Total-8 20 58 595 878 527 20
Source: DoA, GoT, 2011

District 1
Dhalai
District 2
West
Tripura
District 3
South
Tripura
Source:www.mapsofindia.com

Table 3.2 District Profile of Dhalai
Source:www.mapsofindia.comSource: DoA, GoT, 2011
Parameters Particulars
Total Geographical Area 2426.10 Sq Km
Net sown area (in ha) 33752.0
Current fallow (in ha) 540.0
Area sown more than once
a year (in ha)
13628.0
Gross cropped area (ha) 54110.0
Net cropped area (ha) 31932.0
Cropping intensity (%) 169%
Area under food grains (ha) 35039.0
Production of rice (Mt) 96832.4
Productivity of jhum (kg/ha) 3064.0 kg
Area under SRI (ha) 6629.0
Number of Kisan Credit
Card distributed
5333

Table 3.3 District Profile of South Tripura
Particulars Area (ha)
Total geographical area 148566.75
Forest area 120038
Total cropped area 72685
Net sown area 41840
Area sown more than once
a year (in ha)
24647 Ha.
Land under nonagricultural
use
21794.31
Uncultivable land 2187
Permanent pasture 392.39
Land under miscellaneous
tree crops
951.76
Cultivable waste land 4724
Current fallow 475

Table 3.4 District Profile of West Tripura
Particular Statistics
i) Geographical Area 3544 sq.kms
ii) Sub divisions 05
iii) Tehsils 16
iv) Patwar Circle 11
v) Nagar Palika 01
vi) Gram Panchayats 223
vii) Total Area 3544
viii Forest cover 1145.86
ix) Non Agriculture Land Nil
x) Cultivable Barren Land 16233
xi) Forest area 1145.86
xii) Rural Population 1123,030

Research Design
Ex-post Facto Research Design
Panel Data Cross Sectional Data
Secondary Source TPS Grower
Spatio-temporal Adoption Bahavior

Table 4.1 Variable and their Measurement (X)
Variables Measurement
1. Socio-personal
1 Age(X1) On the basis of chronological age at the time of investigation
2 Education level (X2) Scale developed by Pareek and Trivedi(1964)
3 Family size(x3) Scale developed by Pareek and Trivedi (1964)
4 Tenure status (X4) Scored assigned- Tenant-1, Owner-2
5 Occupation (X5) Scored assigned- Agri. Lobour-1, Farmer-2, Service-3 and farmer
and service-4
2. Agro-economic
6 Size of holding (X6) Scored assigned- up to 1 acre-1, 1-2.5
acre-2 and more than 2.5 acre-3
7 Cropping intensity (X7) Scored assigned- Low(100-150%),
Medium(151-200%) and High (>200%)
8 Farm mechanization index (X8) Scored assigned High
(Mean+S.D),Medium(Between
(mean+S.D )and (mean-S.D ) ) and Low
(mean-S.D )
9 Annual income from agriculture/ farming (X9) Scored assigned- High(60000-120000),
Medium(24000-60000) and Low (below
24000 )
10 Irrigation status (X10) Scored assigned- Irrigated-1 and Non-
irrigated-2

3. Socio-psychological
11 Economic motivation (X11) Scale developed by Moulik (1965)
12 Innovation proneness (X12) Scale developed by Moulik (1965)
13 Independency (X13) Scale developed by Supe (1969)
14 Scientific orientation (X14) Scale developed by Supe (1969)
15 Risk orientation (X15) Scale developed by Supe (1969)
16 Production orientation (X16) Scale developed by Samata (1977)
17 Knowledge about of TPS Planting
Techniques (X17)
Scale developed by Choudhury (2000)
18 Perceived benefits of adoption T.P.S (X18) Scored assigned- SA-5, A-4, U-3,D-2 and SD-1
19 Perceived weakness of T.P.S (X19) Scored assigned- SA-5, A-4, U-3,D-2 and SD-1
20 Attitude towards of different Potato
Planting Techniques (X20)
Favorable-1 and Unfavorable-2
4. Communication
21 Mass media exposure (X21) Scale developed by Singh (1972)
22 Contact with personal cosmopolite (X22) Scale developed by Singh (1972)
23 Contact with personal localites (X23) Scale developed by Singh (1972)
24 Training received (X24) Scale developed by De and Rao (2000)

Table 4.2 Variable and their Measurement (Y)
Variables Measurement
1 Adoption index (Y1) Formula used *
2 Discontinuance index (Y2) Formula used **
3 Farmers perception index (Y3) Scored assigned- SA-5, A-4, U-3,D-2 and SD-1
4 Perceived constraints index (Y4) Scored assigned- SA-5, A-4, U-3,D-2 and SD-1
Where, DE = Extent of discontinuance,
Ydi = The period of discontinuance for the ith items of discontinuance,
Ldi =The level of discontinuance for ith items of discontinuance,
nD = Total number of items of discontinuance
Where, AE = Extent of adoption
Yai = The period of adoption for the ith items of adoption
Lai = The level of adoption for ith items of adoption
nA = Total number of items of adoption in this study
Adoption Index (Y1) *
Discontinuance Index (Y2) **

Method of data Collection
Pretesting of Schedule
Personal Interview schedule
Personal Interview - June, 2016 to December, 2017
Dhalai
(15 June 2016 to 30
September 2016)
South Tripura
(15 November 2016
to 15 March 2017)
West Tripura
(15 September 2017
to 30 December
2017)
Total 6 Blocks and 12 Villages were selected
300 Farmers

Interpretation and Analysis of Data
Interval and Ratio
Descriptive Statistics
Testing of Normality
of data
Nominal and Ordinal
1.Frequency
2.Percentage 1.Frequency
2.Percentage
3.Range
4.Mean
5.Standard Deviation
Cross Sectional DataPanel Data
Spatio-temporal data of 4
district (1998-2016)
Area, Production and
Productivity
Compound Annual
Exponential growth
Rate(CAEGR)
1. Correlation
2. Stepwise Multiple Regression
3. Factor Analysis
4. Path Analysis
Version-
SPSS 16.00

Objective
1. To assess the Spatio-temporal variations in
adoption of potato planting technique.

Space and Time Variation
1. Potato
2. Potato
grown by
TPS
5. Maize3. Vegetables 4. Rice
1. Area
2. Production
3. Productivity
Compound Annual
Exponential Growth
Rate(CAEGR)

Table 5.1 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of Potato Tuber
(1998-99 to 2016-17)
1. Potato Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State
1. Area
Mean 2954.53 1563.58 737.54 1096.58 6352.23
SD 863.34 153.64 250.84 311.68 1313.22
CV 29.22 9.83 34.01 28.42 20.67
CAEGR 3.37 -0.34 5.24 5.13 2.91
2.Production Mean 51263.05 27928.89 12004.7 16573 106291.52
SD 16800.45 4331.93 4983.3 4883.49 26648.88
CV 32.77 15.51 41.51 29.47 25.07
CAEGR 3.04 -0.48 5.73 4.11 3.22
3. Productivity Mean 17286.80 17835.08 16034.7 15397.22 16638.45
SD 2129.21 1967.69 1823.61 2740.19 1556.13
CV 12.32 11.03 11.37 17.80 9.35
CAEGR -0.32 -0.14 0.46 -0.97 -0.20
*CAEGR of potato tuber in west district for area and production in negative and CAEGR of
productivity also negative for south and north district but positive for dhalai district

Table 5.2 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of True Potato
Seed(1998-99 to 2016-17)
2. True Potato
seeds
Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State
1. Area Mean 1502.63 740.21 401.20 592.47 3236.52
SD 718.39 240.82 188.76 240.91 1253.42
CV 47.81 32.53 47.05 40.66 38.73
CAEGR 6.40 5.64 8.54 8.45 6.89
2. Production Mean 27698.11 14161.89 6626.2 8112 56598.26
SD 11802.35 4447.21 3472.1 2431.39 19477.22
CV 42.61 31.40 52.40 29.97 34.41
CAEGR 6.08 5.05 8.86 5.80 6.18
3. Productivity
Mean 16340.4 15046.98 16340.4 14508.84 17523.78
SD 1720.32 2960.94 1720.32 2308.74 2099.23
CV 10.53 19.68 10.53 15.91 11.98
CAEGR 0.30 -2.87 0.30 -0.84 -0.31
*CAEGR of true potato seed in area and production is positive but negative for productivity
in west and north district but again positive for south and dhalai district

Table 5.3 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of
Vegetables(1998-99 to 2016-17)
3. Vegetables Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State
1. Area Mean 6326.45 6346.00 1777.53 3182.16 17632.13
SD 4707.28 2088.06 1408.21 1702.38 9704.72
CV 74.41 32.90 79.22 53.50 55.04
CAEGR 7.80 3.82 9.04 5.97 6.19
2. Production Mean 100099.3 99726.26 28794.2 50526.79 279146.6
SD 83736.39 44359.62 23683.9 32536.88 177810.4
CV 83.65 44.48 82.25 64.40 63.70
CAEGR 8.69 2.63 9.26 7.10 6.51
SD 964.60 3332.42 673.28 1296.69 1199.83
CV 6.34 21.48 4.21 8.47 7.74
CAEGR 0.8 -1.15 0.21 1.06 0.45
*CAEGR of vegetables in area, production and productivity is positive

Table 5.4 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of Rice (1998-
99 to 2016-17)
4. Rice Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State
1. Area Mean 127424.7 49312.53 27296.16 47852.95 251886.4
SD 4400.45 1729.66 858.24 1647.89 8243.59
CV 3.45 3.51 3.14 3.44 3.27
CAEGR 0.07 0.24 0.28 0.22 0.15
2. Production Mean 340993.8 123219.7 49116.9 90655.58 603986.1
SD 85781.41 30363.22 12356.0 11060.29 133504.6
CV 25.16 24.64 25.16 12.20 22.10
CAEGR 2.82 2.31 2.82 1.99 2.42
SD 669.59 604.53 439.01 203.69 1797.72
CV 24.99 24.18 24.41 10.76 20.27
CAEGR 2.8 2.06 2.53 1.77 2.11
*CAEGR of rice in area, production and productivity is positive

Table 5.5 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of Maize
(1998-99 to 2016-17)
5. Maize Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State
1. Area Mean 922.21 672.84 648.95 516.47 2760.47
SD 296.43 192.04 185.05 147.43 811.77
CV 32.14 28.54 28.52 28.55 29.41
CAEGR 6.32 5.13 5.12 5.13 5.44
2. Production Mean 1089.11 774.47 744.8 594.37 3202.79
SD 474.51 341.39 331.4 263.05 1409.81
CV 43.57 44.08 44.50 44.26 44.02
CAEGR 8.19 8.35 8.46 8.41 8.32
SD 192.22 190.24 194.16 191.90 699.84
CV 16.69 17.23 17.67 17.41 21.85
CAEGR 1.8 3.06 3.18 3.12 2.69
*CAEGR of maize in area, production and productivity is positive

Table 5.6 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of Areas
of 5 Crops (1998-99 to 2016-17)
Unit Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State Measure
Area CAEGR
Potato
tuber 3.37 -0.34* 3.24 4.13 2.91
TPS 6.40 4.64 5.54 8.45 6.89
Vegetables 7.80 3.82 9.04 5.97 6.19
Rice 0.07 0.24 0.28 0.22 0.15
Maize 6.32 5.13 5.12 5.13 5.44
• The compound annual exponential growth rate of areas of south,
dhalai and north districts are positive but negative for west districts
• The compound annual exponential growth rate of areas for over is
positive

Table 5.7 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of
Production of 5 Crops (1998-99 to 2016-17)
Unit
Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State Measure
Production CAEGR
Potato 3.04 -0.48* 5.73 4.11 3.22
TPS 6.08 5.05 8.86 5.80 6.18
Vegetables 7.80 3.82 9.04 5.97 6.19
Rice 2.82 2.31 2.82 1.99 2.42
Maize 8.19 8.35 8.46 8.41 8.32
• The compound annual exponential growth rate of production of south,
dhalai and north districts are positive but negative for west districts
• The compound annual exponential growth rate of areas for over is
positive

Table 5.8 Compound Annual Exponential Growth Rate of Productivity of
5 Crops (1998-99 to 2016-17)
Unit
Measure South
Tripura
West
Tripura
Dhalai North
Tripura
State Measure
Productivity CAEGR
Potato -0.32 -0.14 0.46 -0.97 -0.20
TPS 0.30 -2.87 0.30 -0.84 -0.31
Vegetables 0.8 -1.15 0.21 1.06 0.45
Rice 2.8 2.06 2.53 1.77 2.11
Maize 1.8 3.06 3.18 3.12 2.69
• The compound annual exponential growth rate of productivity
of south, west and north districts are negative but positive for
dhalai districts for potato production from tuber and TPS
• The compound annual exponential growth rate of productivity
for over all is positive for vegetables(West) , rice and maize but
negative for potato tuber and TPS

Objective
2. To explore the socio-personal, socio-psychological, agro-
economic and communication characteristics of the potato
growers.
Socio-personal
Socio-psychological
Agro-economic
Communication Attributes
3 Districts of Tripura and Compared

Table 5.9. a Distribution of the Farmers According to their Socio-personal
Profiles
Variables Category
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Age
(Years)
Young (Upto 30 years ) 3 3 17 17 7 7 27 9.00
Middle (31 to 50 years ) 73 73 50 50 66 66 189 63.00 *
Old (above 50 years ) 24 24 33 33 37 37 94 31.33 **
Mean (SD)
43.41(8.73) 39.70(8.90) 47.59(10.40) 43.57(9.88)
2. Education Illiterate 00 00 2 2 18 18 20 6.67
Can read 16 16 27 27 26 26 69 23.0**
Can read and write 13 13 29 29 34 34 76 25.4*
Primary 17 17 28 28 21 21 66 22.0
Middle school 19 19 12 12 1 1 32 10.67
High school 8 8 2 2 00 00 10 3.33
Higher secondary 13 13 00 00 00 00 13 4.33
Graduate 3 3 00 00 00 00 3 1.00
Post graduate 1 1 00 00 00 00 1 0.33
Others 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
*F= Frequency and P=percentage

Table 5.9. b Distribution of the Farmers According to their Socio-
personal Profiles
Variables Category
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
3. Family size
Small (up to 3
members )
21 21 35 35 48 48 104 34.66 **
Medium (3 to 5
members)
20 20 30 30 40 40 90 30.33
Large ( >5
members )
59 59 35 35 12 12 106 35.33*
4. Tenure
status
Tenant
cultivator
45 45 38 38 22 22 105 35.00
Own cultivator 55 55 62 62 78 78 195 65.00 *
5. Occupation
Agril. Lobour 9 9 6 6 27 27 42 14.00
Famer 84 84 83 83 72 72 239 79.67 *
Service 2 2 5 5 0 0 7 2.33
Farmer and
service
5 5 6 6 1 1 12 4.00

Table 5.10. a Distribution of the Farmers According to their Agro-economic Profiles
Variables Responses
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
6. Land
holding
Marginal (up to 1 ha ) 13 13 25 25 16 16 54 18.00
Small (1 to 2 ha ) 40 40 35 35 84 84 159 53.00 *
Medium (2 to 5 ha) 47 47 30 30 00 00 77 25.67 **
Large (more than 5 ha) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
Mean (SD) 2.57(1.5) 3.91(2) 8.40(2.6) 4.98(3.2)
7. Cropping
intensity
Low (100 to 150
percent)
52 52 75 75 33 33 160 53.33*
Medium (151 to 200
percent)
48 48 12 12 77 77 137 45.67**
High (201 and above )
00 00 13 13 00 00 13 4.33
Mean (SD) 144.4(33.35) 173.40(24.1) 219(36.1) 178.91(44.01)
8. Farm
mechanizati
on index
Low 36 36 27 27 24 24 87 29.00
Medium 31 31 33 33 59 59 123 41.00*
High 33 33 40 40 17 17 90 30.00 **
Mean (SD) 11.4(3.76) 12.19(4.48) 21.41(11) 15(8.49)

Table 5.10.b Distribution of the Farmers According to their Agro-economic
Profiles
Variables Responses
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
9. Annual
Income
Low (Below
24000)
4 4 10 10 00 00 14 4.67
Medium
(24000-60000)
52 52 40 40 41 41 133 44.33**
High (60000-
1,20,000)
44 44 50 50 59 59 153 51.2*
Mean (SD) 12211(8253)
12301(81
08)
66064(655
53)
30192(29005)
10. Irrigation
status
Irrigated 25 25 55 55 51 51 131 43.67 **
Non-
irrigated
75 75 45 45 49 49 169 56.33*

Table 5.11 Distribution of the Farmers According to their Economic
Motivation and Innovative Proneness
Variables Category
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F PF P F P F P
11. Economic
motivation
index
Low 43 43 35 35 36 36 114 38.00*
Medium 27 27 45 45 22 22
94 31.33
High 40 40 20 20 42 42
102 34.00**
Mean (SD) 4.67(1.8) 5.10(1.0) 4.53(1.5) 4.77(1.6)
12.Innovative
proneness
index
Low 40 40 33 33.33 40 40
113 37.67 **
Medium 28 28 33 33.33 34 34 106 35.33*
High 32 32 33 33.33 26 26 91 30.33
Mean (SD) 4.25(1.6) 6.65(1.7) 4.45(1.3) 5.12(1.9)
*High=Score(SD+Mean), Medium=between Score(SD+Mean) and Score(SD-Mean) and Low=Score(SD-Mean

Table 5.12 Distribution of the Farmers According to their Socio-psychological Profiles
13. Independency Category
Dhalai
n=100
West Tripura
n=100
South Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Doing the things
himself to get it
right
SA 18 18 20 20 20 20 58 19.33 **
A 21 21 20 20 54 54 95 31.67 *
UA 10 10 20 20 26 26 56 18.67
D 36 36 20 20 00 00 56 18.67
SD 15 15 20 20 00 00 35 11.67
2. Independence in
decision making
SA 35 35 35 35 39 39 109 36.33 *
A 20 20 15 15 61 61 96 32 2 **
UA 15 15 25 25 00 00 40 13.33
D 20 20 25 25 00 00 45 15
SD 10 10 00 00 00 00 10 3.33
3. Freeness, self
reliant and
avoiding outside
help, bring the best
SA 6 6 35 35 5 5 46 15.33
A 15 15 45 45 24 24 84 28.00 *
UA 26 26 20 20 33 33 79 26.33**
D 32 32 00 00 32 32 64 21.33
SD 21 21 00 00 6 6 27 9.00
4. Financially
successful on his
own
SA 19 19 20 20 21 21 60 20.00
A 15 15 10 10 23 23 48 16.00
UA 17 17 50 50 18 18 85 28.33*
D 31 31 20 20 27 27 78 26.00**
SD 18 18 00 00 11 11 29 9.67
5. Teaching family
member for
independent
decision making
SA 6 6 15 15 11 11 32 10.67
A 20 20 20 20 32 32 72 24.00**
UA 19 19 15 15 7 7 41 13.67
D 36 36 25 25 34 34 95 31.67*
SD 19 19 25 25 16 16 60 20.00
6. No independency
in present day
SA 22 22 10 10 21 21 53 17.67
A 13 13 10 10 25 25 48 16.00
UA 22 22 15 15 18 18 55 18.33**
D 22 22 15 15 13 13 50 16.67
SD 21 21 50 50 23 23 94 31.33*
Mean Index (S.D) 11.08(3.25) 60.77(9.02) 57.08(10.89) 42.98(24.13)

Table5.13 Distribution of the farmers according to their Socio-psychological profiles
14. Scientific orientation Category
Dhalai
(n=100)
West Tripura
(n=100)
South Tripura
(n=100)
Cumulative
(N=300)
F P F P F P F P
1. New methods of farming
systems give better results
to a farmer than the old
method
SA 18 18 50 50 18 18 86 28.67 **
A 15 15 25 25 60 60 100 33.33 *
UA 19 19 25 25 22 22 66 22.00
D 33 33 00 00 00 00 33 11.00
SD 15 15 00 00 00 00 15 5.00
2. The way a farmer’s
forefather farmed is still
the best way to farm today
SA 20 20 00 00 00 00 20 6.67
A 25 25 25 25 2 2 52 17.33
UA 13 13 13 13 54 54 80 26.67
D 26 26 12 12 30 30 68 22.67 **
SD 16 16 50 50 14 14 80 26.67*
3. Only a farmer with lot
of experience should use
new methods of farming
SA 20 20 50 50 1 1 71 23.67
A 16 16 25 25 00 00 41 13.67
UA 15 15 25 25 41 41 81 27.00 *
D 33 33 00 00 47 47 80 26.67**
SD 16 16 00 00 11 11 27 9.00
4. Though it takes time for
a farmer to learn new
methods in farming it is
worth the efforts
SA 23 23 25 25 77 77 125 41.67*
A 5 5 25 25 8 8 38 12.67
UA 19 19 25 25 6 6 50 16.67
D 34 34 25 25 9 9 68 22.67**
SD 15 15 00 00 00 00 15 5.00
5. A good farmer
experiments with new ideas
in farming
SA 11 11 25 25 32 32 68 22.67 **
A 16 16 35 35 24 24 75 25.00*
UA 15 15 30 30 17 17 62 20.67
D 40 40 00 00 27 27 67 22.33
SD 18 18 00 00 00 00 18 6.00
6. Traditional methods of
farming have to be changed
in order to raise the levels
of living of a farmer
SA 11 11 50 50 28 28 89 29.67**
A 16 16 50 50 47 47 113 37.67 *
UA 25 25 00 00 27 27 52 17.33
D 28 28 00 00 00 00 28 9.33
SD 20 20 00 00 00 00 20 6.67
Mean Index (SD) 43.41(12.85) 73.84(8.82) 63.92(8.88) 60.39(16.36)

Table 5.14 Distribution of the Farmers According to their Socio-psychological Profiles
15. Risk orientation Category
Dhalai(
n=100)
West Tripura
(n=100)
South Tripura
(n=100)
Cumulative
(N=300)
F P F P F P F P
1. A farmer should grow
more crops to avoid greater
risks involved in growing
one or two crops
SA 17 17 35 35 6 6 58 19.33
A 15 15 15 15 28 28 58 19.33
UA 20 20 22 22 37 37 79 26.33
D 25 25 38 38 15 15 78 26.00
SD 23 23 00 00 14 14 37 12.33
2. A farmer should rather
take more of a chance in
making a big profit than to
be content with a smaller but
less risky profit
SA 19 19 25 25 25 25 69 23.00 **
A 14 14 40 40 60 60 114 38.00*
UA 18 18 15 15 15 15 48 16.00
D 33 33 30 30 00 00 63 21.00
SD 16 16 00 00 00 00 16 5.33
3. A farmer who is willing to
take greater risks than the
average usually does better
financially
SA 11 11 20 20 28 28 59 19.67
A 2 2 25 25 72 72 99 33.00*
UA 21 21 35 35 00 00 56 18.67
D 42 42 20 20 00 00 62 20.67**
SD 42 42 00 00 00 00 42 14.00
4. It is good for a farmer to
take risks when he knows his
chance of success is fairly
high
SA 16 16 50 50 00 00 66 22.00 **
A 9 9 50 50 21 21 80 26.67*
UA 15 15 00 00 49 49 64 21.33
D 37 37 00 00 21 21 58 19.33
SD 23 23 00 00 00 00 23 7.67
5. It is better for a farmer
not to try new farming
methods unless most others
have used them with success
SA 18 18 25 25 8 8 51 17.00
A 15 15 20 20 24 24 59 19.67
UA 24 24 15 15 32 32 71 23.67 **
D 23 23 40 40 19 19 82 27.33*
SD 20 20 00 00 17 17 37 12.33
6. Trying an entirely new
method in farming by a
farmer involves risk but it is
worth it
SA 21 21 20 20 00 00 41 13.67
A 47 47 10 10 18 18 75 25.00**
UA 16 16 20 20 61 61 97 32.33 *
D 7 7 50 50 18 18 75 25.00
SD 9 9 00 00 00 00 9 3.00
Mean Index (S.D) 24.38(13.52) 37.05(12.25) 42(9.45) 34.48(13.97)

Table 5.15.Distribution of the farmers according to their socio-psychological profiles
16. Production orientation Category Dhalai
n=100
West
n=100
South
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Timely planting of crops
ensures good yield
S.A 38 38 65 65 41 41 144 48.00 **
A 56 56 35 35 54 54 145 48.33 *
U.A 2 2 00 00 5 5 7 2.33
D 4 4 00 00 00 00 4 1.33
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
2. One should use balance
dose of fertilizer
S.A 15 15 80 80 00 00 95 31.67*
A 33 33 20 20 35 35 88 29.33 **
U.A 19 19 00 00 25 25 44 19.66
D 14 14 00 00 20 20 34 11.33
S.D 19 19 00 00 20 20 39 13
3. Determining fertilizer
dose by soil testing saves
money
S.A 44 44 50 50 60 60 154 51.33*
A 49 49 50 50 40 40 139 46.33 **
U.A 3 3 00 00 00 00 3 1.00
D 4 4 00 00 00 00 4 1.33
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
4. Seed rate should be given
as recommended by the
specialists
S.A 36 36 75 75 54 54 165 55.00*
A 25 25 25 25 46 46 96 32.00 **
U.A 39 39 00 00 00 00 39 13.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
5. For timely weed control
one should even use suitable
herbicides
S.A 32 32 100 100 52 52
184 61.33*
A 23 23 00 00 48 48 71 23.67 **
U.A 45 45 00 00 00 00 45 15.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
6. With low water rates one
should use as much
irrigation water as available
S.A 15 15 15 15 00 00 30 10.00
A 51 51 10 10 00 00 61 20.33 **
U.A 34 34 50 50 70 70 154 51.33*
D 00 00 20 20 30 30 50 16.67
S.D 00 00 05 05 00 00 5 1.67
Mean Index (SD) 45.87(13.74) 79.46(45.5) 68.50(25.71) 64.61(22.01)

Table 5.16. Distribution of the farmers according to their Socio-psychological profiles
17. Perceived benefit of
adoption of TPS
Category Dhalai
n=100
West
n=100
South
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. It has helped farmer to
increase their income
S.A 12 12 50 50 19 19 81 27.00**
A 7 7 50 50 34 34 91 30.33 *
U.A 14 14 00 00 30 30 44 14.67
D 52 52 00 00 12 12 64 21.33
S.D 15 15 00 00 5 5 20 6.67
2. Adopted because, it is
gainful to me
S.A 16 16 80 80 7 7 103 34.33*
A 22 22 20 20 46 46 88 29.33 *
U.A 10 10 00 00 32 32 42 14.00
D 32 32 00 00 9 9 41 13.67
S.D 20 20 00 00 6 6 26 8.67
3. It’s better than
conventional cultivation
S.A 6 6 100 100 13 13 119 39.67*
A 15 15 00 00 44 44 59 19.67**
U.A 26 26 00 00 28 28 54 18.00
D 32 32 00 00 8 8 40 13.33
S.D 21 21 00 00 7 7 28 9.33
4. It has less disease and
pest infestation.
S.A 19 19 50 50 18 18 87 29.00*
A 15 15 50 50 16 16 81 27.00 **
U.A 18 18 00 00 42 42 60 20.00
D 15 15 00 00 19 19 34 11.33
S.D 19 19 00 00 5 5 24 8.00
5. It has less labour
requirement.
S.A 6 6 20 20 1 1 27 9.00
A 20 20 20 20 3 3 43 14.33
U.A 19 19 60 60 42 42 121 40.33*
D 35 35 00 00 29 29 64 21.33 **
S.D 20 20 00 00 25 25 45 15.00
6. All type of farmers-
small or big, rich or poor
will equally be benefited
S.A 14 14 100 100 6 6 120 40.00*
A 9 9 00 00 32 32 41 13.67
U.A 23 23 00 00 48 48 71 23.67**
D 36 36 00 00 10 10 46 15.33
S.D 18 18 00 00 4 4 22 7.33
7. Intercrop is possible. S.A 31 31 100 100 40 40 171 57.00*
A 69 69 00 00 60 60 129 43.00 **
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
Mean Index (SD) 51.07(10.16) 76.69(5.72) 67.22(9.02) 64.99(13.57)

Table. 5.17. Knowledge about towards different potato planting technique (T.P.S)
18. Knowledge level on TPS
R
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Requires very less seed than
traditional practice (100gm-150g /ha)
Y 100 100 95 95 45 45 240 80.00*
N 00 00 5 5 55 55 60 20.00
2. Being hybrid capable of giving
more production
Y 95 95 85 85 48 48 228 76.00**
N 5 5 15 15 52 52 72 24.00
3. Absolutely disease free seed
material
Y 89 89 50 50 55 55 194 64.67*
N 11 11 50 50 45 45
106 35.33
4. Comparatively more resistance to
pest and disease
Y 66 66 55 55 40 40 161 53.67*
N 34 34 45 45 60 60 139 46.33
5. No cold storage facilities required
for storing
Y 100 100 100 100 100 100
300 100.0*
N 00 00 00 00 00 00
0 0.00
6. Net profit is more as cost of
cultivation is less and at the same
time the yield is more
Y 70 70 100 100 100 100
270 90.00*
N 30 30 00 00 00 00
30 10.00
7. Requires very less seed than
traditional practice (100gm-150g /ha)
Y 67 67 80 80 100 100 247 82.33*
N 33 33 20 20 00 00 53 17.67
7. Practically no cost is involved for
transplanting unlike seed tuber
Y 78 78 80 80 100 100 258 86.00*
N 22 22 20 20 00 00 42 14.00

Table 5.18 Perceived Dissatisfaction on True Potato Seeds
19. Perceived
dissatisfaction on TPS
Category Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Because it is costly
venture.
SA 19 19 00 00 5 5 24 8.00
A 17 17 00 00 19 19 36 12.00
UA 14 14 50 50 39 39 103 34.33 **
D 34 34 50 50 23 23 107 35.67 *
SD 16 16 00 00 14 14 30 10.00
2.Because available
technologies are complex
to follow.
SA 23 23 20 20 10 10 53 17.67 *
A 8 8 80 80 38 38 126 42.00**
UA 18 18 00 00 35 35 53 17.67
D 36 36 00 00 11 11 47 15.67
SD 15 15 00 00 6 6 21 7.00
3. The conventional
cultivation of Potato is
more profitable than
TPA
SA 11 11 00 00 9 9 20 6.67
A 15 15 00 00 17 17 32 10.67
UA 15 15 50 50 24 24 89 29.67 **
D 40 40 50 50 33 33 123 41.00*
SD 19 19 00 00 17 17 36 12.00
4. No such market
support as it demands
for produce
SA 12 12 00 00 3 3 15 5.00
A 16 16 00 00 6 6 22 7.33
UA 25 25 50 50 39 39 114 38.00 **
D 28 28 50 50 37 37 115 38.33*
SD 19 19 00 00 15 15 34 11.33
5. Because a better
alternative is at hand.
SA 1 1 00 00 15 15 16 5.33
A 2 2 00 00 36 36 38 12.67
UA 22 22 00 00 24 24 46 15.33 **
D 51 51 100 100 13 13 164 54.67*
SD 24 24 00 00 12 12 36 12.00
Mean Index (SD) 65.35(13.05) 56.32(8.27) 72.50(16.49) 64.72(14.60)

Table 5.19 Distribution of the Farmers according to their Communication Profiles
20. Mass media
exposure Responses
Dhalai
n=100
West Tripura
n=100
South Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Radio Very often (3) 6 6 45 45 15 15 66 22.00
Often (2) 32 32 20 20 38 38 90 30.00 **
Sometimes(1) 40 40 15 15 36 36 91 30.33 *
Never (0) 22 22 10 10 11 11 43 14.33
2. Television Very often (3) 4 4 25 25 26 26 55 18.33
Often (2) 26 26 25 25 32 32 83 27.67 **
Sometimes(1) 41 41 50 50 21 21 112 37.33*
Never (0) 29 29 00 00 21 21 50 16.67
3. Newspaper Very often (3) 26 26 35 35 28 28 89 29.67**
Often (2) 20 20 35 35 18 18 73 24.33
Sometimes(1) 37 37 30 30 53 53 120 40.00*
Never (0) 17 17 00 00 00 00 17 5.67
4. Farm Publication Very often (3) 11 11 15 15 11 11 37 12.33
Often (2) 24 24 35 35 24 24 83 27.67 **
Sometimes(1) 38 38 50 50 39 39 127 42.33*
Never (0) 27 27 00 00 28 28 55 18.33
5. Poster Very often (3) 14 14 15 15 14 14 43 14.33
Often (2) 23 23 15 15 24 24 62 20.67
Sometimes(1) 38 38 15 15 39 39 92 30.67 **
Never (0) 25 25 55 55 23 23 103 34.33*
6. Demonstration Very often (3) 19 19 20 20 16 16 55 18.33
Often (2) 24 24 20 20 25 25 69 23.00 **
Sometimes(1) 37 37 30 30 38 38 105 35.00*
Never (0) 20 20 30 30 21 21 71 23.67
7. Field Trip Very often (3) 24 24 20 20 22 22 66 22.00
Often (2) 24 24 20 20 26 26 70 23.33
Sometimes(1) 32 32 20 20 32 32 84 28.00*
Never (0) 20 20 40 40 20 20 80 26.67 **
8. Krishi Mela/
Agril.
Exhibition
Very often (3) 4 4 15 15 4 4 23 7.67
Often (2) 24 24 20 20 25 25 69 23.00
Sometimes(1) 40 40 35 35 40 40 115 38.33*
Never (0) 32 32 30 30 31 31 93 31.00 **
Mean Index (SD) 42.11(11.30) 25.41(9.32) 47.13(12.38) 38.22(14.43)

21. Contact with
Personal cosmopolites
Reponses
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. A.D.O./A.E.O. Very often (3) 4 4 22 22 00 00 26 8.67
Often (2) 27 27 33 33 25 25 85 28.33 **
Sometimes(1) 45 45 34 34 26 26 105 35.00 *
Never (0) 24 24 11 11 49 49 84 28.00
2. K.P.S./V.L.W Very often (3) 10 10 45 45 00 00 55 18.33
Often (2) 23 23 15 15 42 42 80 26.67**
Sometimes(1) 39 39 15 15 14 14 68 22.67
Never (0) 28 28 35 35 44 44 107 35.67*
3. Panchayat
Personnel
Very often (3) 30 30 40 40 00 00 70 23.33**
Often (2) 30 30 20 20 00 00 50 16.67
Sometimes(1) 25 25 40 40 94 94 159 53.00*
Never (0) 15 15 00 00 6 6 21 7.00
4. Input dealer Very often (3) 10 10 25 25 00 00 35 11.67
Often (2) 26 26 50 50 00 00 76 25.33 **
Sometimes(1) 40 40 25 25 82 82 147 49.00*
Never (0) 24 24 00 00 18 18 42 14.00
5. Contact with
Personal localites
Very often (3) 34 34 25 25 00 00 59 19.67
Often (2) 28 28 35 35 00 00 63 21.00 **
Sometimes(1) 23 23 30 30 56 56 109 36.33*
Never (0) 15 15 00 00 44 44 59 19.67
Mean Index (SD) 42.23(11.77) 23.84(11.21) 26.94(11.67) 31(10.05)
Table 5.20 Contact with Personal Cosmopolites

22. Contact with
Personal localites
Responses
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Friends and
relative
Very often (3) 35 35 45 45 3 3 83 27.67
Often (2) 43 43 28 28 55 55 126 42.00*
Sometimes(1) 22 22 22 22 42 42 86 28.67
Never (0) 0 0 15 15 00 00 15 5.00
2. Neighbour Very often (3) 38 38 40 40 9 9 87 29.00
Often (2) 35 35 45 45 53 53 133 44.33*
Sometimes(1) 23 23 15 15 38 38 76 25.33
Never (0) 4 4 4 1.3300 00 00 00
3. Village leader
(informal)
Very often (3) 10 10 25 25 00 00 35 11.67
Often (2) 38 38 25 25 00 00 63 21.00
Sometimes(1) 45 45 50 50 45 45 140 46.67*
Never (0) 7 7 00 00 55 55 62 20.67
4. Farmers outside
of the village
Very often (3) 3 3 35 35 2 2 40 13.33
Often (2) 7 7 15 15 5 5 27 9.00
Sometimes(1) 59 59 20 20 32 32 111 37.00
Never (0) 31 31 30 30 61 61 122 40.67*
Mean Index (SD) 47.81(11.84) 51.28(9.40) 36.74(8.82) 45.28(11.83)
Table 5.21 Contact with Personal Localites

Table 5.22 Training Received by Farmers on True Potato Seed
23. Training
received on TPS
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
Yes(1) 88 88 90 90 45 45 223 74.33*
No(0) 12 12 10 10 55 55 77 25.67
24. Attitudes
Towards
TPS
Responses
Dhalai
n=100
West
n=100
South
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
Favourable (1) 97 97 95 95 82 82 274 91.33*
Un favourable(2) 3 3 05 05 18 18 26 8.67
Table 5.23 Attitudes of Farmers towards True Potato Seed

Objective
3. To analyze the adoption behavior of farmers
growing potato through TPS and the factors
affecting it.
Adoption Behavior of
Farmers
Factors Affecting in
Adoption of TPS

1. Extent of Adoption
(Y1) Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1.Preparation of raised nursery
bed (15 cm) and seed sown at 0.5
cm depth
Fully(2) 28 28 34 34 24 24 86 28.67
Partially(1) 36 36 44 44 47 47 127 42.33 *
Not at all(0) 36 36 22 22 29 29 87 29.00
2. Application of foliar spray of
0.1 % urea solution from 15 days
of sowing on alternate days
Fully(2) 0 0 50 50 1 1 51 17.00
Partially(1) 46 46 50 50 70 70 166 55.33 *
Not at all(0) 54 54 00 00 29 29 83 27.67
3. Transplantation of 25-28 days
old seedling with 3 to 4 leaf stage
Fully(2) 84 84 75 75 56 56 215 71.67*
Partially(1) 16 16 13 13 44 44 73 24.33
Not at all(0) 0 0 12 12 00 00 12 4.00
4. Land prepare main field to a
good tilt
Fully(2) 53 53 80 80 6 6 139 46.33*
Partially(1) 47 47 20 20 52 52 119 39.67
Not at all(0) 0 0 00 00 42 42 42 14.00
5. Application of fertilizers
@30:40:60 kg of NPK per acre
Fully(2) 72 72 68 68 6 6 146 48.67*
Partially(1) 28 28 22 22 52 52 102 34.00
Not at all(0) 00 00 20 20 42 42 62 20.67
6. Preparation of ridges of 15 cm
height and furrows at 50 to 60 cm
apart in east - west direction
Fully(2) 00 00 55 55 54 54 109 36.33
Partially(1) 70 70 25 25 46 46 141 47.00*
Not at all(0) 30 30 30 30 00 00 60 20.00
Table 5.24 Extent of Adoption of TPS as Planting Material

1. Extent of Adoption (Y1)
Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
7. Irrigation of the furrows up to 3
inches
Fully(2) 9 9 28 28 45 45 82 27.33
Partially(1) 52 52 32 32 55 55 139 46.33*
Not at all(0) 39 39 40 40 00 00 79 26.33
8. Application of 30 kg Nitrogen
per acre after weeding and earthing
up on 35th day of transplanting
Fully(2)
100 100 100 100 57 57 257 85.67*
Partially(1) 00 00 00 00 43 43 43 14.33
Not at all(0) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
9. Water management Fully(2) 00 00 50 50 46 46 96 32.00
Partially(1) 100 100 50 50 54 54 204 68.00*
Not at all(0) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
10. Plant protection measures Fully(2) 100 100 50 50 75 75 225 75*
Partially(1) 00 00 50 50 25 25 75 25
Not at all(0) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
11. Timely harvesting and Storage Fully(2) 29 29 85 85 55 55 169 56.33*
Partially(1) 54 54 15 15 45 45 114 38.00
Not at all(0) 17 17 00 00 00 00 17 5.67
*F=frequency, P=percentage

Table 5.25 Adoption Index of Farmers of TPS as Planting Material
Districts Range Mean SD CV (%)
Minimum Maximum
Dhalai 35 85 53.75** 11.79 21.94
West Tripura 10 98 63.09* 23.85 37.81
South Tripura 27 94 49.12 11.12 22.65
Total 40 98 55.42 17.55 31.67
West Tripura Dhalai South Tripura
Extent of Adoption

Table 5.26 Extent of Discontinuance of TPS as Planting Material
2. Extent Discontinuance
(Y2 ) Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1.Preparation of raised
nursery bed (15 cm) and
seed sown at 0.5 cm depth
Fully (2) 18 18 00 00 00 00 18 6.00
Partially(1) 42 42 74 74 100 100 216 72.00*
Not at all(0) 40 40 28 28 00 00 68 22.67
2. Application of foliar
spray of 0.1 % urea solution
from 15 days of sowing on
alternate days
Fully (2) 14 14 00 00 00 00 14 4.67
Partially(1) 48 48 100 100 100 100 248 82.67*
Not at all(0) 38 38 00 00 00 00 38 12.67
3. Transplantation of 25-28
days old seedling with 3 to
4 leaf stage
Fully (2) 30 30 00 00 00 00 30 10.00
Partially(1) 45 45 00 00 100 100 145 48.33*
Not at all(0) 25 25 100 100 00 00 125 41.67
4. Land prepare main field
to a good tilt
Fully (2) 75 75 60 60 70 70 205 68.33
Partially(1) 25 25 40 40 30 30 95 31.66
Not at all(0) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
5. Application of fertilizers
@30:40:60 kg of NPK per
acre
Fully (2) 15 15 9 9 00 00 24 8.00
Partially(1) 57 57 49 49 00 00 106 35.33
Not at all(0) 28 28 42 42 100 100 170 56.67*
6. Preparation of ridges of
15 cm height and furrows at
50 to 60 cm apart in east -
west direction
Fully (2) 16 16 4 40 00 00 20 6.67
Partially(1) 46 46 96 96 00 00 142 47.33*
Not at all(0) 38 38 00 00 100 100 138 46.00

2. Extent of
Discontinuance (Y2 ) Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
7. Irrigation of the furrows up to 3
inches
Fully(2) 14 14 00 00 00 00 14 4.67
Partially(1) 53 53 68 68 00 00 121 40.33
Not at all(0) 33 33 32 32 100 100 165 55.00*
8. Application of 30 kg Nitrogen
per acre after weeding and earthing
up on 35th day of transplanting
Fully(2)
16 16 00 00 00 00 16 5.33
Partially(1) 49 49 57 57 00 00 106 35.33
Not at all(0) 35 35 43 43 100 100 178 59.33*
9. Water management Fully(2) 14 14 00 00 00 00 14 4.67
Partially(1) 61 61 31 31 00 00 92 30.67
Not at all(0) 25 25 69 69 100 100 194 64.67*
10. Plant protection measures Fully(2) 16 16 00 00 00 00 16 5.33
Partially(1) 60 60 31 31 00 00 91 30.33
Not at all(0) 24 24 69 69 100 100 193 64.33*
11. Timely harvesting and Storage Fully(2) 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 3.00
Partially(1) 60 60 100 100 00 00 160 53.33*
Not at all(0) 31 31 00 00 100 100 131 43.67
*F=frequency, P=percentage

Table 5.27 Discontinuance Index of Farmers on TPS as Planting
Material
Minimum Maximum
Dhalai 2 26 10.34** 4.31 41.68
West Tripura 0 12 3.20* 2.42 75.51
South Tripura 10.00 75.00 23.67 12.62 53.33
Total 12 65 12.40 11.53 92.99
West Tripura South TripuraDhalai
Extent of Discontinuance

Table 5.28 Attributes of TPS as Planting Material as Perceived by the
Farmers
3. Perceived Attributes of TPS
(Y3)
Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Relative Advantage (Provides
better yield and more income
compare to potato tuber )
SA 54 54 45 45 34 34 133 44.33
A 46 46 55 55 46 46 147 49.00*
UA 00 00 00 00 20 20 20 6.67
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
SD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
2. Compatibility (TPS can be
grown in existing socio-economic
condition of farmer)
SA 9 9 9 9 19 19 37 12.33
A 40 40 40 40 43 43 123 41.00*
UA 34 34 34 34 38 38 106 35.33
D 13 13 14 14 00 00 27 9.00
SD 3 3 3 3 00 00 6 2.00
3. Complexity (Package of practice
are complex as compare to
traditional way of potato
production)
SA 29 29 29 29 11 11 69 23.00
A 39 39 40 40 42 42 121 40.33*
UA 20 20 20 20 47 47 87 29.00
D 10 10 10 10 00 00 20 6.67
SD 1 1 1 1 00 00 2 0.67
4. Trailability (TPS can be try by
small area by the farmer , to see
benefit of adopting it )
SA 28 28 28 28 47 47 103 34.33
A 54 54 47 47 53 53 154 51.33*
UA 14 14 17 17 00 00 31 10.33
D 4 4 8 8 00 00 12 4.00
SD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00

3. Perceived Attributes of
TPS (Y3)
Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
5. Observability (Adoption of TPS
and its benefits can be seen by the
farmer in a agricultural year )
S.A 27 27 26 26 50 50 103 34.33
A 41 41 41 41 50 50 132 44.00
U.A 29 29 30 30 0 0 59 19.67
D 3 3 3 3 0 0 6 2.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
6. Predictability (Yield and income
from the TPS can be predicted by
comparing result from other
farmers)
S.A 19 19 35 35 2 2 56 18.67
A 34 34 32 32 29 29 95 31.67*
U.A 27 27 20 20 47 47 94 31.33
D 20 20 13 13 19 19 52 17.33
S.D 1 1 00 00 3 3 4 1.33
Districts
Range
Mean SD CV (%)
Minimum Maximum
Dhalai 38 72 51.6 6.70 12.98
West Tripura 64 92 79.88* 5.04 6.31
South Tripura 33 78 54.21** 7.59 13.99
Total 33 92 61.90 14.34 23.17
Table 5.29 Perceived Attributes of TPS Index

Perceived Attributes of TPS
South Tripura West Tripura
Relative Advantage
Dhalai
Compatibility
Predictability
Complexity
Trailability
Observability
44%
41%
23%
52%
44.5%
31%
Strongly
Agree

Table 5.30 Perceived constraints of TPS as Planting Material
4. Economic
constraints Category
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. High cost of
inputs
S.A 4 4 18 18 00 00 22 7.33
A 13 13 26 26 44 44 83 27.67
U.A 41 41 28 28 56 56 125 41.67*
D 40 40 20 20 00 00 60 20.00
S.D 3 3 8 8 00 00 11 3.67
2. Lack of timely
availability of
fund for
arranging inputs
S.A 54 54 21 21 00 00 75 25.00
A 46 46 27 27 49 49 122 40.67*
U.A 0 0 21 21 47 47 68 22.67
D 0 0 26 26 00 00 26 8.67
S.D 0 0 5 5 4 4 9 3.00
3. Lack of
adequate
remunerative
price for output
S.A 16 16 00 00 00 00 16 5.33
A 28 28 26 26 47 47 101 33.67*
U.A 14 14 22 22 43 43 79 26.33
D 27 27 30 30 10 10 67 22.33
S.D 15 15 21 21 00 00 36 12.00
4. Lack of proper
marketing
facilities
S.A 54 54 22 22 42 42 118 39.33
A 46 46 15 15 58 58 119 39.67*
U.A 0 0 27 27 00 00 27 9.00
D 0 0 26 26 00 00 26 8.67
S.D 0 0 10 10 00 00 10 3.33

Table 5.31 Technological Constraints
4. Economic
constraints
Category
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
5. Non-availability
of insurance when
crop fails
S.A 63 63 13 13 45 45 121 40.33*
A 37 37 4 4 55 55 96 32.00
U.A 0 0 17 17 00 00 17 5.67
D 0 0 46 46 00 00 46 15.33
S.D 0 0 20 20 00 00 20 6.67
6. Low profit from
sale of potato
S.A 13 13 00 00 35 35 48 16.00
A 41 41 00 00 50 50 91 30.33*
U.A 40 40 22 22 15 15 77 25.67
D 0 0 53 53 00 00 53 17.67
S.D 0 0 25 25 00 00 25 8.33
5. Technological
Response Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Lack of
knowledge of TPS
cultivation
S.A 44 44 0 0 52 52 96 32.00*
A 47 47 0 0 48 48 95 31.67
U.A 9 9 30 30 00 00 39 13.00
D 0 0 47 47 00 00 47 15.67
S.D 00 00 23 23 00 00 23 7.67

5.Technological Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
2. Lack of improved
TPS practices
S.A 00 00 40 40 44 44 84 28.00
A 46 46 25 25 58 58 129 43.00*
U.A 54 54 13 13 00 00 67 22.33
D 00 00 20 20 00 00 20 6.67
S.D 00 00 2 2 00 00 2 0.67
3. Lack of cold
storage system.
S.A 56 56 67 67 48 48 171 57.00*
A 44 44 33 33 52 52 129 43.00
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
4. Lack of
Knowledge of
IPM/INM
S.A 69 69 40 40 50 50 159 53.00*
A 31 31 60 60 50 50 141 47.00
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
5. lack of knowledge
of HYV of potato
suitable for area
S.A 48 48 18 18 58 58 124 41.33*
A 54 54 23 23 42 42 119 39.67
U.A 00 00 13 13 00 00 13 4.33
D 00 00 27 27 00 00 27 9.00
S.D 00 00 20 20 00 00 20 6.67

Table 5.32 Extension and Communication Constraints
3. Extension and
Communication Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. Lack of knowledge
about recent
technologies
S.A 59 59 37 37 38 38 134 44.67
A 41 41 45 45 62 62 148 49.33*
U.A 00 00 13 13 00 00 13 4.33
D 00 00 3 3 00 00 3 1.00
S.D 00 00 2 2 00 00 2 0.67
2. The visit of extension
worker/scientist and
VLWs are not regular
S.A 69 69 53 53 30 30 152 50.67*
A 31 31 47 47 70 70 148 49.33
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
3. Inadequate
demonstration of new
technologies
S.A 48 48 55 55 51 51 154 51.33*
A 52 52 45 45 49 49 146 48.67
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0.00
4. Lack of mass-media
contact
S.A 57 57 40 40 45 45 142 47.33
A 43 43 60 60 55 55 158 52.67*
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00

Table 5.33 Institutional constraints
4. Institutional
constraints Response
Dhalai
n=100
West
Tripura
n=100
South
Tripura
n=100
Cumulative
N=300
F P F P F P F P
1. No timely service
and supply of TPS
S.A 31 31 46 46 45 45 122 40.67
A 58 58 54 54 55 55 167 55.67*
U.A 11 11 00 00 00 00 11 3.67
D 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
S.D 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
2. Lack in an intensive
training in the use TPS
S.A 29 29 48 48 49 49 126 42.00
A 68 68 43 43 51 51 162 54.00*
U.A 3 3 5 5 00 00 8 2.67
D 00 00 2 2 00 00 2 0.67
S.D 00 00 2 2 00 00 2 0.67
3. Lack of efficient
marketing facilities at
village level
S.A 48 48 47 47 59 59 154 51.33*
A 52 52 53 53 41 41 146 48.67
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
4. Very limited Govt.
subsidy on production
inputs
S.A 49 49 42 42 52 52 143 47.67
A 51 51 58 58 48 48 157 52.33*
U.A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00
D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
S.D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Table 5.34 Perceived Constraints Index of TPS as Planting
Material
Minimum Maximum
Dhalai 35 98 82.9** 10.04 12.12
West Tripura 76 98 85.75* 3.03 3.54
South Tripura 54 90 76.67 4.56 5.95
Total 54 98 82.40 6.04 7.33
West Tripura South TripuraDhalai
Extent of Perceived Constraints of TPS as Planting Material

Adoption behaviour and factors affecting Adoption
Variables measured in Interval and Ratio Scale
Total 24 variable are found to be normally
distributed
Total 28 variables were selected
Normality of data tested in SPSS(Skewness and Kurtosis)
Relational Statistics

Table 5.35 Testing of Normality of Data
Skewness and Kurtosis
Variables N Range Minimum Maximum Mean S.D Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
X1 300 45.00 20.00 65.00 43.57 9.88 22.68 -0.07 0.14 -0.61 0.28
X2 300 8.00 1.00 9.00 3.71 1.69 45.55 0.56 0.14 0.02 0.28
X3 300 16.00 1.00 17.00 5.55 1.80 32.47 0.08 0.14 0.42 0.28
X4 300 4.00 1.00 5.00 1.93 0.62 32.10 0.50 0.14 0.18 0.28
X5 300 15.00 .50 15.50 4.96 3.23 65.19 0.79 0.14 -0.16 0.28
X6 300 278.00 50.00 328.00 178.91 44.01 24.60 0.13 0.14 0.82 0.28
X7 300 50.00 5.00 55.00 15.00 8.49 56.62 0.17 0.14 0.65 0.28
X8 300 8.00 1.00 9.00 4.77 1.63 34.09 0.19 0.14 -0.60 0.28
X9 300 8.00 1.00 9.00 5.12 1.92 37.43 0.35 0.14 -0.72 0.28
X10 300 85.00 3.00 88.00 42.98 24.13 56.15 -0.38 0.14 -1.46 0.28
X11 300 76.00 16.00 92.00 60.39 16.36 27.09 -0.52 0.14 -0.40 0.28
X12 300 70.00 .00 70.00 34.48 13.97 40.51 -0.10 0.14 -0.55 0.28
X13 300 295.00 20.00 315.00 64.61 22.01 34.07 0.55 0.14 0.12 0.28
X14 300 68.40 23.00 91.40 64.99 13.57 20.88 -0.59 0.14 -0.41 0.28
X15 300 80.00 35.00 115.00 64.72 14.60 22.55 0.80 0.14 0.64 0.28
X16 300 70.80 4.20 75.00 38.22 14.43 37.76 0.06 0.14 -0.42 0.28
X17 300 79.30 6.70 86.00 31.00 14.05 45.32 0.30 0.14 0.18 0.28
X18 300 66.00 17.00 83.00 45.28 11.83 26.13 0.06 0.14 -0.21 0.28
Y1 300 88.00 10.00 98.00 55.42 17.55 31.67 0.46 0.14 0.00 0.28
Y2 300 75.00 .00 75.00 12.40 11.53 93.00 0.92 0.14 0.78 0.28
Y3 300 59.00 33.00 92.00 61.90 14.34 23.17 0.38 0.14 -1.23 0.28
Y4 300 44.00 54.00 98.00 82.40 6.04 7.33 -0.54 0.14 0.25 0.28
*> 1 are removed

Table 5.36 Co-efficient of Correlation between Adoption Index (Y1) Vs 18 Independent
Variables
Variables r- value
1. Age(X1) 0.462**
2.Education(X2) 0.156**
3.Family size(X3) 0.013
4.Occupation (X4) 0.078
5. Size of holding (X5) 0.343**
6. Cropping intensity (X6) 0.096
7.Farm mechanization (X7) 0.367**
8. Economic Motivation (X8) -0.074
9. Innovative Proneness (X9) -0.197**
10. Independency (X10) 0.042
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) 0.043
12. Risk orientation (X12) 0.077
13. Production orientation (X13) 0.021
14. Perceived benefits of adoption T.P.S (X14) 0.163**
15. Perceived weakness of T.P.S (X15) 0.391**
16. Mass media exposure(X16) 0.437**
17. Contact with personal cosmopolites (X17) 0.152**
18. Contact with personal localities (X18) -0.030
*Significant at 5% level of significance (r ≥ 0.121 at 0.05 probability)
**Significant at 1% level of significance (r ≥ 0.152 at 0.01 probability)

Table 5.37 Co-efficient of Correlation between Discontinuance Index (Y2)
Vs 18 Independent Variables
Variables r -value
1. Age(X1) -0.337**
2.Education(X2) 0.020
3.Family size(X3) -0.233**
4.Occupation (X4) 0.161**
5. Size of holding (X5) -0.253**
6. Cropping intensity (X6) -0.317**
7.Farm mechanization (X7) -0.221**
8. Economic Motivation (X8) 0.070
10. Independency (X10) 0.157**
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) -0.300**
12. Risk orientation (X12) -0.059
13. Production orientation (X13) 0.231**
14. Perceived benefits of adoption T.P.S (X14) -0.248**
15. Perceived weakness of T.P.S (X15) -0.281**
16. Mass media exposure(X16) -0.392**
17. Contact with personal cosmopolites (X17) -0.121*
18. Contact with personal localities (X18) -0.296**

Table 5.38 Co-efficient of Correlation between Farmers Perceived Attributes on TPS Index (Y3)
Variables r -value
1. Age(X1) 0.277**
2.Education(X2) -0.377**
3.Family size(X3) 0.373**
4.Occupation (X4) -0.214**
6. Cropping intensity (X6) 0.510**
7.Farm mechanization (X7) 0.552**
8. Economic Motivation (X8) -0.080
9. Innovative Proneness (X9) -0.138*
10. Independency (X10) 0.420**
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) 0.220**
12. Risk orientation (X12) 0.330**
13. Production orientation (X13) 0.177**
14. Perceived benefits of adoption T.P.S (X14) 0.198**
17. Contact with personal cosmopolites (X17) -0.124*

Table 5.39 Co-efficient of Correlation between Perceived Constraints Index (Y4)
Variables r value
1. Age(X1) 0.288**
2.Education(X2) 0.105
3.Family size(X3) 0.213**
4.Occupation (X4) -0.203**
6. Cropping intensity (X6) 0.235**
7.Farm mechanization (X7) 0.080
8. Economic Motivation (X8) 0.060
10. Independency (X10) -0.251**
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) -0.365**
12. Risk orientation (X12) 0.133*
13. Production orientation (X13) -0.209**
14. Perceived benefits of adoption T.P.S (X14) -0.314**
17. Contact with personal cosmopolites (X17) 0.183**

Table 5.40 Step Wise Regression: Causal Effect of Independent Variables on Adoption
Index (Y1), the Consequent Variable
Predictors B S.E Beta t R R2 Adjusted
R
S.E of the
estimate
(Constant) -33.9 6.602 -5.13
1. Age (X1) 0.454 0.081 0.256 5.623** 0.462 0.213 0.211 15.59
2. Mass media
exposure (X16)
0.276 0.063 0.227 4.383** 0.554 0.307 0.302 14.65
3. Perceived benefits
of adoption
T.P.S(X14)
0.420 0.065 0.325 6.443** 0.605 0.366 0.359 14.04
3. Perceived weakness
of T.P.S(X15)
0.232 0.055 0.193 4.223** 0.639 0.408 0.400 13.59
4. Farm
mechanization(X7)
0.439 0.098 0.213 4.500** 0.662 0.439 0.429 13.26
5. Education(X2) 2.162 0.519 0.208 4.169** 0.691 0.477 0.466 12.82
6. Risk
orientation(X12)
-0.14 0.061 -0.112 -2.304* 0.698 0.488 0.475 12.71
7. Contact with
personal
cosmopolites(X17)
0.127 0.061 0.101 2.066* 0.703 0.494 0.480 12.65
8. Occupation(X5) 0.604 0.306 0.111 1.978* 0.708 0.501* 0.486 12.58
R2=50.1 %

Table 5.41 Step Wise Regression: Causal Effect of Independent Variables on
Discontinuance Index (Y2), the Consequent Variable
R
S.E of
the
estimate
(Constant) -33.91 6.602 -5.1
1. Education (X1) 0.454 0.081 0.256 5.123** 0.372 0.154 0.151 10.62
2. Perceived weakness of
T.P.S(X15) 0.276 0.063 0.227 3.383** 0.456 0.236 0.231 10.11
3. Farm mechanization
(X7) 0.420 0.065 0.325 5.443** 0.541 0.350 0.343 9.34
4. Age (X1)
0.232 0.055 0.193 3.223** 0.410 0.397 0.388 9.02
5. Size of holding(X5)
0.439 0.098 0.213 3.500** 0.222 0.425 0.415 8.82
6. Risk orientation(X12) 2.162 0.519 0.208 5.169** 0.424 0.442 0.430 8.70
7. Perceived benefits of
adoption T.P.S(X14)
-0.141 0.061 -0.112 -3.304** 0.275 0.486 0.443 8.60
8. Mass media
exposure(X16)
0.604 0.306 0.111 2.978* 0.414 0.567* 0.453 8.53
R2=56.7 %

Table 5.42 Step Wise Regression: Causal Effect of Independent Variables on Farmers
Perceived attributes on TPS Index (Y3), the Consequent Variable
R
S.E of the
estimate
(Constant) 30.20 4.121 7.329
1. Size of
holding(X5)
1.132 0.202 0.255 5.614** 0.689 0.474 0.473 10.41
2. Farm
mechanization(X7)
0.368 0.063 0.218 5.853** 0.741 0.549 0.546 9.65
3. Family size(X3) 1.182 0.274 0.149 4.307** 0.768 0.590 0.586 9.22
4. Mass media
exposure(X3)
0.214 0.040 0.215 5.347** 0.787 0.619 0.614 8.91
5.
Independency(X10)
0.145 0.024 0.244 5.927** 0.805 0.648 0.642 8.57
6. Contact with
personal
localities(X18)
-0.187 0.043 -0.155 -4.367** 0.819 0.670 0.663 8.32
7. Perceived
weakness of
T.P.S(X15)
0.108 0.035 0.109 3.036** 0.826 0.682 0.675 8.18
8. Occupation(X4) -2.388 0.783 -0.103 -3.050** 0.830 0.689 0.681 8.10
9. Age(X1) 0.131 0.052 0.090 2.496** 0.834 0.696* 0.686 8.03
R2=69.6 %

R
S.E of
the
estimate
constant 73.717 2.398 30.7**
1. Mass media
exposure(X16)
0.084 0.020 0.201 4.256** 0.459 0.211 0.208 5.37
2. Scientific
Orientation(X11)
-0.078 0.023 -0.211 -3.363** 0.524 0.275 0.270 5.16
3. Cropping
intensity(X6)
0.044 0.007 0.323 6.343** 0.614 0.377 0.371 4.79
4. Age(X1) 0.112 0.028 0.183 4.058** 0.632 0.399 0.391 4.71
5. Occupation(X4) -1.592 0.418 -0.163 -3.803** 0.655 0.428 0.419 4.60
6. Independency(X10) -0.072 0.020 -0.288 -3.676** 0.668 0.446 0.435 4.54
7. Risk
orientation(X12)
0.085 0.022 0.197 3.882** 0.685 0.470 0.457 4.45
8. Family size(X3) 0.407 0.150 0.121 2.706* 0.697 0.486 0.472 4.39
9. Economic
Motivation(X8)
0.452 0.157 0.122 2.882** 0.705 0.497 0.482 4.34
9. Perceived benefits
of adoption
T.P.S(X14)
-0.059 0.029 -0.132 -2.055** 0.710 0.505* 0.488 4.32
Table 5.43 Step Wise Regression: Causal Effect of Independent Variables on Perceived
Constraints Index (Y4), the Consequent Variable
R2=51 %

Table 5.44 Factor analysis: Conglomeration of Variables based on Factor Loading and
Renaming of Factors
Factors Variables
Factor
loading
Percentage
variance
Explained (%)
C.V.
(%)
Factor
Renaming
Factors 1
Education(X2) -0.493
23.68 23.68
Socio-
personal
Cropping intensity (X6) 0.458
Innovative Proneness (X9) 0.480
Scientific Orientation (X11) 0.825
Risk orientation (X12) 0.533
Production orientation (X13) 0.746
Value toward adoption(X14) 0.832
Contact with personal cosmopolites
(X18)
-0.642
Factors 2
Age(X1) 0.588
13.40 37.08
Socio-
Agronomics
Size of holding (X5) 0.595
Farm mechanization (X7) 0.508
Value toward Discontinuance (X15) 0.718
Mass media exposure(X17) 0.666
Contact with personal localities (X19) -0.209
Factors 3 Economic Motivation (X8) 0.738 8.36 45.44 Motivation
Factors 4 Family size(X3) 0.840 7.90 53.34 Manpower
Factors 5
Occupation (X4) 0.778
7.48 60.82 Occupation
Independency (X10) -0.503
*Total % of variance explained by 5 factors = 61 %

Table 5.45 Path Analysis: Extend of Adoption index (Y1) Vs 18 Exogenous Variables
Variables Direct effect
Indirect
effect
Total effect
Substantial indirect effect
I II III
1. Age(X1) -0.21405 0.04705 -0.2611 .0.067(X16 ) -0.038(X5) 0.037(X7)
2.Education(X2) 0.110454 -0.12612 0.23657 (2nd ) 0.084(X3) 0.046(X6) -0.042(X7 )
3.Family size(X3) -0.48259 (2nd ) -0.26078 -0.02181 -0.048(X10) -0.46(X8 ) -0.039(X5)
4.Occupation (X4) 0.02226 -0.02194 0.0442 -0.032(X1) 0.028(X5) -0.019(X7)
5. Size of holding (X5) -0.15613 -0.2838 (3rd ) 0.1277 -0.085(X10) -0.071(X3 ) 0.067(X16 )
6. Cropping intensity (X6) -0.12191 0.10475 -0.22666 (3rd ) -0.097(X10 ) -0.075(X3) -0.074(X5)
7.Farm mechanization (X7) 0.34209 (3rd ) 0.3883 -0.14621 0.098(X8) 0.058(X16) -0.069(X5)
8. Economic Motivation (X8) 0.62933 (1st ) -0.59907 -0.030264 -0.038(X7) 0.030(X9) -0.020(X3)
9. Innovative Proneness (X9) 0.15541 0.29243 (2nd ) -0.13702 -0.070(X10) -0.064(X16) 0.027(X1)
10. Independency (X10) -0.18853 0.02233 -0.21086 -0.073(X3) -0.070(X5) -0.066(X2)
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) 0.008 0.006268 0.001732 0.061(X9) -0.052(X8) -0.042(X5)
12. Risk orientation (X12) 0.12792 0.20873 -0.08081 -0.098(X10) -0.058(X5) -0.055(X3)
13. Production orientation (X13) -0.02451 0.04896 -0.7347 (1st ) 0.052(X9) -0.036(X5) -0.035(X2)
adoption T.P.S (X14)
-0.0205 -0.05542 0.034922 0.057(X9) -0.135(X10) -0.104(X8)
15. Perceived weakness of T.P.S
(X15)
-0.09194 -0.0715 -0.02044 0.076(X16) -0.047(X5) 0.049(X7)
16. Mass media exposure(X16) 0.21278 0.85343 (1st ) 0.127437 0.048(X6) -0.034(X9) 0.012(X11)
17. Contact with personal
cosmopolites (X17)
0.02034 0.04498 -0.02464 -0.088(X10) -0.048(X5) -0.035(X3)
localities (X18)
0.09966 -0.08819 0.187847 -0.018(X10) -0.017(X5) -0.055(X3)

Table 5.46 Path Analysis: Extend of Discontinuance Index (Y2) Vs 18 Exogenous Variables
Variables
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Total
effect
I II III
1. Age(X1) -0.202 -0.0089 -0.1931 -0.042 (x11) 0.039 (x4) 0.035 (x3)
2.Education(X2) 0.4965 (1st ) -0.4478 (1st ) 0.2483 0.131 (x1) 0.071 (x11) 0.054 (x15)
3.Family size(X3) 0.0005 0.3085 (2nd ) 0.088 -0.087 (x11) -0.080 (x7) -0.077 (x8)
4.Occupation (X4) -0.173 -0.2254 0.0524 0.061 (x11) 0.059 (x15) 0.046 (x1)
5. Size of holding (X5) 0.142 -0.0165 0.1585 -0.067 (x3) 0.047 (x6) 0.025 (x11)
6. Cropping intensity (X6) -0.209 (3rd ) 0.0557 -0.3647 (1st ) 0.067 (x3) -0.043(x12) 0.036 (x4)
7.Farm mechanization (X7) 0.146 0.1599 -0.0139 -0.217 (x3) 0.098 (x8) -0.076 (x12)
8. Economic Motivation (X8) 0.1287 0.1672 -0.0385 -0.237 (x3) 0.111 (x7) -0.083 (x12)
9. Innovative Proneness (X9) 0.0305 0.0634 -0.0329 -0.159 (x3) 0.071 (x8) 0.065 (x7)
10. Independency (X10) 0.093 0.1074 -0.0144 -0.246 (x3) 0.097 (x8) 0.077 (x7)
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) 0.2973 (2nd ) 0.0427 0.2546 (3rd ) -0.115 (x3) -0.042 (x13) 0.038 (x15)
12. Risk orientation (X12) -0.167 0.0058 -0.1728 -0.133 (x3) 0.066 (x7) 0.064 (x8)
13. Production orientation (X13) -0.132 -0.1344 (3rd ) 0.0024 0.094 (x11) -0.051 (x12) 0.050 (x8)
-0.077 -0.1238 0.0468 0.079 (x3) 0.041 (x1) 0.023 (x15)
(X15)
0.2189 -0.0391 0.258 (2nd ) 0.055 (x3) 0.051 (x11) -0.046 (x4)
16. Mass media exposure(X16) -0.01 -0.0436 0.0336 0.065 (x3) 0.058 (x6) -0.038 (x11)
cosmopolites (X17)
-0.061 0.0948 -0.1558 -0.037 (x1) -0.030 (x15) 0.028 (x12)
localities (X18)
0.0645 -0.1043 0.1688 0.052 (x11) -0.050 (x4) 0.047 (x15)

Table 5.47 Path analysis: People Perception Index (Y3) Vs 18 Exogenous Variables
Variables
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Total effect
I II III
1. Age(X1) -0.1362 -0.1482 (3rd ) 0.012 0.071 (x4) 0.042 (x7) 0.040 (x2)
2.Education(X2) -0.0615 -0.1292 0.0677 0.088 (x1) 0.043 (x15) -0.032 (x13)
3.Family size(X3) 0.1232 0.0344 0.0888 -0.190 (x10) -0.129 (x7) 0.0103 (x8)
4.Occupation (X4) -0.3102 (1st ) -0.0537 -0.2565 (1st ) 0.046 (x15) -0.035 (x6) 0.031 (x1)
5. Size of holding (X5) 0.1045 -0.0466 0.1511 -0.038 (x6) 0.032 (x7) 0.030 (x13)
6. Cropping intensity (X6) 0.1698 0.0678 0,102 0.064 (x4) -0.045 (x12) -0.030 (x10)
7.Farm mechanization (X7) 0.2365 (2nd ) 0.2476(2nd ) -0.0111 0.161 (x10) -0.132 (x8) -0.080 (x12)
8. Economic Motivation (X8) -0.173 -0.0437 -0.1293 0.230 (x10) 0.180 (x7) -0.087 (x12)
9. Innovative Proneness (X9) -0.136 -0.0055 -0.1305 0.180 (x10) 0.106 (x7) -0.095 (x8)
10. Independency (X10) 0.3063(3rd ) 0.349 (1st ) -0.0427 -0.130 (x8) 0.125 (x7) -0.080 (x9)
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) 0.0543 0.1558 -0.1015 -0.069 (x13) -0.064 (x4) 0.055 (x10)
12. Risk orientation (X12) -0.1749 -0.0466 -0.1283 0.120 (x10) 0.108 (x7) -0.086 (x8)
13. Production orientation (X13) -0.217 -0.0232 -0.1938 (2nd ) 0.089 (x10) -0.067 (x8) 0.062 (x7)
0.095 0.0483 0.0467 -0.038 (x4) -0.038 (x10) -0.037 (x13)
(X15)
0.173 0.0572 0.1158 -0.083 (x4) 0.035 (x9) -0.019 (x7)
16. Mass media exposure(X16) 0.1848 0.0568 0.128 -0.047 (x6) -0.041 (x4) -0.040 (x7)
cosmopolites (X17)
-0.0779 -0.0809 0.003 0.034 (x9) 0.034 (x13) 0.030 (x12)
localities (X18)
-0.0832 0.0841 -0.1673 (3rd ) -0.089 (x4) -0.049 (x13) -0.041 (x10)

Table 5.48 Path analysis: Perceived Constraints (Y4) Vs 18 Exogenous Variables
Variables Direct effect
Indirect
effect
Total effect
I II III
1. Age(X1) -0.2308 0.0381 -0.2689(2nd ) -0.070 (x2) 0.047 (x7) -0.043 (x8)
2.Education(X2) 0.1078 -0.143 0.2508 (3rd ) 0.150 (x1) -0.034 (x9) 0.032 (x5)
3.Family size(X3) -0.2652 (3rd ) -0.2512 -0.014 0.383 (x8) -0.144 (x7) 0.105 (x10)
4.Occupation (X4) -0.002 -0.0325 0.0305 0.053 (x1) -0.038 (x8) 0.030 (x16)
5. Size of holding (X5) -0.1467 -0.2899 0.1432 0.095 (x8) 0.045 (x3) 0.036 (x7)
6. Cropping intensity (X6) -0.1192 0.1118 -0.231 -0.063 (x16) -0.045 (x3) 0.033 (x5)
7.Farm mechanization (X7) 0.2635 (2nd ) 0.4125 -0.149 -0.489 (x8) 0.145 (x3) -0.089 (x10)
8. Economic Motivation (X8) -0.6419 (1st ) -0.3269(2nd ) -0.315 (1st ) 0.201 (x7) 0.158 (x3) -0.127 (x10)
9. Innovative Proneness (X9) 0.1495 0.2965 (3rd ) -0.147 -0.354 (x8) 0.118 (x7) 0.106 (x3)
10. Independency (X10) -0.1686 0.0474 -0.216 -0.482 (x8) 0.165 (x3) 0.139 (x7)
11. Scientific Orientation (X11) 0.0208 0.0173 0.0035 -0.139 (x8) 0.077 (x3) 0.033 (x1)
12. Risk orientation (X12) 0.1131 0.2081 -0.095 -0.318 (x8) 0.120 (x7) 0.089 (x3)
13. Production orientation (X13) -0.0422 0.0438 -0.086 -0.248 (x8) 0.069 (x7) -0.049 (x10)
-0.0173 -0.0569 0.0396 -0.053 (x3) 0.046 (x1) 0.036 (x7)
(X15)
-0.753 -0.748 (1st ) -0.005 0.046 (x8) -0.038 (x9) -0.037 (x3)
16. Mass media exposure(X16) 0.2258 0.0882 0.1376 0.085 (x8) -0.044 (x3) -0.044 (x7)
cosmopolites (X17)
0.0138 0.0438 -0.03 0.087 (x8) -0.042 (x1) -0.037 (x9)
localities (X18)
0.0975 -0.0872 0.1847 0.049 (x8) 0.047 (x1) 0.024 (x6)

Objectives
4. To identify backward and forward linkage
mechanisms in diffusion of TPS as potato
planting techniques.

Diagram 1. True Potato Seed Supply Chain

Diagram 2. Farm Inputs Supply Chain

Objectives
5. To calculate cost-benefit of TPS as potato planting
technique
Potato
Tuber
TPS
TuberletsTPS
Methodology- Livelihood based Agri. Business and Market Study in
Tripura, GoT, 2011-12
Results are Compared

Table.5.49. Economics Analysis of Traditional Potato Cultivation per acre.
Particular Unit Quantity Unit price (Rs) Total amount
1. Income
Sale of potato Kg. 7000 8 56000
2. Cost
Tillage operation Lump sum 1 1600 1600
3. Irrigation Lump sum 1 500 500
4. Inputs
Seed cost Kg 1500 10 15000
MOP Kg 40 6 240
SSP Kg 100 6 600
UREA Kg 50 5.75 287.5
FYM Kg 6000 0.50 3000
Plant protection measure Lump sum 1 350 350
Lobour involvement Man days 40 200 8000
Intercultural operation Man days 8 200 1600
5. Marketing expenses
Harvesting of tuber Mad days 8 200 1600
Transportation to nearby market Trip 1 1000 1000
Package and bagging Number 80 10 800
Miscellaneous Lump sum 1 1000 1000
6. Total running cost 35577.5
Net income 20422.5
Depreciation 600
Profit before interest 19822.5**
Interest (12%) 3% (19822.5@12%)
=17443.8@3%
523.314
Net profit 19299.2**

Table 5.50. Economics Analysis Of True Potato Seeds as Planting Material per acre.
1. Income
Sale of potato Kg. 8000 8 64000
2. Cost
3. Irrigation Lump sum 1 1000 1000
4. Inputs
Seed cost Kg 0.05 20000 1000 *
MOP Kg 45 6 270
SSP Kg 100 6 600
UREA Kg 60 5.75 345
FYM Kg 4000 0.50 2000
Lobour involvement Man days 40 200 8000
5. Marketing expenses
Harvesting of tuber Man days 8 200 1600
6. Total running cost Rs 20515*
Net income Rs 43485
Depreciation Rs 600
Profit before interest Rs 42885**
Interest (12%) Rs 3% (42885@12%)
=37738.8
1132.16
Net profit Rs 41752.84**

Table 5.51. Economics of TPS Tuberlets as Planting Material per acre.
1.Income
Sale of potato Kg. 8500 8 68000*
2. Cost
3.Irrigation Lump sum 2 1500 1500
4.Inputs
Seed cost Kg 350 40 14000*
MOP Kg 45 6 270
SSP Kg 100 6 600
UREA Kg 60 5.75 345
FYM Kg 4000 0.50 2000
Lobour involvement Mad days 40 200 8000
5.Marketing expenses
Harvesting of tuber Mad days 8 200 1600
6.Total running cost 30115**
Net income 37885*
Depreciation 600
Profit before interest 37285*
Interest (12%) 3% (37285@12%) =32810.8 984.324
Net profit 36300.676**

Table 5.52. Comparative Analysis of Various Possibilities
Crops Total
Production
(Kg)
Revenue
(Rs)
Total
running
cost
(Rs)
Sale
Rate/
Kg
Net
Income
(Rs)
Net Profit
(Rs)
Remark
Traditional
Potato
7000 56000 35577.5 8 20422.5 19299 III
TPS 8000 64000 20515 8 43485 41752 I
TPS
tuberlets
7500 68000 30115 8 37885 36300 II
TPS
*53 % > Tuber
TPS Tuberlets
*46.9 %
Traditional
Tuber

Objective
6. To find out the strength and limitations of TPS
as potato planting techniques.

Table. 5.53. Constraints of True Potato Seeds and Critical Interventions
Factor Constraints faced by small
farmers
Critical intervention
1. Input
sourcing
1. TPS are not available on time
which forces farmers to
procure them from open
market.
2. Availability of fertilizers is low
when the demand is high as a
result prices group by 50-200%
in peak demand times.
3. The state is fully dependent on
other states for supply of
fertilizers and pesticides.
Traders indulge in hoarding.
1. Establish a formal arrangement
with the agriculture department
for ensuring timely supply of
potato seeds and fertilizers to
farmers.
2. Organise farmers to procure
inputs collectively to negotiate
better prices and reduce
overhead costs.
3. List out input suppliers at
Agartala and sub division
markets and establish tie ups
with them for timey
procurement of inputs.

farmers
2. Production
practices
and
technology
used
1. Land in some places is not fully
suitable for growing potato.
2. In some villages pump sets are not
available and farmers have to hire
them from other villagers @ Rs 80
per hour.
3. Extension services from agriculture
department are not available on
time.
4. Farmers don’t upgrade their skills
and knowledge regularly resulting in
low yields. For example, as against
prescribed yield of 25MT per
hectare but TPS farmers get 15-
20MT per hectare.
1. Promote potato cultivation
after suitable technical
assessment of the area with
support of agriculture
department.
2. Establish linkage with local
banks and government
schemes such as SGSY to help
famers in accessing loan for
purchasing pump sets and
other improved equipments.
3. Create village level cadre of
technical persons to provide
paid technical services to
farmers.
4. Regular training and exposure
visits to best practitioners in
the local area can help poor
farmers.

farmers
3. Access to
support
services
provided by
government
and private
agencies
1. Inputs from the government
department are not available
on time and the quality of
inputs procured from private
players is doubtful.
2. Farmers who took one-time
training from agriculture
department didn’t get the
desired yield. By hit and trials
approach they develop package
of practices.
3. Cold storages are very far and
few.
4. The labour cost is high at Rs 150
per day due to availability of
works under NREGA at Rs 100
per day.
1. Appoint implementing
agencies and develop
village level service
providers to help famers
link with need based
government schemes and
private services.
2. Develop village level
cadres to help extend
technical services to
farmers.
3. Set up new cold stores
after feasibility study.
4. Use of latest machines and
tools such as power tiller
work faster and saves cost

farmers
4. Access to
finance
1. Availability of timely and right
amount of credit is an issue. Bank
loan requires a lot of paper work
and farmers’ don’t have proper
papers against their land.
2. MFIs working in the area provide
loan but their loan products don’t
match expectations of farmers.
1. Organize poor famers in
SHGs to link them with
local banks to ensure their
financial inclusion.
2. Develop partnership with
financial institutions and
MFIs and encourage them
to develop loan product
for potato cultivation
based on its economics.
5. Market access 1. Farmers sell individually to
retailer/wholesaler resulting in
higher overhead marketing costs
Farmers get 50% of value paid by
the final consumers
1. There is scope for
collectivizing farmers to
sell collectively and
directly to higher order
markets at sub division
towns and Agartala for
better price realization.

farmers
6. Cooperation
among
farmers and
institutions
building
1. There is low affinity among
farmers for collective action
for sourcing of inputs and sale
of potato resulting in higher
operating costs.
1. Guide farmers for
collective sourcing of
inputs and marketing to
reduce operational costs.
7. Govt. policies
and external
ecosystem
1. Blockage of roads and civil
unrest , lead to increase in
input costs and market failure
making potato cultivation
unviable.
1. Inclusion of poor tribal
and development of local
market system will reduce
dependence on external
markets.

Summary and Conclusion
• True Potato Seed (TPS) was developed as a set of insights and
practices that change the management of plants, soil, water and
nutrients used in potato growing and raise the productivity of land,
of labor, of water and of capital all at the same time. The present
study reveals that:
• The compound annual exponential growth rate of areas and
production of potato grown through TPS is positive in three
selected districts of Tripura
• But the compound annual exponential growth rate of
productivity of potato grown through TPS is negative for two
districts and positive for two districts and overall is also
negative.

• Cross sectional data analysis reveals existence differences in
socio-personal, socio-psychological, agro-economic and
communication characteristics of the potato growers in three
selected districts
• Direct and indirect affects of Adoption of TPS as planting
material
• Adoption behaviour of farmers in West Tripura is highest
followed by Dhalai and South Tripura
• Independent variables such as Age, Education, Size of land
holding, Farm mechanisation, Perceived benefits of adoption of
TPS, Mass media exposure and contact with personal
cosmopolites are found to be positively correlated with adoption
of TPS as planting material.

• The back ward and forward linkage mechanism in diffusion of TPS involves
various agencies such as Horticulture Research Complex, Nagicherra,
Agricultural Department, KVK, seed dealer and various farmer societies
are playing key roles in transfer of technology, input supply, production of
TPS and dissemination of TPS to farmers
• The cost benefit analysis of True Potato Seed reveals that net income of
TPS as planting material is higher comparing to traditional way of potato
production
• TPS as planting material exhibits both pros and cons such as required
fewer amounts of seeds, being hybrid capable of giving more production,
absolutely disease-free seed materials, no cold storage facilities are required
for storing, practically no cost is involved for transporting, comparatively
more resistance to pest & diseases and net profit is more as cost of
cultivation is less and at the same time the yield is more .
• But also suffer from various technical, institutional , economic and
communication constraints such as unavailability of TPS on time, no proper
training on package of practices , lack of farm inputs etc.

Conclusion
• So, it may be suggested that the various government
organization and institution should come forward with
awareness programme exclusively for young and old TPS
growers
• Effort should be made to diffuse information to less educated
potato growers and training should be provided in order to
increase confidence level in farmers.
• To increase the rate of adoption of TPS as planting material
various agencies such Department of Agriculture, KVK,
Research and policy maker station should look and deals with
problems and solutions.

Publication from Research work
 Tripura B. and Ghosh S. (2017). Potato supply chain analysis: Mechanism
and Constraints. Abstract, International conference on ‘Contemporary issue
in integrating climate-The climate areas of Agriculture, Horticulture,
Biodiversity, Forestry; Engineering Technology, Fundamental/Applied
Science and Business management for Sustainable
Development’(ARGOTECH-2017).,Kalimpong Science Centre, W.B.p-10-12.
 Tripura B. and Ghosh S. (2018). Factor influencing the Adoption of True
Potato Seed (TPS) in Dhalai Tripura. Abstract, National Seminar on ‘Policy
issue for economic development with special reference to North East India’,
Department of Economics, Kamalpur,p.6.
 Tripura B. and Ghosh S. (2017). Adoption constraints in use of true potato
seeds (TPS) as planting materials in Tripura. International Journal of
Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences, 5(6):95-100.

REFERENCES
1. Biswas, P.K and Nath, D. (2013). Constraints in adoption of recommended true
potato seed (TPS) production technology in Tripura, Asian J. Hort.8(1): 65-67.
2. Kalita., Acharya, H.K. and Pradhan, S.K.K. (2005). Adoption behaviour of
vegetable growers in relation to their personal characteristics. Environ. and Ecol.,
23(4): 963-966.
3. Kubde, V.R.; S.K. Bhople and V.S. Tekale (2000). Knowledge and adoption of
cultivation and storage practices of potato. Maha. J. Extn Edu., 17 : 293-297
4. Kumar achin, D. Singh, Yadav R. N., Najim ali, Singh R.P. Singh V.K. (2010)
Assessment of adoption level of potato growers and their adoption gap in potato
production technology, Meerut 250 110, India, Environment and ecology.
2010.28: 1B, 664-667.
5. Mazumder, G., Das, J.K., Pradhan, K. and Ghosal, R. (2011). Correlates of winter
vegetable production in North 24 Paragana district of West-Bengal. Indian Res. J.
Ext. Educ., 11(1): 27-31
6. Raghavendra, R. (2005). Knowledge and adoption of recommended cultivation
practices of cauliflower growers in Belgaum district of Karnataka. M.sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

7. Rai, A.; P. Thakure and R.C. Sharma (2000). Knowledge level of tomato
growers. Madhya. J. Extn. Edu., 2 (2&3): 87-88.
8. Saikia, A and Tripathi, S.N. (2006). A study of effect of T& V system on
contact and non-contact farmers of Hajai Nowgong District (Assam) M.Sc.
Thesis, Deptt. of Agricultural Extension. CSAUA & T, Kanpur.
9. Sharma, T.N. and R.K. Singh (2000). Impact of training on the knowledge and
adoption of crop production technologies of farmers trained by KVK,
Chhindwara. Abstract, National Seminar on Extn. Edu.For aearly
21stCentury., JNKW, Jabalpur, p.56
10. Sidram.(2008). A study on analysis of organic farming practices in pigeon –
pea in Gulbarga district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad, India.
11. Singh, B.K., Singh, D.K., Yadav, V.P.S. and Singh, Lotan. (2010). Adoption
behaviour of commercial potato growers in districts of Ghaziabad (U.P).
Indian Res. J. Ext. Educ., 10(3) 5-9.
12. Venkataramalu.(2003). A study on the knowledge level adoption and
marketing behaviour of chilli growers in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh.
M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis , Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India.

Part-I-Field Visit and Data Collection

Part-II-Field Visit and Data Collection

Part-III-Field Visit and Data Collection

Proposed Title For Change
Adoption of True Potato Seed (TPS) As Planting
Technique: Levels and Dynamics
New Title
Adoption of Different Potato Planting Techniques: Levels
and Dynamics
Old Title

Adoption of Different Potato Planting Techniques: Levels and Dynamics

Adoption of Different Potato Planting Techniques: Levels and Dynamics

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Adoption of Different Potato Planting Techniques: Levels and Dynamics

Similar to Adoption of Different Potato Planting Techniques: Levels and Dynamics (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Adoption of Different Potato Planting Techniques: Levels and Dynamics