CHAPTER – I INTRODUCTION The greatest challenge for agriculture in these years is to provide adequate food to the burgeoning population in order to fight with hunger and malnutrition in the world as well as country

CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
The greatest challenge for agriculture in these years is to provide adequate food to the burgeoning population in order to fight with hunger and malnutrition in the world as well as country. Now in these days we will have to feed more and more people with different limited natural phenomenon like scarce water resources, recurring droughts, degrading lands and difficult access to energy, therefore the agricultural technologies need to shift from production oriented to demand oriented sustainable farming system to achieving the nutritional food security in the country as well as world. One-third of India’s population is estimated to be absolutely poor and one-half of the children’s are malnourished. Food availability is a very necessary condition for food and nutritional security. Furthermore, food production in India suffers from a huge demand and supply gap which is amplified by food wastage and also the lack of adequate storage facilities have compounded to the problem. The World Food Summit (FAO, 1996) defined food security as the condition that exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. This definition embraces a hierarchy of food availability, access, and utilization, with each level being necessary, but not necessarily sufficient for attainment of the next level. Access to food has two defined components to it. One, interventions aimed at boosting agricultural productivity and the second adopting strategies to promote employment, social protection measures cash transfers to the poor to improve their access to the available food. 17,368 farmers committed suicide in 2009 according to National crime records bureau. The growth rate of agriculture is dropping below 4 per cent, so that there is an urgent need to increase food production. According to the International Policy Research Institute (2011), India is ranked 67th out of 81 countries in the Global hunger index. The National Rainfed Authority reported that around 60 per cent of the net sown area in India is rainfed, implying that dry farming techniques need to be promoted to achieve adequate food availability target in India. The enacting of the National Food Security Act is yet another significant step in the series of social protection measures under public policy, to support well targeted food security and nutritional improving interventions. The increased agriculture production and productivity will only provide a safety net to the fast growing population.

Food insecurity in India is major reasons which still keep with the growing population, over dependence of rural people on agriculture and allied sectors, decreasing growth rate of agricultural production due to the poor management of different available natural resources and last not the least inadequate implementation of developmental programs, which is intended to promote sustainable development in the different areas of the country. Among these problems, food security is the most essential problem that is hampers the overall development of the people and nation as well. Increasing the agricultural production through the active involvement of small and marginal farmers (which account approximately 67%) and weaker sections of the society can empower the rural poor to earn their livelihood and improve their quality of life. Hence, agricultural development deserves the crucial priority. In order to combat the challenge of deficit food availability in the country, Government of India launched scheme National Food Security Mission (NFSM) in October 2007-08 during the Eleventh Plan with the target to increase the production of 10 million tones, 8 million tones and 2 million tons of rice, wheat and pulses respectively. The NFSM mission is being continued during 12th five year plan with new targets of additional production of food grains of 25 million tons of food grains comprising of 10 million tons rice, 8 million tons of wheat, 4 million tons of pulses, and 3 million tons of course cereals by the end of 12th five year plan. The objective of the scheme is to boost the production through area expansion and productivity with creating employment opportunities and also schemes to restore or buildup the confidence among farmers. The 11th plan covered 15 states under NFSM Rice, 9 states under NFSM Wheat and 16 states under NFSM pulse. Hence, all states were not covered during 11th plan for NFSM but in the 12th plan it aims to cover all over states of India with focus on low productive and rainfed areas to bridge the yield gap for additional production while stability in high production areas would be achieve through promotion of conservative agricultural practices.

The National Food Security Mission has following three essential components which are: National Food Security Mission – Rice (NFSM-Rice), National Food Security Mission – Wheat (NFSM-Wheat) and National Food Security Mission – Pulses (NFSM-Pulses). All the farmers are eligible to avail assistance under National Food Security Mission programme. Moreover, at least 33 per cent of the funds are allocated for small, marginal & women farmers. Beside of these, 16 per cent of the total allocation of funds for SC and 8 per cent for ST farmers have been provided under the mission. Each beneficiary is entitled to avail assistance under the scheme is limited to 5 ha. Although NFSM is implemented directly through Department of Agriculture but it has linkage with other government departments, non-government organizations, cooperative organizations and private concerns to fulfill requirement of technical as well as physical inputs at field level. Different types of demonstrations were given under NFSM programme these demonstrations will be collaboratively conducted by the State Department of Agriculture, SAUs, ICAR institutes and KVKs and reputed NGOs. The National Food Security Act, 2013 (also called Right to Food Act) aims to provide subsidized food grains to approximately two thirds of population of the country. Under the provisions of the bill, beneficiaries are to be able to purchase 5 kilograms per eligible person per month of cereals such as rice @ Rs. 3/- per Kg; wheat @ Rs.2/- per Kg and coarse grains (millets) @ Rs.1/- per Kg. In the NFSM programme selection of programme beneficiaries for distribution of seeds and seed minikits will be done in consultation with village Panchayats and the zilla Parishads.
The main objective of the food security is achieving nutritional food to the common poor peoples in the world. In addition, it is crucial to address the issues of food insecurity and food price crisis, while to achieve self-sufficiency in food grains production to improve livelihood of the people. Rice, wheat and pulses are given high priority in the process of production by the Union and State Governments. The purpose of the mission is achieving food security and self-sufficiency for the common people in India. The mission has adopted twofold strategy to bridge the demand-supply gap of food. The first strategy was to expand cropped area and the second was to bridge the productivity gap between potential and existing yield of the food crops. Expansion of cropped area approach was mainly confined to the pulses and wheat only, and rice was mainly targeted for productivity enhancement because rice crop is already having a vast cropped area. Different interventions are made to bridging the yield gap between the potential and the present level of productivity through acceleration of quality seed production, emphasizing INM and IPM, promotion of new production technologies, supply of adequate and timely inputs, popularizing improved farm implements, restoring soil fertility and introduction of pilot projects or other developmental programmes. To achieve the envisaged objectives of NFSM, the Mission is mandated to adopt following strategies. Speedy implementation of programmes through active engagement of all the stakeholders at various levels, Promotion and extension of improved technologies i.e., seed, Integrated Nutrient Management including micronutrients, soil amendments, Integrated Pest Management and resource conservation technologies along with capacity building of farmers, Flow of fund would be closely monitored to ensure that interventions reach the target beneficiaries on time, the proposed interventions would be integrated with the targets fixed for each identified district in the existing District Plan and constant monitoring and concurrent evaluation for assessing the impact of the interventions for a result oriented approach by the implementing agencies.

The scheme is being implemented in a mission mode through a farmer centric and demand driven approach where all the stakeholders of the mission are to be actively associated at the district level for achieving the targeted goals. The scheme is select districts by making available improved technologies to the farmers through a series of planned interventions. A close monitoring and evaluation mechanism is to be proposed for ensuring that interventions reached the targeted beneficiaries. Food and nutrition security are the very much important as underlying factors in each individual’s food intake and their physical and cognitive capacities and in a nation’s capacity for economical, social growth and development. Enhancing agricultural productivity of smallholders farmers, through strengthening the capacities of farmers furthermore, rural agro-industries, is one of the strategy to address food and nutrition security.

In Chhattisgarh, the NFSM-programme is under implementation since 2007-08 (XIth Plan). Programme is covering Paddy (19 districts), Pulses (27 districts), Coarse Cereals (09 districts), Project Management Team exists in all selected districts. Main objectives of NFSM programmed in C.G. are; to imrove production and productivity of rice crop, expansion of area, increasing production and productivity of pulse crops and increasing production and productivity of coarse grain. The basic strategy of the Mission is to promote and extend improved technology package. The interventions include; Cluster demonstration on crop production technology, Direct and Line sowing demonstration, SRI method demonstration, Cropping system based demonstration and training, Seed distribution, Minikits distribution, Distribution of micronutrient fertilizers, Soil reclamation elements demonstration, Agricultural equipment demonstration, training and distribution, Demonstration and distribution of Plant protection chemical and insecticide or pesticide, INM and IPM demonstration and training, Demonstration and training of biofertilizers, Zero seed drill/ seed drill demonstration and training, Encouragement of improved storage structure construction, diesel pump sets and electric tiller etc. Seeds are the vehicle for delivering benefits of technology and influencing the growth, income and sustainability of Indian agriculture. It is immensely required that the farmers must use pure, healthy seeds as per the minimum certification standards which have standard germination percentage. Therefore, farmers prefer to depend on farm saved seeds, seed replacement rate continues to remain in the range of 2-10 per cent in certain states for certain crops, which is much below the desired level of 20 per cent for most crops.
Keeping in view all these facts, an investigation entitled “Impact assessment of National Food Security Mission on productivity and socioeconomic status of farmers in Northern hills of Chhattisgarh” was planned during the year 2016-17 with the following specific objectives. The present investigation was undertaken to study the following aspects:
To study the socio-economic profile of selected beneficiaries and non beneficiaries,
To identify the various interventions availed in selected crops under NFSM by the beneficiaries,
To know the impact of NFSM programme in terms of annual income and productivity of selected crops,
To determine the impact of NFSM on socioeconomic status of the beneficiaries,
To know the perception of the beneficiaries on different interventions availed under NFSM Programme,
To determine the relationship between selected independent and dependent variables,
To find out different constraints and suggestions from the beneficiaries of NFSM programme.

CHAPTER – II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A review of the literature is an essential body part of our academic research projects. The review is a very careful examination of a body of literature which is a collection of published information and data pointing towards the answer to our research question. Literature reviewed typically includes scholarly journals, scholarly books, authoritative databases and primary sources of information. Sometimes it includes news papers, magazines, other books, films, audio, video tapes, and other secondary sources. The main purpose of the review literature is to present some of the major findings of research studies, which are related to the presented or proposed research. Reviews related to the impact of National Food Security Mission, food security concepts and other relevant works which is related to my variables were carried out in India and abroad is presented below. A brief account of related studies has been furnished under the following heads:
2.1 Age of farmers
2.2 Education
2.3 Social participation
2.4 Size of family
2.5 Gender participation
2.6 Farming experience
2.7 Caste
2.8 Annual income
2.9 Land holding
2.10 Irrigation
2.11 Credit acquisition
2.12 Cropping intensity and Cropping pattern
2.13 Occupation
2.14 Source of information
2.15 Awareness of farmers about NFSM
2.16 Constraints faced by farmers
2.17 Farmers perception about NFSM
2.18 Adoption of recommended technology
2.19 Assistance received under NFSM-pulses
2.20 Participation of farmers in various interventions under the programme
2.21 Socioeconomic status
2.22 Impact of NFSM on Area, Production and Productivity of crops
2.23 Knowledge of recommended technology given under various interventions
2.24 Suggestions given by respondents
2.25 Sources of seed
2.26 Seed replacement
2.27 Timely availability of inputs & supply
2.28 Impact of NFSM on employment
2.29 Contribution of other sectors in NFSM
2.30 Reasons for non-participation in the NFSM
2.1 Age of respondents
Pardhi (2012) reported that the age level of beneficiaries respondents, where the highest 78 per cent of respondents were found to be from middle age group, followed by 14 and 8 per cent of young and old age groups respectively in the study area.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) revealed that composition of age groups of the family members of the beneficiaries is concerned, under NFSM 41, 35 and 24 per cent and under Non-NFSM 42, 36 and 22 per cent, were found to be adult males (>15 years), adult female (>15 years) and children (<15 years), respectively.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) reported that the percentage of adult male above 15 years of age was 38.14 per cent in NFSM and 38.11 per cent in non-NFSM farm families. The percentage of adult female above 15 years of age was 32.33 per cent and 30.07 per cent in NFSM and non-NFSM, respectively. Again, the percentage of total population below 15 years of age was 29.53 per cent and 31.82 per cent in NFSM and non-NFSM, respectively.

Khatik (2017) depicts that 41.25 per cent beneficiary farmers and 52.50 per cent non-beneficiary farmers were from 26 to 50 years age group. Whereas, 25.00 per cent beneficiary farmers and 22.50 per cent non-beneficiary farmers belonged to age group of up to 25 years. The representation of above 50 years age groups the beneficiary farmers and non-beneficiary farmers were found to be 33.75 and 25.00 per cent respectively. Out of total respondents 45.00 per cent respondents belonged to 26 to 50 years age group, while 30.83 per cent respondents belonged to above 50 years age group and 24.17 per cent respondents were found up to 25 years age group.

2.2 Education
Education is a key factor to bring about desirable changes in the farmer’s outlook towards the modern input intensive agriculture.

Pardhi (2012) found that the educational level of sample respondents, whereas 22, 40 and 36 per cent respondents were educated up to primary, middle school and high school level respectively. No one of sample respondents was graduated in all the two size groups. Here, only 2 per cent sample respondents were found to be illiterate.

Sivagnanam (2015) depicts that 27 per cent and 34 per cent of the NFSM and the Non-NFSM farmers have studied up to the middle school level, followed by the secondary level education completed by 24.7 percent and 21 percent respectively. On the other hand, 6 percent of the NFSM beneficiaries completed the primary education 93 percent on the NFSM beneficiaries and 6 percent of the Non-NFSM farmers are graduates. About 5 percent and 8 percent of the NFSM and the Non-NFSM farmers are illiterate in the study area.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) reported that the education level of the respondents indicated that the percent of Households having matriculation and above degrees were found to be more in case of NFSM (63.3 %) as compared to Non-NFSM (46 %) respondents, while the per cent of respondents who are illiterate or educated up to middle level were found to be more in case of Non-NFSM (54 %) as compared to NFSM (36.7 %) respondents.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) depicts that with increasing educational level, it is assumed that the probability of using modern technologies, governmental benefits and access to information is higher and it is true with the NFSM households who are having relatively higher educational level as compared to the non-NFSM households.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) reported that out of the total family members, 11.33 per cent were illiterate, 23 per cent had education up to primary level, 38 per cent had education up to middle standard, 19 per cent read up to matriculation, 7 per cent passed higher-secondary and only 1.67 per cent were graduates. There were no post graduate degree holders in the sample households.

Khatik (2017) reveals that 41.25 per cent beneficiary farmers and 35.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers had education from primary to higher secondary class whereas, beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers who possessed education from the above higher secondary level were observed to be 25.00 and 22.50 per cent respectively. It was further noted that 33.75 and 45.00 per cent beneficiary and non-beneficiary growers were educated up to primary level respectively.

2.3 Social participation
Social participation gives an idea about the respondent participation in social activities in society.

Dubey (2008) reported that the maximum number of respondents (46.92%) having membership in one organization followed by 34.62 per cent of respondents were having no membership in any organization, whereas 11.53 per cent respondents were having membership in more than one organization and only 6.93 per cent respondents were belonging to executive office bearer category.
Pandey (2015) shows that the majority (55%) of the respondents were member of more than one organization, followed by 24.17 per cent of the respondents had member of one organization, and 20.83 per cent of respondents were executive or chairman of the organization.
Singh (2017) explain that more than 52.50 per cent respondents were not the member in any type of organization, followed by 38.33 per cent of respondents had membership in one organization and 9.17 per cent respondents who were having membership in more than one organization respectively.

2.4 Size of family
Rathi and Sharma (2015) reported that the average size of family in study areas respondents was found to be 6 ; 5 members respectively.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) found that the average family size was found at 6 person per household for both beneficiary and non beneficiary sample households.
Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) observed that the family size is one of the indicators of the socio-economic status in addition to land holdings. It is an indicator of the flow of human labor into agriculture. There is not much difference in the household size of beneficiaries (6.49%) and non-beneficiaries (6.04%) respectively.

Khatik (2017) indicated that 41.67 per cent respondents were from small families having up to five members. While, remaining 58.33 per cent respondents were from large families having more than 5 members. It can be concluded that nearly 60.00 per cent of the respondents had large size of family.

2.5 Gender participation
NABARD (2012) reported that on an average less than 6 percent beneficiary respondents were found in female category while more than 94 per cent belonged to male.

Roy R. (2014) indicates the gender distribution in case of NFSM households 91.33 percent were male respondents and only 8.67 percent were female respondents. While in case of Non-NFSM households 100 percent were male respondents only and no female respondents were reported at all.

Sivagnanam (2015) found that the sex-wise classification of the sample respondents in which males constitute 45.8 percent of the NFSM beneficiaries and 45.9 percent of the Non-NFSM farmers and the females 41.4 percent and 38.2 percent and children 13.2 percent and 15.7 percent of the respective group of farmers.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) reported that in case of NFSM and Non-NFSM beneficiaries, the percent of male and female were found to be 92.7 ; 7.3 and 95 ; 5 per cent respectively.
Savapandit and Gautam (2015) revealed that the percentage of male respondents was found to be 99.67 per cent and 100 per cent in NFSM and non-NFSM farmers, respectively.
2.6 Farming experience
Khatik (2017) observed that majority of beneficiary farmers (56.25 %) and non-beneficiary farmers (55.00 %) were experienced in cultivation from 10 to 20 years. While, 21.25 per cent beneficiary farmers and 20.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers were farming from less than 10 years. However, 22.50 per cent beneficiary farmers and 25.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers had experience about farming for more than 20 years.
2.7 Caste
NABARD (2012) reported that out of total respondents, 20 per cent were from general category while 21, 11 and 48 percent from scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Caste, respectively.

Pardhi (2012) found that caste structure of sample respondents, 54 per cent of sample respondents belonged to OBC category in the entire two size group followed by schedule tribal 28 per cent and schedule cast 18 per cent in all the size group of sample respondent.

Sivagnanam (2015) observed that 90 percent and 94 percent of the NFSM and the Non-NFSM farmers belonged to the OBC category, respectively. It indicates that the majority of the backward and the most backward farmers cultivate the land holdings in the study area. The sample farmers for the NFSM and the Non-NFSM farmers belonging to the SC are 8 percent and 6 percent, respectively. A small portion of the farmers belonged to the ST category (0.3 percent) for the NFSM farmers.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) revealed the caste composition that shows the OBC and General Categories were found more in case of Non-NFSM (81 %) as compared to NFSM (61 %) respondents, while ST and SC categories were found to be more in case of NFSM (39 %) as compared to Non-NFSM HHs (19 %) respectively.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) reported that only 0.67 per cent was SC population, 1.33 per cent ST population, 47.67 per cent OBC population and 50.33 per cent belonged to general category population in NFSM households. On the other hand, 2.00 per cent were ST population, 50.00 per cent OBC and 48 per cent general population in non-NFSM households. There was no SC population in non-NFSM households.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that among beneficiaries, about 15 percent belonged to either SC or ST category and the remaining 59 percent and 26 percent belonged to OBC and General groups, respectively.
2.8 Annual income
Pardhi (2012) reported that the net income and output-input ratio was higher in post NFSM. Thus, average incremental net income was Rs.9065 per hectare realizing that paddy cultivation after NFSM was economically viable and profitable over pre NFSM in the study area. The cost benefit ratio was found to be the best with the small sized farms over the medium sized farms in both the pre NFSM and post NFSM.
Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) found that between the NFSM and the Non-NFSM districts, the net returns per quintal are lower in the NFSM district for most of the crops and states although the net returns per hectare are higher.
Sharma et. al. (2012) revealed that the 77.50 per cent beneficiary farmers and only 15.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers had high economic benefits. Further, there was significant difference level of economic benefits between beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers from wheat cultivation. This significant difference was due to the fact that beneficiary farmers adopted the interventions introduced under National Food Security Mission.
AFC India Ltd. (2014) reported that the contribution of the Mission in raising the productivity and income level of the beneficiary farmers had been significant. The findings reported that there was significant increase in the productivity of rice and consequential income level of farmers, under NFSM programme. A large majorities of the beneficiaries also reported net gain in income between 10 to 20 per cent due to demonstrations, which is a noteworthy feature.

Sivagnanam (2015) depicts that the average annual income from all sources for the NFSM and the Non- NFSM farmers is found to be Rs. 70,458 and Rs. 40,250, respectively. That is because the agricultural income for the NFSM beneficiaries is more than that of the Non-NFSM farmers.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) shows that as far as total income with respect to Rs. / households and Rs. /acre is concerned, it is more in case of NFSM households as compare to Non-NFSM households, which clearly signifies the impact of NFSM over Non-NFSM.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that the net income per acre for paddy was higher by 26 percent among beneficiary household as compared with non-beneficiary household which might be due to the crucial interventions taken up under NFSM programme. The beneficiary households have been able to realize higher productivity and income as compared to the non-beneficiary farmers in most of the crops except cotton and few others.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) reported that the total annual income per household from agriculture was found at Rs 84,986, Rs 4,959 from business, Rs 12,444 from salaried job, Rs.2, 717 from wage earners and Rs 8,177 from other sources like fruits, vegetables, jute ; Mesta, plantation crops and tea. The average annual income from all sources stood at Rs 1, 13,283 in NFSM households. In case of non-NFSM households income from agriculture was found at Rs 51,701. The average annual income from all sources stood at Rs 71,601.

Khatik (2017) revealed that a comparative view of annual income of beneficiary and non-beneficiary of NFSM highlights that majority of beneficiary farmers (50.00 %) and non-beneficiary farmers (47.50 %) were in the medium income group i.e. 60001 to 100000 per year. Further, 23.75 per cent of beneficiary farmers and 30.00 per cent of non-beneficiary respondents had their annual income up to 60000 per year. Whereas, 26.25 per cent beneficiary farmers and 22.50 per cent non-beneficiary farmers were found in the high income group (more than 100000 per annum) in the study area.
2.9 Land holding
FAO (2006) smallholder farmers are challenged with limited agricultural resources and typically engage in many different activities, rather than just one or two, to make a living.
IFAD (2011) reported that the majority of the world’s poor in developing countries live in rural areas and many depend on small land areas (smallholder farmers) for food and income.

Sivagnanam (2015) revealed that among the large farmers 42.8 percent and 35.1 percent net operated area is occupied by for the NFSM beneficiaries and the Non-NFSM farmers, respectively. Medium size farmer has a share of 26.7 percent and 28.5 percent, respectively in both the categories. On the other hand, the lowest share of area is occupied by the marginal farmers in the study area. The average size of land holdings of the sample farmers in the NFSM scheme and Non-NFSM farmers is 6.36 acres and 5.01 acres respectively.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) depicts that average size of holdings is concerned, it was found 6.6 and 7.7 acres in case of NFSM and Non-NFSM farmers, respectively. The data showed that the total owned land and cultivated land per households were found to be 6.2 and 7.6 acres in case of NFSM and Non-NFSM respectively, out of which the leased in land was found to be 0.4 and 0.1 acres per households.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) reported that the beneficiary possessed higher net operated land (8.95 acre) by 39 percent as compared with the non-beneficiaries (6.42 acre). Furthermore out of total operational land, leased-in land of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries accounted for about 38 percent and 41percent, respectively, which indicates active role of land transactions in the study region.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) found that the total owned land was 1,035.60 acres in NFSM and 288.70 acres in non- NFSM households and per household holding stood at 3.45 acres and 2.89 acres in NFSM and non-NFSM farms, respectively.

Khatik (2017) observed that in case of beneficiary farmers, 52.50 per cent had small land holding, followed by 25.00 per cent of them having marginal land holding and only 22.50 per cent beneficiary farmers had large land holding. Whereas, 37.50 per cent of non-beneficiary farmers had small land holding followed by 32.50 per cent of them having marginal land holding and remaining 30.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers had large land holding in the study area.
Singh (2017) found that the data regarding size of land holdings indicates that most of the respondents (46.67%) had less than 1 ha of land ( marginal farmers), followed by 42.5 per cent had 1.1 to 2 ha land holding ( small farmers) and 7.5 per cent were medium farmers ( 2.1 to 4 ha). About 3.33 per cent respondents were found under large farmer’s categories with land holding above 4 ha.

2.10 Irrigation
NABARD (2012) found that 97 percent land in all study districts was cultivable out of total average land ownership and out of this cultivable land, 91 percent was irrigated. Total number of source of irrigation used by respondent beneficiaries, it bring out that the highest cultivable area was irrigated through bore wells while, some respondents were using canal water and wells as source of irrigation respectively.

Pardhi (2012) depicts that the ponds are main source of irrigation, which provided irrigation facilities to the extent of 50.34 per cent of the total irrigated area in district. Further second important source of irrigation is canals.

Sivagnanam (2015) revealed that a majority of the NFSM and the Non-NFSM farmers used canal and tube well irrigation as the major sources of irrigation. 72 percent and 88 percent of the NFSM beneficiaries and Non-NFSM farmers used the canal irrigation system. The area under tube well irrigation accounts for 8 percent and 2 percent, respectively. It is found that the majority of the farmers used the canal as the major source of irrigation. The total irrigated area per household is 6.27 acres and 4.88 acres for NFSM farmers and Non-NFSM farmers, respectively. On the other hand, the average irrigation intensity per household is calculated to be 102 percent and 101 percent for the respective group of farmers. Irrigation intensity is more in the case of NFSM farmers than that of the Non-NFSM farmers by a small margin.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) reported that tube wells were found to be major source of irrigation in case of NFSM and Non-NFSM farmers and found to irrigate 37.7 and 54.9 percent of area respectively. After tube well, the major source of irrigation was found to be canal + tube well (33.6 %), tank and open well (16.7 %) and canal (5.7 %) in case of NFSM farmers, while only 6.3 percent of total area under NFSM farmers remain rainfed.
Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that irrigated area was dominant accounting for about 82 percent and 87 per cent of the total operated area in case of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries respectively. Among the all sources of irrigation, canal irrigation was the major source accounting for about 74 percent and 76 percent in the case of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries respectively. In both categories, about 75 to 80 percent of area was irrigated using surface water and the remaining area was irrigated through groundwater.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) reported that three major systems of irrigation, viz. canal irrigation, well irrigation and tank irrigation are generally adopted in study area. However, of the total irrigated area, only 0.08 per cent was under canal irrigation, 43.85 per cent under tube well irrigation and 56.06 per cent were rainfed amongst the NFSM farms in the study area. Only tube well irrigation system was seen in the non-NFSM sample area and the total area, 29.52 per cent were irrigated and 70.48 per cent were rain fed.

Singh (2017) reported that about 96.67 per cent farmers were having irrigation facility and Canal, tube-well and river etc are the sources of irrigation. Out of total irrigated area, nearly 38.33 per cent area was irrigated by tube wells and canals utilized as sources of irrigation by 27.5 per cent respondents.

2.11 Credit acquisition
Sivagnanam (2015) found that the main sources of credit are commercial banks, PACS, Government agencies and money lenders. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS) is the major source of agricultural credit to the farmers. 77 percent and 80 percent of the NFSM and Non-NFSM farmers received loan from the primary agricultural co-operative societies in the rural areas. The commercial banks issued 20 percent and 17 percent of loans, respectively. It is found that the cooperative societies and commercial banks play a very vital role in the rural credit accessibility in the study area. A majority of the NFSM and the Non-NFSM farmers easily borrowed from both the institutions. Generally, farmers used the credit sources for the productive and the nonproductive purposes. The productive purposes included the cultivation of crops, animal husbandry development and other development purposes. And, the nonproductive purposes included credit used for daily consumption, social ceremonies and other purposes.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) reported that the various sources are available to provide credit to the farming community for different purposes to satisfy their farm and family needs, about 80 per cent NFSM and 62 per cent Non-NFSM farmers were taken credit from different sources. The main sources to obtained credit were commercial banks by NFSM (58%) and Non-NFSM (42%) farmers followed by Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS). Agriculture was found to be the main and only purpose of credit from the above sources.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) depicts that out of the total households, 16.33 per cent household availed credit from Commercial Banks in NFSM households. In non-NFSM sample farms, only 9.00 per cent household availed credit from Commercial Banks. There was also informal credit availed by the sample farmers. In case of NFSM beneficiaries 0.33 per cent household availed informal credit. All the sample households took credit for productive uses only.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) revealed that farmers have considered institutional sources (80%: beneficiaries and 77%: non-beneficiaries) as the prime source for their credit needs. Out of total credit, about 87 percent and 73 percent was taken for only agriculture related activities by the beneficiary and non-beneficiary households respectively.

2.12 Cropping intensity and cropping pattern
Cropping intensity refers to rising of a number of crops from the same field during one agricultural year, it can be expressed through a formula. Cropping pattern indicates the proportion of area under various crops at a point of time. It is a dynamic concept because no cropping pattern can be said to be ideal for all times to a particular region. It changes over space and time with a view to meet requirements and is governed largely by the physical as well as cultural, technological factors and market forces.
Pardhi (2012) shows that about 108.79 hectare cropped area was under kharif crops and remaining 104.04 hectare area was covered by rabi crops. In Kharif season, paddy was the main crop, which covered 98.79 hectare area of total cropped area. While in Rabi season, wheat was the main crop, which covered 76.16 hectare area to total cropped area.

Sivagnanam (2015) reported that the food grains occupied a predominant share of 70 percent of the total cropped area and the remaining 30 percent was covered under the non-food grains area in study area. Among the food crops paddy, groundnut, pulses, black gram had the largest share. On the other hand, the non-food crops like sugarcane and cotton occupied a major share in the gross cropped area. It is found that the higher proportion of total area was under paddy in kharif and Rabi seasons among the NFSM and Non-NFSM farmers in the study area. A majority of both the farmers are in favour of cultivating paddy, groundnut, pulses, black gram, sugarcane, and cotton during Rabi season. During summer, paddy, pulses and cotton are the major crops cultivated in the study area.

Sivagnanam (2015) depicts that the total cropping intensity per household for the NFSM and the Non- NFSM farmers are 163 percent and 192 percent, respectively. The Non-NFSM farmers have attained more cropping intensity than the NFSM farmers.
Rathi and Sharma (20150 found that cropping pattern of NFSM farmers is concerned, it is dominated by wheat (36.3%) followed by paddy (25.8%), soybean (21.0%), gram (10.1%), moong (6.0%) and other pulses (0.8%), whereas in case of Non-NFSM farmers the maximum area was covered by wheat (42.8%) followed by soybean (35.0%), paddy (14.7%), gram (7.1%), moong (0.3%) and other pulses (0.1%). It is clear from the cropping pattern of NFSM and Non-NFSM farmers that soybean and paddy were found to be dominating crops in kharif season, while in Rabi season cropping pattern is dominated by wheat and gram.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that the cropping pattern in the study area is largely a function of the availability of irrigation during different seasons of the year. Within cereal crops which occupied 82 percent and 56 percent of the gross cropped areas of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, respectively, paddy area alone accounted for about 80 percent and 51 percent of the gross cropped area in the case of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, respectively.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) reported that per household net operated area stood at 3.90 acres and cropping intensity stood at 139 per cent with irrigation intensity of 177 per cent in NFSM farms. In Non-NFSM households, per household net operated area were recorded at 3.11 acres, cropping intensity was found at 132 per cent and irrigation intensity stood at 194 per cent.

Singh (2017) indicated that before NFSM majority of the respondents (100.00%) were adopted the Rice – Chickpea-Fallow cropping pattern with an area of 113.56 ha in the study area, followed by Soybean – Chickpea (43.33%) with 12.14 ha coverage of area. The data presented in cropping pattern in after NFSM majority of the respondents (100.00%) were adopted the Rice – Chickpea –Fallow cropping pattern with an area of 117.61 ha in the study area, followed by Soybean – Chickpea (39.17%) with 15.78 ha coverage of area.

2.13 Occupation
Roy (2014) revealed that the 100 percent households were engaged in farming was in both the NFSM as well as non- NFSM households in the area under the study which clarifies that both NFSM and non- NFSM households were totally dependent on agriculture.
Savapandit and Gautam (2015) found that the average number of household members engaged in farming was found at 43.58 per cent and 41.78 per cent respectively in NFSM and non-NFSM farm families.

Sivagnanam (2015) reported that the highest share of income is derived from the agricultural sector in the study area. The income from own business was the lowest share in the study area in both the group of farmers. It is observed that the principal source of their earning and relative access to different activities promoted the welfare of the farmers.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) observed that the NFSM and Non-NFSM sample households 68 and 65 percent were found to be engaged in farming. The main source of income of NFSM and Non-NFSM households was found to be agriculture.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) noted that out of the selected households about 96 percent beneficiaries and 95 percent non-beneficiaries worked out their earnings mainly from the agriculture sector as that was their main occupation. The occupational income per households of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries indicate that agriculture is the main occupation which generates around 90 percent of the income, followed by agricultural allied activities (dairy, poultry and fisheries), services and own business. About 96 percent beneficiaries and 95 percent non beneficiaries depended on farming as a main occupation and hence for this reason about 90 percent of the income of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries was contributed by the agricultural activities.

Singh (2017) revealed that 100 per cent of the respondents were involved in agriculture, followed by 79.17 per cent involved in labor work, about 8.33 per cent were involved in business, while.6.67 and 5.83 per cent were involved in service and animal husbandry, respectively.

2.14 Source of information
Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) revealed that more than 80 per cent of the farmers in the sampled districts of different states are aware of the improved varieties of pulses. The main sources of knowledge or information about the NFSM in the district are extension agent.
Rathi and Sharma (2015) found that the major source of awareness of NFSM among the sample beneficiaries was found to be Agriculture Department (99.7%) followed by T.V/radio (94%), farmers/ friends (93.3%), news paper (82.0%), input suppliers (11.3%), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (10.7%), State Agricultural Universities (6.7%) and agri-exhibitions (3.7%) as reported by sample households.

Sivagnanam (2015) revealed that 71 percent of the farmers have known about the scheme and 28 percent are not aware of it. The percent of no response is 1 percent. Further, a majority of the NFSM farmers have reported that they know only the benefits of NFSM scheme such as provision of seeds, facilities or micro nutrients offered free of cost; the remaining benefits of NFSM are not known to all the sample farmers. Therefore, it is inferred from the findings that the benefits of the scheme have not reached all. The role of government officials in the agricultural department is important in outreach of the scheme at the grass-roots level.

Niranjan et al. (2016) found that the major source of awareness of NFSM among the sample beneficiaries was found to be Agriculture Department (99.7%) followed by T.V/radio (94%), farmers/ friends (93.3%), news paper (82.0%), input suppliers (11.3%), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (10.7%), State Agricultural Universities (6.7%) and Agri-Exhibitions (3.7%) as reported by sample Households.
Singh (2017) reported that in the study area, RAEO ranked first being utilized by 86.67 per cent of respondents. The study also reveals that 66.67 per cent of the respondents had obtained the information from progressive farmers, followed by 45.83 per cent of respondents obtained the information from telephones, neighbours/ friends ( 41.67%), T.V. ( 37.50%), (KCC) Kisan call centres (25.00%), SADO (20.83%), training( 18.33%) were other popular sources of information
2.15 Awareness of farmers about NFSM:
Awareness of the respondents about the initiation of a programme and assistance received under it plays a significant role in its success or failure.

Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) observed that the level of awareness is generally lower in the Non-NFSM districts in most of the states. As is to be expected, the role of extension agent is much stronger in the NFSM district as compared to the Non- NFSM districts.

NABARD (2012) revealed that the as traditional practices in control plots, farmers used NFSM inputs at higher rate in comparison to received under NFSM which was according to recommended package of practices. Weedicide was exception here for which still some farmers were either not well informed or not aware and they used it less than recommended rate.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that lack of awareness about the NFSM scheme (63%) as the main reason for not participating in the NFSM programme and this is followed by, lack of interest in the scheme due to lengthy procedural requirement to avail subsidy (18.6%) and proper land records are not available in the name of farmer/ cultivator to participate in the NFSM scheme (11.6%).

Singh and Grover (2015) reported that the awareness about the NFSM programme was concerned, no marginal and small farmers were aware about the initiation of this programme while nearly 36 per cent medium and 48 per cent large farmers were well aware about the programme. Thus, large category farmers were having better knowledge of this programme as compared to their medium category counterparts. It can be inferred that due to better links of the large and medium category farmers with the programme implementation agencies/ officials, they reaped benefits from the services/ inputs provided under this programme.

Sivagnanam (2015) found that the awareness level about NFSM scheme among beneficiaries. It is found from the study that 71 percent of the farmers have known about the scheme and 28 percent are not aware of it.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) depicts that all the beneficiary farmers had a reasonable level of knowledge about the NFSM scheme. 100 per cent sample farmers received information about the scheme from the State Agriculture Department.
2.16 Constraints faced by farmers
Pardhi (2012) found that the about 84 per cent of sample respondents were reported lack of irrigation facility, 80 per cent of farmers facing the problem of highly pest incidence and low market price for getting more profits from paddy production. About 78 per cent of farmers of different size groups reported the problem of shortage of human labors. It was observed that about 74 per cent of sample respondents reported the need large doses of other inputs required for the production. Due to no assured market for marketing 70 per cent of sample respondents were suffer from it. The lack of improved varieties was the problem of 42 per cent of sample respondents. It was also observed that 40 per cent of sample respondents was reported the unavailability of credit on proper time.

Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) reported that lack of irrigation, home consumption, and inferior land quality are the reasons for growing pulses. Higher pest incidence and lower yield are reported to be the major problems in majority of the farmers. Pod Borer is the most serious pest problem. Moong is the crop affected most by the pest problems followed by gram and arhar.
Sivagnanam (2015) found that the borrowing capacity of the marginal and small farmers to buy costly farm equipments is very low. Some of the materials like seeds, micro nutrients, pest and nutrient management, cono weeder are available easily and the subsidy amount is also very low. It is found in the study, under the NFSM scheme, the farm materials are distributed based on availability and not for according to need at the appropriate time. The beneficiaries have not received the subsidy in time. About 63.3 percent of the farmers have informed that the subsidy distribution after the purchase of inputs is the major problem. So, Government has to distribute farm material in time.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) revealed that the maximum number of beneficiaries reported that they did not face any constraints in availing the NFSM benefits, however few beneficiaries reported that the long time gap between the purchase and receiving the subsidy amount (20.3%), more documentation (19%), subsidy paid after purchase while initial payment remains the highest problem (18.7%), complicated procedure for the subsidy (16.7%), lack of institutional financing facility (16%), lack of capacity building (13%), information about NFSM not reaches comprehensively to the households (11.7%), eligibility or criteria for availing the subsidy is not provided to the households (11.3%), lack of technical advice (11%), poor quality of materials/machinery are supplied (9.7%) and biased towards large land owners (9%) were the constraints in availing the NFSM benefits.

Singh (2017) observed that among several constraints, the highest percentage of the respondents were reported that long time gap between the purchase and receiving the subsidy amount (59.17%), lack of institutional financing facility (52.5%), poor quality of materials/ machinery are supplied (44.17%), lack of capacity building (42.5%), biased towards large land owners (40.83%), complicated procedure for the subsidy (34.17%) and lack of technical advice (30.83%), respectively were the constraint of farmers.

Khatik (2017) reveals that 47.50 per cent beneficiary farmers faced medium level of constraints in adoption of recommended interventions. While, 36.25 per cent beneficiaries were observed to be in high constraints group and only 16.25 per cent beneficiary respondents perceived low level of constraints in adoption of recommended interventions. Lack of skill about application of chemicals was expressed as most important constraint by the beneficiary growers. The next important constraint perceived by the beneficiary respondents was timely non availability of seed minikits at local level. Likewise, the constraint related to inadequate knowledge about soil treatment was also expressed as major constraint by the beneficiary growers.
2.17 Farmers’ Perception about NFSM
Chatterjee and Giri (2010) observed that the successes of NFSM activities hinges on removing the financial crunch and smoothing availability of the required funds and thereby ensuring the availability of physical inputs and instruments of production like seeds, machinery, irrigation devices etc.

NABARD (2012) shows that feedback of beneficiary respondents on quality of input received under NFSM which reveals that on an average almost all respondents were satisfied with the quality. About 80 percent of respondents, who were benefitted under minikits activity of NFSM, were satisfied with distribution time of the minikits and said that it was made available before sowing season.

Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) found that farmers in the most of the states have reported higher yield as the most important benefit derived from the NFSM programme followed by increased knowledge and reduced pest attacks. As for impact on area and production, all the states have registered increase in area in 2008-09 of major crops moong and gram compared to the previous two years. Similar is the case with production. All the crops except arhar showed an increase in production after the NFSM.
Singh and Grover (2015) depicts about 48 per cent large and 35 per cent medium category farmers who found NFSM-pulses programme useful to them in terms of either input assistance or training regarding transfer of farm technology. Thus, the proportion of farmers informing about the usefulness of the programme was more from the large farm size category as compared to their medium category counterparts.

Singh (2017) reported that perception of farmers regarding NFSM in before NFSM majority of respondents 80.83 per cent of medium level of perception of farmers regarding NFSM, 10.83 per cent of low level and 8.34 per cent of high level of perception of farmers regarding NFSM. The perception of farmers regarding after NFSM majority of respondents 67.5 per cent of medium level of perception of farmers regarding NFSM, 20.83 per cent of low level and 11.67 per cent of high level of perception of farmers regarding NFSM.

2.18 Adoption of recommended technology
Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) reported that the percentage of farmers not following even one recommended practice is much higher in Non-NFSM districts of all the study area. Sowing and seed practices, followed by fertilizer practices, are followed by most of the farmers. The problems in using technology, the farmers have reported non-availability, expensiveness, inadequate pest resistance, need for other complementary inputs and lower yield of as the major problems.

NABARD (2012) observed that the demonstration of improved seed of wheat was adopted by 62 percent respondents, 100 percent respondents took interest in incentivized seed, no one adopted uses of Lime and Gypsum (except one) and maximum used Zinc Sulphate and Ferrous Sulphate as measure of INM, 32 percent of respondents took interest in adopting new technology based farm machines through NFSM, only 10 percent respondents benefitted under supply of inputs for IPM component.

Narain et al. (2014) observed that in case of adoption scenario poor gram productivity was the result of either poor knowledge or faulty/non adoption of recommended technology or combination of both. In the research all of ten components farmers had not at all fully adopted the recommended gram technology. The data indicated that 10.84 per cent trained farmers adopted faulty technological practices while 35 per cent adopted recommended out of 45.84 per cent of total trained farmers.

Sivagnanam (2015) observed that various farm materials are distributed to the farmers under the NFSM scheme. Out of that, seed is a major benefit availed of by the sample farmers in the study area. HYV/ Hybrid seeds are being used by the majority of the farmers in the study area. About 89 percent of NFSM beneficiaries have availed of the HYV seeds.

Singh (2017) shows that before NFSM majority of 80.00 per cent of the respondents had medium level adoption about chickpea production, 13.33 per cent of the respondents had low level of adoption and only 6.67 per cent of the respondents had high level of adoption about chickpea production practices. While the respondents after NFSM majority of 59.17 per cent had medium level adoption about chickpea production, 29.16 per cent of the respondents had low level of adoption and only 11.67 per cent of the respondents had high level of adoption about chickpea production.

Khatik (2017) found that among the categories of gram growers, it was observed that 28.75 per cent beneficiary farmers and 40.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers were in medium level of adoption category. While, 23.75 per cent beneficiary farmers and 35.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers were noted in the low level of adoption category. Likewise, 47.50 per cent and 25.00 per cent beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers possessed high level of adoption respectively about recommended gram interventions. Thus, from the above results it can be concluded that beneficiary gram growers had more adoption about recommended gram interventions than non- beneficiary gram growers in the study area.

Sharma et. al. (2012) revealed that significant difference was due to the fact that beneficiary farmers adopted the interventions introduced under National Food Security Mission.
2.19 Assistance received under NFSM Programme
NABARD (2012) revealed that highest skill imparted is for Inter culture-operations (100%) followed by recommended dose and method of Seed treatment and information about reliable source of manufacturers and suppliers of agriculture input (both 96%) while highest proficiency acquired is for preparatory tillage (75%) followed by recommended dose and method of seed treatment (74%) and method and frequency of Irrigation (70%). Likewise lowest Skill imparted is for recommended operation specific improved farm implements and their maintenance (80%) while lowest proficiency acquired for again farm equipments only.

Pardhi (2012) reported that among various category of size groups of farmers 89.14 per cent of small size group farmers and 77.33 per cent of medium size group farmers received the various assistance under NFSM programme. Under NFSM-Paddy, the farmers are provided various types of assistance and these mainly include (a) breeder/foundation/certified seeds, (b) assistance on Integrated Nutrient Management (INM); micronutrients/lime/gypsum etc, (c) assistance on Integrated Pest Management (IPM), equipments like seed drills, pump sets, sprinklers, conoweeder, knap-sack sprayers, etc. (d) training under Farmers training component, etc.

Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) reported that all the farmers are aware of and have derived benefits from NFSM. Assistance in the form of seeds is the most important in most of the states. Assistance in training is reported by two states – Rajasthan and Bihar. Farmers in most of the states have reported higher yield as the most important benefit derived from the NFSM programme followed by increased knowledge and reduced pest attacks.

Singh and Grover (2015) reported that nearly 48 per cent large and 36 per cent medium category farmers who received some assistance under NFSM-pulses programme. Thus, the proportion of large category farmers receiving assistance under programme was more as compared to medium category farmers. This shows that medium and large category farmers reaped the benefits under the programme while small and marginal ones could not do so due to their less proximity with the programme implementing agency/ stakeholders. In medium farm size category, about 38 per cent farmers got new HYV seeds of various pulse crops, 31 per cent received some sort of training regarding new production and protection technology developed regarding pulses and 31 per cent got some assistance under integrated pest management (IPM).

Sivagnanam (2015) observed that various farm materials are distributed to the farmers under the NFSM scheme. Out of that, seed is a major benefit availed of by the sample farmers in the study area. HYV/ Hybrid seeds are being used by the majority of the farmers in the study area. About 89 percent of NFSM beneficiaries have availed of the HYV seeds. In the study area, the scheme is effectively implemented and subsides are offered to certified seeds (seed mini kits of high yielding varieties/hybrid rice), incentives for micro nutrients, machinery/tools, cono weeder, zero till seed drills, multicrop planters, seed drills, rotavators, pump sets, power weeder, sprinkler, plant protection chemicals, Integrated Nutrient Management and Integrated Pest Management.

Niranjan et al. (2016) found that the NFSM Households who got 100 percent subsidy for production of certified seed (6), seed mini kits of HYV/hybrid Paddy (73), plant protection chemicals (79) and integrated pest management (79) were found to be benefited by Rs. 3219, Rs. 3084, Rs. 465 and Rs. 387 per households, respectively. The NFSM Households was benefited by using various farm equipments, which helped in driving benefits in various ways. The use of equipment benefited by saving water, good plant growth, reduction in cost of cultivation, control of weeds, timely operations and solving the problem of shortage of labour. All the NFSM Households reported that cono weeder is useful in case of labour shortage.
Singh (2017) observed that the NFSM beneficiaries had received assistance as different inputs like, improved varieties seeds, rhizobium culture, trichoderma culture and insecticides. The majority (95.83%) respondents had adequate and 4.17 per cent inadequately received assistance from NFSM programme.

2.20 Participation of farmers in various interventions under the NFSM programme
Farmer’s participation plays a very critical role in any scheme of government for the development of the agriculture and their allied sectors. Without farmer’s participation, one could not achieve anything from them. Therefore, it has become necessary to evolve effective and efficient participation methods in the NFSM scheme for improvement of their livelihood. In rural area, sometimes, the farmers at a village could not participate in the government scheme due to lack of awareness, ignorance, and are not aware of the importance of collective decision. Hence, it is necessary to highlight these vital factors for their awareness and improvement of their livelihood.

NABARD (2012) found that in situation of field days NFSM organized at demonstration plots. According to it, only 55.7 per cent demo plots respondents attended field days. In 29 field days, only 91 farmers were present and only 0.25 Agri. scientists from SAU/KVK/ARS/NGO attended these Field days in study area.

Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) reported that all the farmers are aware of and have derived benefits from NFSM and also participated in different programmes under NFSM. Assistance in the form of seeds and training is the most important in most of the states. Farmers are participated in NFSM have reported higher yield as the most important benefit derived from the NFSM programme followed by increased knowledge and reduced pest attacks.

Press information bureau (2013) reported that implementation of NFSM programme, had many interventions which were need location specific refinements for ensuring their effectiveness. Moreover, the number of innovations made by farmers/ extension functionaries very much needed a scientific validation before their large scale promotion and implementation. In a few instances, there is lack of relevant technologies for addressing productivity related constraints.

Narain et al. (2014) reported that training was organized by NFSM team on gram cultivation farmers are participating on different aspects of production and protection technology related to gram cultivation where most 46.67 per cent of farmers attended all the organized training.

Pardhi et. al. (2014) reported that under NFSM programme about 90 per cent farmers received improved verities of seeds of paddy crop, 92 per cent received training and assistant on IPM equally, 88 per cent received assistance on INM and only 66 per cent received various equipments.

AFC India Ltd. (2014) reported that farmers have enthusiastically responded to NFSM supported farm machinery components, especially to Zero till seed drills, rotavators etc. which is evident from the increased sale of these machines supported by Mission. Capacity building of farmers has been encouraged through arranging Farmers’ Field Schools (FFS) at the farm level. There has been an increase in input consumption of seeds, Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), IPM and machinery components under Rice, Wheat and Pulses from 2007-08 to 2011-12 due to awareness generated at the district level towards use of quality seeds, nutrients, plant protection chemicals and farm machinery.

Shah (2014) shows that the farmer’s participation and positive impact of NFSM programme on pulses crops cultivation in study area since the element of profit involved in their cultivation was substantially high after NFSM programme implementation. The plausible reasons for rise in profit margins could be traced to higher productivity, higher prices on offer, adoption of improved varieties of seeds, higher adoption of recommended, assistance received under NFSM-pulses programme, etc.
Sivagnanam (2015) observed that various farm materials are distributed to the farmers under the NFSM scheme. Out of that, seed is a major benefit availed of by the sample farmers in the study area. In the study area, the scheme is effectively implemented and subsides are offered to certified seeds (seed mini kits of high yielding varieties/hybrid rice), incentives for micro nutrients, machinery/tools, cono weeder, zero till seed drills, multicrop planters, seed drills, rotavators, pump sets, power weeder, sprinkler, plant protection chemicals, Integrated Nutrient Management and Integrated Pest Management.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that most of beneficiaries have been benefitted for paddy seeds (31%), incentive for micro nutrients in deficit soils (18%), manual and power operated sprayers (15%), incentive for lime in acid soils (14%) and plant protection chemicals (13%) as the average investment cost of these interventions were relatively lower than the other interventions. Overall picture reflects that on average beneficiary households were benefitted with and participated in an intervention.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) observed that the 244 NFSM HHs (81%) availed benefits from more than one intervention. The NFSM farmers got hundred per cent subsidy for production of certified seed (6), seed minikits of HYV/hybrid Paddy (73), plant protection chemicals (79) and integrated pest management (79) through which per HHs was found to be benefited by Rs. 3218.7, Rs. 3083.8, Rs. 465 and Rs. 387 per HH respectively.

Savapandit and Gautam (2015) found that total benefit received from various components of NFSM paddy was Rs.2, 350.59 per household. It was further observed that the pump sets were used for 17.24 numbers of days, knap sack sprayers (manual and power operated) were used for 3.94 numbers of days per benefited household, while cono weeder were used for 4.45 number of days covering an area of 0.91 acres per benefited household.

Niranjan et al. (2016) reported that the study showed positive impact of NFSM in the area under study. Farm equipment plays an important role to accelerate the farm economy in rural sector of the country. In the NFSM, government provides subsidy for purchase of their farm equipment to increase the productivity of crops. An individual Households received 32 per cent (seed drill) to 87.5 per cent (Knap Sack Sprayers) subsidy in NFSM. The use of equipment benefited by saving water, good plant growth, reduction in cost of cultivation, control of weeds, timely operations and solving the problem of shortage of labour. All the NFSM households reported that cono weeder is useful in case of labour shortage.

Singh (2017) found that involvement of respondents in NFSM programme in year 2012 was 50.00 per cent and 50.00 per cent involvement in 2013 year. Out of all technological interventions in NFSM programme majority of the respondents (60.83%) use of pesticides, followed by (59.17%) use of machinery, (56.67%) adequate use of chemical fertilizers and (45.83%) response to water management. Majority 65.83 per cent of respondents Participation in only 1 training followed by 19.17 per cent in 2 to 3 training and 15.00 per cent 4 or more training programmes.
2.21 Socio-economic status
Maurya (2001) revealed that the income generating programmes or schemes initiated under the special Component Plan for the economic development of scheduled castes are not making desired level of impact on their socio-economic status due to various lacunae at policy and implementation level.

Modgal (2003) reported that the NFSM is coupled with an improved socioeconomic environment, are now bringing about a steady improvement in rice production. Since rice production in these states is closely linked with the livelihood of the majority of the farm community, this positive trend in rice productivity and production has started altering the food security and poverty scene. The trend, degree, and manner in which rice research has influenced the process of food security and poverty alleviation in eastern India are discussed in this paper.

Barah (2010) observed that Estimated indicators of success clearly indicated that the innovative practice in NFSM has several socio-economic as well as bio-physical benefits, including, increase in productivity, input saving and conservation of precious resources.

Sharma (2012) found that the National Food Security Mission is most effective in terms of economic benefits derived due to wheat interventions introduced in study area.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) reported that the holding of assets make a person an efficient one in performing different operations on time which ultimately reflect the level of production and income.

Sivagnanam (2015) found that among the NFSM beneficiaries, tractor occupies the highest share of 25.2 percent, followed by drip irrigation occupying the share of 20.2 percent. The percentage share of electric pump sets in total assets value is estimated at 19.32 percent, followed by thresher with 12.9 percent share in asset holding. On the other hand, diesel pump sets, bullock cart, farm house, manual sprayers form the lowest share of assets holdings among the NFSM beneficiaries. It is found that both types of farmers in the study area make the highest investment in the tractor, drip irrigation, pump set and trolley.

2.22 Impact of NFSM on Area, Production and Productivity of crops
Chatterjee and Giri (2010) observed that under NFSM progress achieved in raising additional production through various efforts is not satisfactory.
NABARD (2012) reported that in comparison to base year, total area under NFSM districts has increased by 10 percent and accordingly production has increased by 28 percent while non NFSM districts achieved 25 and 38 percent increase in area and production, respectively. If we look at productivity, NFSM district are away then non-NFSM district (16 and 11 percent, respectively). In NFSM districts, an excellent growth of 57, 134 and 49 percent has been observed in total sown area, production and Productivity, respectively. In non-NFSM districts, all three measures viz. area, production and productivity have decreased by 20, 101 and 68 percent, respectively.

AFC India Ltd. (2012) observed that the performance of the Non NFSM districts was better in regard to the area expansion during the years 2008-09. But during the drought conditions affecting the agriculture production in the year 2009-10, NFSM Districts scored over the Non NFSM Districts with comparatively less adverse affect in the overall decrease in the area put under rice cultivation. Contribution in record production of Food grains & Pulses: The Mission could accomplish the targeted additional production of 20 million tonnes within 4 years of its implementation.
Pardhi (2012) reported that change in area, production and productivity of the sample respondents were found to be positive and increasing due to implementation of National Food Security Mission in the study area. It was conclude from that the National Food Security Mission would be beneficial in the selected area during the study period. The area and production of paddy crop of respondents show that the total area under pre NFSM was 98.79 hectare with the production of 2709.81 quintals and it was observed from post NFSM that the area and production increased up to 143.34 hectare and 5395.32 quintals respectively. Productivity of paddy cultivation in the study area was also found to be increased from 27.43 quintal per hectare to the 37.64 quintal per hectare.

Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) observed that the contribution of area and yield is better in the NFSM district as compared to the non-NFSM district in most of the states, although this cannot be attributed to the NFSM programme alone because of a very short period of our study. For pulses as a whole the net returns per hectare are higher in the NFSM districts of all the states as compared to the Non-NFSM districts, although differences exist at the individual crop level.

Pardhi R. et. al. (2014) reveals that area, production and productivity of crops are increasing due to implementation of NFSM. In case of small and medium group of farmers positive changes were observed that was increase in group of small farmer 23.35ha, 1407.67q, and productivity increase up to 10.94q/ha. And in medium farmer group 21.20 ha, 1274.52q and productivity increase up to 9.48q/ha.
Narain S. et. al. (2014) found that productivity level of gram was higher in trained farmers than untrained farmers of NFSM. Majority of the trained gram farmer’s i.e, 43.33 per cent were observed under medium productivity level i.e, 10-20q/ha while 40 per cent achieved higher productivity level i.e, 20q/ha gram yields in their field. The adoption scenario indicates that low gram productivity was the result of either poor knowledge or faulty/non adoption or the combination of both.

AFC India Ltd. (2014) found that the contribution of the Mission in raising the productivity and income level of the beneficiary farmers had been significant. There was significant increase in the productivity of rice and consequential income level of farmers, under NFSM programme. The increase of 25.68% in the production in the year 2011-12 over the year 2006-07 was quite impressive. Districts have both medium and high productivity.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) reported that the beneficiary households were able to realize higher productivity and income as compared to the non-beneficiary farmers in most of the crops except cotton and few others. Hence for this reasons, the net return per households and net return per acre were relatively higher by about 92 percent and 38 percent, respectively as compared with non-beneficiary household.

Singh and Grover (2015) were found that about 30 per cent increase in production was observed. Thus, on all farm size categories there was increase in production of pulses after the initiation of NFSM-Pulses. This increase was more on small farms followed by medium, large and marginal farms. Per cent increase in production was maximum i.e. nearly 49 per cent on small farms followed by 34 per cent increase on medium, 29 per cent on large and just 11 per cent increase in production was observed on the marginal farms. In overall, about 30 per cent increase in production was observed on the sample farms. Thus, on all farm size categories there was increase in production of pulses after the initiation of NFSM-Pulses.

Niranjan et al. (2016) depicts that the Rice, wheat and pulses are given high priority in the process of production by the Union and State Governments. The purpose of the mission is achieving food security and self-sufficiency to improve livelihood of the people in India. The food grains production increased from 50 MT in 1950-51 to 82 MT in 1960-61, 129.8 MT in 1980-81 and 263 MT in 2013-14. The production increased fivefold over the six decades in India.

Singh (2017) found that the impact of NFSM on income and productivity of chickpea beneficiaries before NFSM shown that, Total area (in ha) 125.70, Total production (in q.) 1605.18, Average productivity ( q/ha) 12.77, Total income (in Rs.) 6099684 and Net income (Rs. /ha) 33985. While in after NFSM Total area (in ha) 133.40, Total production (in q) 2222.44, Average productivity (q/ha) 16.66, Total income (in Rs.) 10000980 and, Net income (Rs. /ha) 54534.above data is concluded that the positive impact of NFSM shown in study area.

Khatik (2017) shows that after initiation of NFSM project, 50 percent respondents could be placed under medium level of increase in yield group. It was further noted that only 8 (10.00%) gram growers and 32 (40.00 %) respondents possessed high level of increase in yield of gram crop. it is inferred that area and yield of crops was in increasing order due to the NFSM interventions given to the respondents. It means that NFSM played significant role in increase the area and yield of crop in the study area. From the above results it can be concluded that National Food Security Mission is most effective in terms of increase in area and yield of crop.

2.23 Knowledge of recommended technology given under various interventions
AFC India Ltd. (2012) found that the package of improved agriculture practices has shown good results in NFSM Districts which recorded better growth rate of 3.99% and 7.40% during 2007-08 and 2008-09 against the corresponding figure of 2.91% and 5.48% in Non NFSM Districts. It is possible because the beneficiaries of NFSM get knowledge about improved agriculture practices in the study area.

NABARD (2012) shows that coverage of the mission with regards to number of farmers benefited through demonstrations of Wheat crop. Out of total 180 beneficiary respondents, 52 were benefitted directly (demonstration plot owner farmer) by this activity of the mission while 890 farmers were benefited indirectly. Highest (71%) number of directly benefited farmer respondents. On average only 53 percent beneficiary respondents got tested their field soil before demonstration. With respect to knowledge of package of practices of the demonstrated crop, again on an average only half of the respondents got detailed information. 54 percent respondents got display board at demonstration plot.

Singh (2017) observed that before NFSM majority of 73.33 per cent of the respondents had medium level knowledge about chickpea production practices, 20.00 per cent of the respondents had low level of knowledge and only 6.67 per cent of the respondents had high level of knowledge about chickpea production practices. Whereas the respondents who were beneficiary of NFSM majority 69.17 per cent of the respondents had medium level knowledge about chickpea production, 20.83 per cent of the respondents had low level of knowledge and 10.00 per cent of the respondents had high level of knowledge about chickpea production.

Khatik (2017) reveals that majority of the respondents (48.33%) fell in high level of knowledge group whereas, 30.83 per cent respondents were observed in medium level of knowledge group and remaining 20.84 per cent respondents possessed low level of knowledge about recommended gram interventions under NFSM. Further analysis is clearly indicates that 60.00 per cent beneficiary farmers and 25.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers had high level of knowledge about gram interventions. Whereas, 23.75 per cent beneficiary farmers and 45.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers possessed medium level of knowledge about recommended gram interventions. On the other hand, 16.25 per cent beneficiary farmers and 30.00 per cent non-beneficiary farmers were kept in the low level knowledge group as this category of respondents had poor knowledge about recommended gram interventions.
2.24 Suggestions given by respondents
Sekhar and Bhatt (2012) reported that farmers in most of the states suggested improving irrigation facilities and making high yielding varieties available as important, showing that non-price factors such as lower yield and yield instability are still important determinants of farmer’s willingness to grow pulses in study area.

Pardhi (2012) observed that more efforts are needed to create the awareness about irrigation facilities and plant protection measures that will be help full to paddy grower for increasing the productivity level in the study area.

Kakkar et al. (2014) reported that more than 37 per cent of the farmers received amount of subsidy in more than sixty days. Lengthy documentation procedure and delay in release of subsidies were the main problems faced by the farmers. To make the subsidies more effective, farmers suggested that criteria for availing subsidies need improvement so that most of the small and marginal farmers get more benefits.

Sivagnanam (2015) depicts that about 22 percent of the NFSM beneficiaries suggested that there is need for simplifying the procedure for availing the benefit of the NFSM scheme in the study area. 20 percent of farmers have informed that the subsidy is to be increased. A majority of the farmers do not receive all the subsidies. They suggested that advertisement might be given about the NFSM scheme.

Rathi and Sharma (2015) observed that the major suggestion as reported by the maximum percentage of beneficiary HHs was the financial facility should be available for margin money (86%) followed by timely supply of input (73%), farmers visit/field days should be arranged for each intervention wherever it has been taken to demonstrated among the farmers for its wide publicity (72%), input delivery system should be strengthened to make the availability round the year and year to come (56%), quality material should be provided under the programme (26%) and time lag between purchase of item and release of subsidy amount should be reduced (23%).

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that in order to overcome major constraints, about 51 percent of the non-beneficiaries had suggested for more information and benefits about the NFSM scheme should be provided in local language to all the farmers, while 36 percent of the non beneficiaries suggested that inputs/manures should be provided to all the cultivators at subsidized rate. Farmers suggested that supply of adequate quality inputs /manures and machinery equipments (57%) should be given at reasonable subsidized rate. Also MSP for paddy (38%) and awareness about the scheme (28%) should be further increased.

Singh and Grover (2015) revealed that the major suggestion by the farmers was to supply High Yielding Varieties (HYV’s) seed at subsidized rates, to ensure its timely availability, developing varieties resistant to various insect pest and diseases. Farmers also suggested supplying of fertilizers free of cost, plant protection equipment at subsidized rates. There was another suggestion for the extension functionaries of related departments to provide trainings on the latest technology regarding pulses.

Singh (2017) revealed that majority (65.83%) of the respondents suggested that benefits to be expanded to all the farmers, followed by (60.83%) quality material should be provided under the programme, (59.17%) government support is needed for the success of the NFSM scheme, (55.83%) farmers visit/ field days should be arranged for each intervention wherever it has been taken to demonstrate among the farmers for its wide publicity, (54.17%) timely supply of input, (49.17%) expansion of area coverage and ( 42.5%) simplifying the scheme respectively.

2.25 Sources of seed
Tripp (2006) studied that the majority of farmers said they were buying the seed to replenish their stocks, rather than to try a new variety. About 90 per cent of the purchasers said they would buy small packs of bean seed again. There were similar responses in Kenya: 80per cent of the farmers said they would be willing to pay twice grain price to get fresh seed of a pigeon pea MV they were using, and 42 per cent said they would buy fresh seed every year, if they had the opportunity.
Joshi et al. (2007) highlighted that more than 80 per cent of the seed in India and South Asian countries is saved by the farmers, especially for self-pollinating crops like wheat. This is also influenced by the poor availability of new varieties of seed due to weak seed delivery and weak linkages.

Smale et al. (2007) studied that the gender differences in local seed knowledge and skills are an important asset for strengthening links between the local and formal seed systems.

Guire M.S. (2008) found that the norms of farmer-to-farmer seed exchange are evolving. It varies from one society to another where seed exchange on commercial base is increasingly important including subsistence crops such as sorghum.
Verma and Sidhu (2009) identified that the seeds were easily available with the private seed dealers (48%). On the other hand, the institutional sources could not sell such seeds. The next important source of seed was self-retained seed.
Sperling and Guire (2010) observed that farmers approach the informal seed sources such as informal seed market strategically. They identify particular varieties by their names, traits and adaptation areas.
Adetumbi et al. (2010) found that the seed are purchased from certified sources and properly handle to guarantee the supply of healthy seeds to farmers. Seeds of food crops were mostly sourced from research institutes (maize 73.68%, cowpea 46.05%, soybean 27.63%), seed of vegetables were mainly sourced from private seed firms and personal farms of the seed marketers (36.24%) thereby depicting the low level of attention given by government seed agencies to this category of crop. In addition, maize seeds were also sourced from personal farms of the seed marketers (53.95%), ADPs (46.05%), private seed firms (46.05%) and open market (27.63%). Similar results were observed for cowpea.
Bishaw et al.(2010) found that the informal sector was an initial source of modern wheat varieties for 58 per cent of the farmers, through neighbors or other farmers (36%), relatives (7%), or local trading (15%). Moreover, the majority of farmers sourced their wheat seed informally whereby 79% used retained seed or sourced off-farm from neighbors (9%) and local traders or markets (3%) for planting wheat during the survey year.
Mgonja (2011) found that the number of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa who purchase high yielding varieties of seeds from formal institutions such as parastatal seed organizations and private seed companies, ranges from 5-10 per cent, and these are mainly the high in-come farmers. This is due to the fact that a large percentage of farmers use their own seed stock, or seeds obtained from other farmers in their communities.
NABARD (2012) Source of seed under NFSM are a mix of government and private organizations like NSC, RSSC, Cooperative societies, GSS, KVSS and private dealers which are registered at respective district agriculture offices. The difference of cost of seed to farmer made available under incentivized supply from NFSM in comparison to market rate. It shows that in open market, seeds were available at much higher cost than the mission which was on an average, 186 percent and 158 percent higher in Pulses and Wheat, respectively.

Ghimire et al. (2012) identified that the proper channel or seed delivery system needs to be developed. The results have identified that the old varieties are mostly delivered via market channel, it means that traders should also be made aware about the new varieties and extension services should be strengthened.
Esaff (2013) found that there is a big gap between what is produced from the formal seed system and made available to farmers. It is therefore true that farmers use more seeds from the informal sector. Definitely most of the seeds are farmer seeds. This implies that farmers are using mostly their local materials or recycled improved varieties.
Beye and Marco (2014) found that the farmer-saved seed and farmer-to-farmer seed exchange will remain the primary source of seed supply for the majority of farmers for many years.

Bhandari et al. (2014) reported that the majority of the farmers (87%) maintain their own seed. However, one household always has multiple sources of seed. Majority of the households (56%) depend upon local grain market for sorghum seed followed by acquiring it from relatives (22%). While, 31per cent of farmers acquired new varieties of sorghum from government extension services and 27 per cent of farmers obtained from local markets.

2.26 Seed Replacement
Chatterjee and Giri (2010) reported that in case of wheat various interventions like distribution of seeds for increasing seed replacement ratio is glaringly inadequate in terms of achievement against target.
AFC India Ltd. (2014) found that mission provides support for State Seed Certification Agencies for strengthening their infrastructure to facilitate the process of seed certification. The laggard States need to make all out efforts to strengthen the seed certification agencies. The main objective of Seed Certification is to ensure the acceptable standards of seed viability, vigour, purity and seed health and improve seed replacement ratio.

Deepak Shah (2014) reported that the initiation of NFSM-pulses would certainly pay rich dividend since the major thrust of this programme is on increasing seed replacement and the replacement of older varieties by newer ones. It offers much more than what the earlier programmes did, especially with respect to capacity-building, monitoring and planning.

Kapoor (2006) found that the seed renewal period as recommended by the National Commission on Agriculture (1976), is four years in paddy. The SRR in most crops is below the scientifically desirable level of 25 per cent in respect to self- pollinated crops.
Sperling (2010) found that the norms of farmer-to-farmer seed exchange are evolving. It varies from one society to another where seed exchanges on commercial base are increasingly important including subsistence crops such as sorghum.
Verma and Sidhu (2009) reported that the overall value of SRR was found to be 24.05 per cent. The farm category-wise analysis revealed a direct relationship between SRR and farm-size, it was highest for large farmers (31.5%), followed by medium (21.6 %) and small (18%) farmers. It was due to better economic condition of large farmers to buy seed from institutional sources and their higher awareness about the quality of seed.
Tura et al. (2010) found that the data show that only (7.5%) of the sample households have never grown improved maize varieties. About (63%) of the sample households have been using the improved seeds since they first adopted them, whereas the remaining (37%) have not adopted the improved seeds. Accordingly, adoption rate of maize seed in the study area is more than (92%) while discontinuance is about (37%).

2.27 Timely availability of inputs ; supply
Gemeda et al. (2001) identified that the some maize farmers traveled at least 10 km or more to obtain improved seed, although there were differences between districts. High seed price and lack of seed were the two major constraints for farmers not to use seed from the formal sector.
Bishaw (2010) found that the distance traveled to buy certified seed was in the range of 0–15 km (14% over 10 km) and most transactions were based on credit from the government. This indicates farmers’ strong interest in investing their time to obtain wheat seed in situations where rural infrastructure was very poor.

NABARD (2012) reported that delay was observed in supply timelines in some cases from supplying agencies but major reason behind this was procedural delays. 100 per cent of beneficiary respondents, who received the seed on time in the respective season Reason of delay in some cases as said by department of agriculture officials, were delay from source of seeds. About 66% of the respondent informed that seed germination was good, while more than 25 % respondent said that germination was average. There were only 9 percent cases found where germination was poor. Regarding timeliness of supply of inputs, supply was delayed, beneficiary respondents were unable to show exact dates but almost all said that all inputs were made available to them during month of November.
Sivagnanam (2015) depicts that the timely availability of material is very essential. Farm materials like seeds, sprayers, micro nutrients, INM, IPM and cono weeder are not available to all NFSM farmers. The Government officials could not distribute the same to all those farmers in the study area. There is shortage of farm materials in the study area and that is the main problem. Equipments like pump sets, rotavators, power weeder or tiller are not distributed to all the NFSM beneficiaries in the study area. The distribution of NFSM farm material is a major challenging task in the area of study. Only a few farm equipments are distributed to the farmers by the government.

2.28 Impact of NFSM on employment
AFC India Ltd. (2014) reported that the impact of employment was also analyzed in the main course of the programme and has been observed that in all the three crops i.e. wheat, rice and pulses, there have been an increase in the labour requirement per hectare in study area. The highest change was observed in pulses (27%) followed by rice and wheat respectively which may be because of the reason that the farmers have stated adopting the new technology and good agricultural practices including mechanization. Mechanization under NFSM has generated many non-farming and subsidiary activities among the farming households. On the one hand, additional employment was created in the manufacture of farm machinery, distribution of the equipment & spare parts, fuel & lubricants, repair & servicing etc.; on the other hand, many subsidiary activities like dairying and poultry keeping got generated. A tractor owner was able to increase his household income by undertaking supplementary activities.

2.29 Contribution of other sectors in NFSM
AFC India Ltd. (2012) revealed that the NGOs were associated in the implementation of the programme only in 14 of the districts i.e. 17 per cent. Thus, a predominant majority of about 83 per cent of the districts did not have involvement of any Voluntary Sector.

NABARD (2012) reported that the programme primarily adhered to guidelines in respect to selection of site and most of the Farmers Field School organized within village boundary or nearby place of demonstration plots. Technical support was provided by SAU?s scientists from KVK/ ARS. no respondents were able to show any technical material provided during FFS.

2.30 Reasons for not participation in the NFSM
Rathi and Sharma (2015) found that two major reasons reported for non-participation by the non-beneficiaries i.e. lack of willingness (91%) followed by lack of knowledge (85%) respectively.

Sivagnanam (2015) reported that the various reasons are behind the non-participation of farmers in the scheme. A majority of the farmers in a village did not have any awareness about the government scheme properly. It is also found that a majority of the non-beneficiaries are either illiterate or possess minimum level of education. Therefore, political and community influence is the main reason for non-participation in the NFSM scheme.

Manjunatha and Kumar (2015) found that lack of awareness about the NFSM scheme (63%) as the main reason for not participating in the NFSM programme.