5988

Sustainability of Participatory Technology Development & Transfer 
Approach for Sugarcane Farmers

J.Vasanthakumar1

ABSTRACT
Participatory Technology Development and Transfer (PTD & T) is an effective action 

research approach. It empowers all the stakeholders, especially the farmers who are 
many a time invisible. A PTD project was implemented for Sugarcane development in 
Tamil Nadu and the outcome was a mixture of success and failures. The paper presents 
the findings and asserts that the approach is sustainable.

Keywords: Participatory Technology Development and Transfer; Transect Walk ; 
Sugarcane; Constraints; Tamil Nadu

1. Former Dean (Agriculture), Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu

Received : 02-08-2018; Accepted : 16-08-2018

Generally scientists develop high 
input technologies in research centres 
and development workers transfer the 
technologies to farmers. The approach 
worked well in many of the regions 
with sufficient resources. However, the 
technologies were not utilised in some of 
the regions operating under physical and 
socio-economic constraints (Garforth and 
Harford,1995). It is mainly due to the fact 
that real needs of the farmers of such 
regions were not reflected in the whole 
process of ‘Technology Generation and 
Transfer’ (Pretty,1995).

METHODOLOGY
The study was taken up in three 

villages of Nagappattinam district in 
Tamil Nadu under the jurisdiction of 

N.P.K.R.R Cooperative Sugar Mills 
Ltd., based on yield gap. The yield gap 
was operationally defined as the ratio 
between potential high yield recorded in 
the village and average yield of the village 
(Dhamodaran and Vasanthakumar, 
1997). Three villages namely, Athukkudi, 
Keelaiyur and Thiruvali were selected 
based on high yield gaps.  

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Transect walk and analysis

Scientists from ICAR-Sugarcane 
Breeding Institute, Coimbatore and 
Development workers of N.P.K.R.R Sugar 
Mills, Mayiladuthurai and Faculty of 
Agriculture, Annamalai University  along 
with farmers of each village selected 

Journal of Extension Education
Vol. 29  No. 4,  2017
DOI:https://doi.org/10.26725/JEE.2017.4.29.5988-5994

Research Article 
Journal of Extension Education
Vol. 29  No. 4,  2017
DOI:https://doi.org/10.26725/JEE.2017.4.29.5937-5944



5989

undertook the transect walk initially and 
then assembled at a common place for 
a presentation of problems by farmers. 
Problems in Sugarcane production were 
presented by farmers after a Transect 

Walk in the three villages. The Scientists 
listened carefully to the presentation of 
problems made by farmers (Arulraj and 
Vasanthakumar. 1996).

Table 1. 
Problems Presented by Farmers in Athukkudi  village of Nagappattinam district

 (n=27 )

Sl. 
No.

Problem
Sl. 
No.

Problem
Sl. 
No.

Problem

1
Lack of suitable 
varieties for brief 
drought condition

2
Improper land 
preparation

3
Inappropriate 
water management 
practices

4

Non-adoption 
of drought 
management 
technologies

5
Late planting of 
sugarcane

6
Water logging 
during October-
November

7
Incidence of Early 
Shoot borer

8
Heavy weed 
infestation

9 Soil problems

10 Rat problems 11
Internode borer 
problem

12 Top borer problem

13 Red rot disease 14 Smut disease 15 Poor germination

16
Inappropriate 
fertiliser 
management

17
Lack of soil test 
details

18
Lack of Water test 
details

19
Harvesting not done 
at ground level

20
Detrashing not 
done

21
Poor Ratoon 
management

22
Low level of use of 
organic manure

23 Termite problem 24 Whitefly problem

25
Varietal mixture 
especially during 
gap- filling



5990

There were twenty-five problems 
listed by the farmers of Athukkudi village 
(Table1). The facilitators of the project 
facilitated a discussion among all the 
stakeholders and listed the priorities 
of the farmers of Athukkudi village. 
The problems that required immediate 
attention were identified: (i) Selection 
of Sugarcane varieties suitable to brief 

Table 2. 
Problems Presented by Farmers in Thiruvali  village of Nagappattinam District 

( n=27)

Sl. 
No.

Problem
Sl. 
No.

Thiruvali 
Sl. 
No.

Keelaiyur

1 Poor level of ratoon 
management

2 Soil problems due 
to sandy texture 
and Improper land 
preparation

3 Non-adoption of basal 
dose of fertiliser

4 Heavy incidence of 
Early Shoot borer

5 Repeated occurrence 
of water scarcity

6 Late planting of 
sugarcane

7 Inappropriate 
sugarcane varieties 
cultivated in the 
village

8 High incidence 
of  internode borer 
problem

9 Improper weed 
management

10 High incidence of 
termites

11 Rat menace 12 Profusely flowering 
nature of existing 
varieties

13 Heavy lodging 14 Non-adoption of 
harvesting at ground 
level

15 Lack of availability 
of organic manure in 
sufficient quantities

16 Lack of adoption 
of appropriate 
fertiliser management 
techniques

17 Less adoption of  soil 
testing

18 Incidence of red rot 
disease in few plots

drought condition, (ii) Methods of Land 
Preparation, (iii) Water Management, (iv) 
Management of Early Shoot Borer and (v) 
Use of Organic Manure. 

The farmers of Thiruvali village 
identified twenty-four problems (Table 
2) in the presence of scientists and
development workers.



5991

The problems that required 
immediate attention in Thiruvali were 
identified: (i) Selection of Sugarcane 
varieties suitable to wetland condition, (ii) 
Sandy soil Management, and (iii) Ratoon 
Management. 

The farmers of Keelaiyur village 
had listed out eighteen problems (Table 
3). The facilitators discussed the problems 
for a better understanding.

The problems that required 
immediate attention in Keelaiyur  were 

Sl. 
No.

Problem
Sl. 
No.

Thiruvali 
Sl. 
No.

Keelaiyur

19 Whitefly problem 20 Improper water 
management 
practices

21 Low level of 
germination

22 Non-availability of 
good nursery plots

23 Less adoption of half 
earthing-up

24 Less adoption of deep 
ploughing

Table 3. 
Problems Presented by Farmers in Keelaiyur  village of Nagappattinam District 

(n=19 )

Sl. 
No.

Problem
Sl. 
No

Problem
Sl. 
No.

Problem

1
Non-availability of  
suitable varieties for 
upland condition

2 Weed management 3
Poor Ratoon 
management

4
Inappropriate Sandy 
soil management

5
Inappropriate  
planting methods

6
Incidence of Early 
Shoot borer

7
Incidence of Red rot 
disease

8 Rat menace 9
Non-adoption of 
harvesting at ground 
level

10 Heavy Lodging 11
Heavy incidence of 
Flowering

12 Problem soil

13 Soil test not done 14
Water sample not 
tested

15
Inappropriate 
fertiliser 
management

16
Non-adoption of 
basal dressing of 
fertiliser

17
Inappropriate water 
management

18
Inadequate land 
preparation



5992

identified: (i) Selection of Sugarcane 
varieties suitable to upland condition 
and (ii) Sandy soil Management.  

Farmer Experimentation 

It was decided by all the stakeholders 
to organise ten experiments accordingly 
in the three villages (Table 4). Then, 
volunteering farmers who would organise 

Table 4. 
Farmer Experimentation in Selected Villages of Nagappattinam District

Sl. 
No.

Village Theme of Experiment

1 Athukkudi
Selection of Sugarcane varieties suitable to brief drought 
condition

2 Methods of Land Preparation

3 Water Management

4 Management of Early Shoot Borer

5 Use of Organic Manure

6 Thiruvali Selection of Sugarcane varieties suitable to wetland condition

7 Sandy soil Management 

8 Ratoon Management

9 Keelaiyur Selection of Sugarcane varieties suitable to upland condition

10 Sandy soil Management

these experiments in their holding were 
finalised in the presence of the villagers 
in the meeting.

The results of the ten experiments are 
given below :

In Athukkudi village eleven sugarcane 
varieties suitable to brief drought 
condition were planted. Excess irrigation 

was given by the experimenting farmer 
during the early phase possibly due to 
over enthusiasm which seriously affected 
the germination. The experiment had to 
be discontinued.

 The second experiment on 
methods of land preparation resulted in 

a yield of 138 t/ha when deep ploughing 
and formation of ridges and furrows 
with controlled irrigation compared to 
formation of ridges and furrows yielding 
118.50 tons/ha while the local practice 
yielded 95.90 tons/ha. The farmers 
decided to go for formation of ridges and 
furrows.



5993

The third experiment on water 
management did not take off as the 
identified farmer was hesitant.

 The fourth experiment was 
for managing early shoot bearer. The 
experimenting farmer ignored cultural 
and IPM and went for chemical control 
vitiating the experiment.

 The fifth experiment was on 
trying different choices of use of organic 
manures and the farmers decided to try 
trash compost, which was one of the 
choices.

 In  Thiruvali village, fourteen 
varieties were tried for identifying the 
varieties suitable for wetland situation. 
The farmers identified three varieties 
namely, CoG93076,Co 8021 and Co 
86010 and decided to go on a commercial 
scale and also make their village “red rot 
free”.

 For sandy soil management, the 
farmers decided to accept the application 
of additional dose of nitrogen (25%) along 
with local practice. 

 In the experiment on ratoon 
management, the farmers preferred ITK 
(Indigenous Technical Knowledge) of 
uprooting the sprouts from a corner of 
the field plant those in the gaps in the 
remaining field.

 In Keelaiyur village, the farmer 
who agreed to take up the experiment on 
selection of varieties suitable for upland 
condition did not try the eleven varieties 
offered.

In the experiment on Sandy Soil 
management, the farmers decided to go 
in for application of additional dose of 
nitrogen (25%) along with local practice.

 The experimenting villages were 
visited again twice with a gap of ten years 
(2005 and 2015) and interacted with a 
sample thirty farmers. The impact of the 
participatory approach was satisfactory. 
The technologies like formation of ridges 
and furrows, use of trash compost, 
Sandy soil management and ratoon 
management trickled down well in the 
system. The study area had some of the 
new varieties tried and free from red rot. 

 The Participatory Rural Appraisal 
Methods like Transect Walk had 
empowered the farmers to participate in 
the Technology Development and Transfer 
Process. As the perception of farmers 
and that of Scientists and Development 
workers differed widely (Elangovan and 
Vasanthakumar,1997), the farmers 
were considered passive users of the 
technology. Some of the technologies 
with higher returns were rejected while 
the ones that are compatible with the 
existing practices were adopted easily. 
The technologies adopted, thus get 
systematised to be part of the farmers’ 
technologies (Ramasubramaniyan, et.al., 
2016). The technologies accepted by the 
farmers through PTD get transferred 
rapidly among farmers.  Further, the 
study reveals that such technologies 
remain in the field for a longer time. 



5994

The Transect Analysis, a 
Participatory Appraisal Method, emerged 
as a useful tool in identifying the 
constraints and in evolving a suitable 
Action Plan to tackle the constraints. 
However, the priorities of the farmers 
differed from that of development workers 
who believed that adequate varieties 
have been presented. The farmers had a 
System Perspective while the Scientists 
had a narrow perspective due to 
specialisation. The transfer of technology 
especially the varieties suitable to local 
condition was rapid whereas the transfer 
of technology relating to land preparation 
and use of organic manures was far below 
the expectation. Thus the Participatory 
Technology Development and transfer 
is an important technique in identifying 
location specific technologies.

REFERENCES
Arulraj, A. & Vasanthakumar, J. (1996). 

Participatory Technology Development- 
A Case Study, Discussion Paper,  
96/11, Sugarcane Breeding 
Institute,ICAR, Coimbatore, pp.24.

Chambers,R., Pacey, A & Thrupp, LA 
(eds.)(1989). Farmer First - Farmer 
innovation and Agricultural Research, 
Intermediate Technology Publications, 
London.

Garforth, C. & Harford, N. (1995). 

Issues in Agricultural Extension- 
Experiences of Agriculture and Natural 
Resource Management Programmes 
through the 1980s and1990s, AERDD 
Working Paper 95/6,The University of 
Reading,UK.

Pretty, J.N .(1995), Regenerating 

agriculture : an alternative 
strategy for growth, Earth Scan, 
London.1825-1828.

Ramasubramaniyan, R., Vasanthakumar, 

J. &  B.S.Hansra, (2016). Knowledge 
and Adoption of Conservation 
Agriculture Technologies by the 
Farming Community in Different Agro-
Climatic Zones of Tamil Nadu State in 
India, Journal of Agricultural Science, 
8(11):154-169

Dhamodaran, T. & Vasanthakumar, J 

(1997), Yield Gap and Constraints to 
High Yields in Sugarcane, Journal of 
Extension Education, 8(4)

Elangovan, R. & Vasanthakumar, J 
(1997). Perception of Extension 
Officials Towards Eco- friendly 
Technologies. Tamil Nadu Journal 
of Extension Education, 8 (3): 1755- 
1758.