JEE Journal of Extension Education Vol. 27 No. 4, 2015 Technology Needs Assessment in the Homegarden Systems Allan Thomas1 and N. Kishore Kumar ABSTRACT The study was conducted in four districts of Kerala covering a sample size of 208 homegardens using multi-stage stratified random sampling technique representing the three major agro climatic zones viz. lowland (problem zone), highland and midland. The primary objective of the study was to identify the technology needs of the homegarden farmers. Maximum technology need was reported for unexploited and under exploited horticultural tree crops which was on par with fruit tree crops (mango and jack) and followed by beverage crops. Processing, value addition and storage requirements were immediate technology needs of the homegarden farmers. Drainage and soil amendment technologies were reported to be important for Alappuzha homegarden farmers. 1- Assistant Professor and 2- Professor of Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayanai, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. Technology can be defined as any information which has got some practical utility for the users and which has been tested as feasible, crude, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally harmless under user’s conditions. The ultimate objective of research in agriculture is to develop technologies that are suitable for users. In Kerala, homegardens forms the basic and important form of agricultural production system covering more than 70 per cent of its land area facilitating the interaction of Tree- crop- animal husbandry-specialized components mix combination in an intensive manner. Evolving new technology is an endeavour in the direction of increasing production efficiency (Swaminathan. 1979). The rapid technology progress and the increased rate of obsolescence of technologies necessitate technology forecasting for any planning process especially to understand the technology needs of homegardens as only a very little research has been undertaken in this direction. Technology needs can be defined as a probabilistic prediction of technological changes in terms of future characteristics of useful machines, systems or procedures and needs of the clients (Rao, 1998). Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts a research study was undertaken in Southern Kerala for identifying the technology needs of the homegardens. METHODOLOGY This study was undertaken in Southern Kerala comprising Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta districts covering a sample size of 208 homegardens using multi-stage stratified random sampling technique. After the feedback from the farmers during pilot survey and discussion with experts, the researcher came out with some concrete specification Received : 28 Mar, 2016; Accepted : 02 May, 2016 5557Technology Needs Assessment in the Homegarden Systems regarding various technology/ scientific operations and the technology needs of farmers were worked out. The needs assessment was worked out by using score/rank as stated below. drainage technologies, storage technologies, processing technologies and value addition technologies were collected in the above said scale for all the categories of crops raised by the homegarden farmer. Thus technology needs scores of all the 52 farmers of each of the four districts were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. The scores assigned being in ordinal scale, the non-parametric test of analysis of variance (Kruskal - Wallis test) was administered. In order to assess the need disparities between the different districts, Chi-Square test was again employed for obtaining the results FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The results for technology needs assessment was made for knowing the category of crops that needed technology for homegarden farmers in their district (Table 1) and technology need for each category of crops with respect to their practices in each district (Tables 2 to 5). a. Technology needs of crops in different districts From Table 1, it is evident that the highest needs for technology (or the low technology availability) was recorded for under and unexploited horticultural tree crops, which was on par with that of fruit trees (mango and jack) and beverages in Alappuzha district. The lowest need of technology was for rubber and was on par with that of spices. The need for technology of remaining crops in the Score/Rank Criteria 1 Technology not available (most needed) 2 Technology available but not applicable 3 Technology available but not sustainable 4 Technology available, applicable and sustainable The technology needs of farmers vary according to the crops they cultivate, the managerial levels in which they operate, the deficits in the demand and supply of the crops they raise with reference to the specificities of the land they engages for cultivation and the agronomic norms the plant demands. It was with these perspectives, grouping of technology needs of the farmers were done and classified into the aforesaid broad categories. The categories are so framed and named so as to accommodate all the crops. The technology needs with reference to all these 14 parameters viz., variety, planting material, selection of intercrops, spacing, irrigation management technologies, soil amendment technologies, nutrient management technologies, pest management technologies, disease management technologies, homegarden machinery, Journal of Extension Education5558 Table 1. Technology Needs of Crops in Different Districts decreasing order of need was for cashew, fruits (banana and pineapple), tuber, vegetable and coconut. For homegarden farmers in Kollam district higher need for technology was again recorded for under and unexploited horticultural tree crops and was on par with that of fruit trees, beverages and cashew. High availability of technology (low need for technology) was recorded for rubber and was on par with that of spices. The technology needs of other crops in the decreasing order of needs were for fruits (banana and pineapple), vegetables, tubers and coconut. The technology needs for homegarden farmers of Pathanamthitta was also highest in case of under and unexploited horticultural tree crops, which was on par with that of cashew and fruit trees. The lowest technology need was for rubber that was on par with that of spices. The technology need for other crops as expressed by the homegarden farmers of Pathanamthitta in the decreasing order of needs was for crops like fruits (pineapple/ banana), vegetables, beverages, coconut and tubers. The highest technology need of homegarden farmers of Thiruvananthapuram district was recorded for under and unexploited horticultural tree crops that were on par with that of fruit trees (mango and jack) and cashew. The lowest need of technology was Sl. No. District Crop TVM KLM ALP PTA 1 Vegetables 81.500 115.813 135.833 88.318 2 Tubers 129.121 116.087 133.047 144.217 3 Coconut 141.673 130.847 159.510 140.192 4 Spices 183.848 178.125 189.890 182.262 5 Beverages 90.167 38.765 32.790 95.600 6 Fruits 85.355 89.068 88.580 83.453 7 Fruit trees 33.788 37.481 50.670 34.920 8 Under and unexploited horticultural tree crops 14.375 15.375 22.770 13.880 9 Rubber 183.813 183.971 203.160 214.680 10 Cashew 37.250 48.250 69.000 33.143 Chi 157.711 172.0416 187.3327 191.3079 C.V. 41.26915 48.886 41.60251 47.76447 5559Technology Needs Assessment in the Homegarden Systems recorded for spices crops, which was on par with rubber. The need for other crops in the decreasing order of need was for vegetables, fruits (banana/pineapple), beverages, tubers and coconut. b. Technology needs specific for crop categories with respect to scientific practices in Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta districts Table 2. Technology Needs for Crops with Respect to Different Practices in Thiruvananthapuram District Vegetables 102 105.292 68.625 105.292 109.33 109.33 109.33 109.33 89.125 58 109.33 36 36 36 80.329 (38.921) Tuber 290.5 290.5 194.83 256.88 184.03 290.5 290.5 144.81 139.21 99.21 284.90 235.5 111.14 36.5 254.3261 (60.401) Coconut 509.5 509.5 413.702 344.72 395.85 509.5 509.5 332.52 263.52 163.17 509.5 509.5 66.27 66.27 550.2676 (80.84) Spices 424.5 424.5 424.5 424.5 393.93 424.5 409.22 363.37 348.09 355.35 393.93 424.5 378.65 164.7 503.6872 (53.808) Beverages 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 394.5 352.83 394.5 352.83 93.9118 (33.74) Fruit 457 457 332.66 372.48 370.92 478.31 457 428.31 457 202.16 457 62 62 62 2382.225 (62.644) Fruit trees 498 498 342.02 145.79 443.96 422.35 476.38 374.44 465.58 208.02 498 122.73 52.46 52.4 3127.661 (57.2) UUHTC 68 164.25 145.875 127.06 127.06 145 131.66 131.66 131.66 76.97 103.88 68 76.97 76.97 70.4187 (44.91) Rubber 75 75 19.37 75 32.46 75 75 26.5 32.56 75 75 75 75 5 100.4412 (31.826) Cashew 87 80.83 46.75 33.75 39.92 87 62.33 40.25 46.75 11.5 87 11.5 36.67 11.5 252.518 (27.603) Crop/ Cultural practices Variety Planting material Selection of intercrop Spacing Irrigation manage- ment Soil amend- ment Nutrient manage- ment Pest manage- ment Disease manage- ment Home garden machinery Drainage techn- ology Storage techn- ology Proce- ssing Value addition Chi2 (C.V) UUHTC-Un and under exploited horticultural tree crops A detailed perusal of Tables 2 to 5 indicates that there is significant difference in need for technology among different crops in different districts. The highest technology needs reported by the homegarden farmers of Thiruvananthapuram district was for value addition irrespective of all crops and the districts of study. The lowest technology needs or the highest technology availability was reported for irrigation management, soil amendment, nutrient management, pest management and drainage technology, which was on par with planting material, spacing, variety and disease management mainly for vegetables, tubers, coconut, spices, fruits (banana and pineapple) irrespective of the districts of study. However differences were noted in Alappuzha district where, in addition to high technology needs for storage, processing and value addition, technology needs for drainage was felt very important by majority of the homegarden farmers employed with vegetable cultivation. Journal of Extension Education5560 For tuber crops a similar pattern of technology needs was observed for the homegarden farmers of Kollam and Pathanamthitta districts except for suitable processing technology and homegarden machinery which was felt to be a highly needed technology requirement for the homegarden farmers of Kollam and Pathanamthitta. The technology needs of homegarden farmers of all the four districts of study for coconut were following a similar pattern for highest and lowest technology needs except in case of drainage technology which was a felt need by the homegarden farmers of Alappuzha district. The need for technology in other areas for coconut growers were for homegarden suited machineries, pest and disease management technology, spacing, irrigation management technology and selection of intercrops. In case of spice growing homegarden farmers of Pathanamthitta district, highest needs for technology was reported for homegarden machinery whereas the highest needs for technologies in Alappuzha district was reported for drainage technology and was on par with that of homegarden machinery, value addition and pest management. Unlike other crops for Beverages the highest technology needs for homegarden farmers in Thiruvananthapuram districts was for value addition which was on par with all other technology needs like varieties, planting material selection, selection of intercrops, soil amendment, nutrient management, homegarden machinery, disease management, storage, processing and pest management Table 3. The Technology Needs for Crops with Respect to Different Practices in Kollam District Vegetables 73 73 58.75 73 73 73 73 73 62.785 37.375 73 16 16 16 90.7246 (31.826) Tuber 232 232 152.174 198.478 153.783 232 232 120.261 114.674 74.543 226.413 185.523 78.152 29 205.1919 (53.808) Coconut 479.5 479.5 389.561 326.316 371.704 479.5 479.5 319.867 245.276 153.663 479.5 479.5 62.806 62.806 517.4835 (78.473) Spices 412.5 412.5 224.79 365.57 365.57 412.5 412.5 365.57 365.57 298.64 389.04 365.57 365.57 177.86 1572.619 (59.353) Beverages 411.5 411.5 411.5 394.62 377.44 411.5 411.5 360.85 251.56 223.56 411.5 265.32 348.85 140.03 491.7938 (46.285) Fruit 403 403 362.43 360.32 375.95 403 403 389.48 375.95 354.11 403 386.70 174.86 44.5 780.5557 (52.629) Fruit trees 477 477 285.33 319.85 430.81 367 390.71 407 348.42 395.56 477 53.5 53.5 53.5 5404.33 (57.199) UUHTC 68 164.25 145.88 127.06 127.06 145 131.66 131.66 131.66 76.97 103.88 68 76.97 76.97 70.4518 (44.909) Rubber 154.5 154.5 47.56 154.5 66.79 154.5 154.5 48.0 110.65 154.5 154.5 154.5 154.5 9.5 202.90 (46.285) Cashew 47.5 39 30.5 24.5 18.50 47.50 39 24.5 30.50 7.5 47.5 7.5 27.5 7.5 44.980 (22.604) Crop/ Cultural practices Variety Planting material Selection of intercrop Spacing Irrigation manage- ment Soil amend- ment Nutrient manage- ment Pest manage- ment Disease manage- ment Home garden machinery Drainage techn- ology Storage techn- ology Proce- ssing Value addition Chi2 (C.V) UUHTC-Un and under exploited horticultural tree crops 5561Technology Needs Assessment in the Homegarden Systems technologies which signifies the necessity of focusing on almost all technology needs. The district wise analysis for fruit trees (Mango and jack) and under and unexploited horticultural tree crops showed a more or less similar pattern in technology needs. Highest technology needs for the under and unexploited horticultural tree crops in Thiruvananthapuram was for storage technologies and variety, which was on par with that of homegarden machinery, processing, value addition and drainage technologies. Lowest technology need was for planting material, which was on par with that of selection of intercrops, soil amendments, nutrient management, pest management, disease management, spacing and irrigation management. In case of Kollam homegarden Table 4. The Technology Need for Crops with Respect to Different Practices in Alappuzha District Rice 58.5 58.5 6.58 23 58.5 58.5 58.5 52.58 58.5 21.17 23 52.58 58.5 6.58 77.9066 (27.60) Vegetables 137 137 129.97 137 137 137 137 137 132.07 129.97 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 197.8943 (43.49) Tuber 215 215 156 204.48 157.12 215 215 125.55 115.02 105 34.5 189.21 83.62 34.5 199.608 (51.42) Coconut 512.5 512.5 421.56 347.6 404.41 512.5 512.5 340.07 266.11 168.54 364.66 512.5 64.75 64.75 513.4261 (80.07) Spices 82.5 82.5 70.83 70.83 82.5 82.5 82.5 41.67 82.5 13.11 11.0 76.67 76.67 33.22 96.32 (33.74) Beverages 88.12 196 77.21 192.79 189.59 196 157.47 125.41 125.41 65 65 65 65 65 185.7103 (46.28) Fruit 463 463 388.95 409.45 314.91 463 463 463 463 232.7 83 83 83 83 5693.702 (64.42) Fruit trees 504.5 504.5 255.67 161.60 289.05 449.88 504.5 477.19 419.53 504.5 504.5 59.5 59.5 595 20155.07 (60.40) Rubber 492.5 492.5 455.95 236.95 173.41 221 356.14 433.32 492.5 474.5 402.5 402.5 492.5 492.5 2573.357 (52.62) UUHTC 154 154 51.41 154 66.06 154 154 53.5 110.03 154 53.5 154 154 8.5 195.1737 (44.91) Cashew 47.5 39 30.50 24.5 18.5 47.5 39 24.5 30.5 7.5 47.5 7.5 27.5 7.5 44.98 (22.60) Crop/ Cultural practices Variety Planting material Selection of intercrop Spacing Irrigation manage- ment Soil amend- ment Nutrient manage- ment Pest manage- ment Disease manage- ment Home garden machinery Drainage techn- ology Storage techn- ology Proce- ssing Value addition Chi2 (C.V) UUHTC-Un and under exploited horticultural tree crops farmers there was a noted difference where the farmers felt high need for suitable intercropping technologies. Except in case of Alappuzha district the results were the same like that of other crops in case of all other districts of study when it comes to homegarden rubber growers. However, in Alappuzha district the highest needs of technology was reported for irrigation management which was on par with the needs for soil amendment technologies. In case of cashew based homegardens, the highest technology needs reported by the homegarden farmers of Thiruvananthapuram district was for value addition, storage and homegarden machinery, which were on par with spacing and processing. Lowest need for technology was for variety, soil amendment Journal of Extension Education5562 Table 5. Technology Needs for Crops with Respect to Different Practices in Pathanamthitta District Vegetables 95.27 98.23 61.41 98.23 102.64 102.64 102.64 102.64 80.59 51.09 102.64 29 29 29 90.3685 (37.27) Tuber 293 293 214 258.5 183.75 293 293 149.25 143.50 64 293 281.5 154.5 33 284.1808 (61.431) Coconut 509.5 509.5 413.70 344.70 395.85 509.5 509.5 332.52 263.52 163.17 509.5 509.5 66.27 66.27 550.2676 (80.837) Spices 422.5 422.5 422.5 422.50 422.5 422.5 388.98 305.17 321.93 209.55 422.5 355.45 422.5 369.36 641.7358 (51.423) Beverages 397 397 397 397 397 397 397 397 397 397 397 359.4 321.6 287.45 114.3375 (35.551) Fruit 451.28 460.5 322.22 338.53 349.88 451.28 460.5 432.84 460.50 88.31 460.5 63.5 63.5 63.5 2845.583 (63.441) Fruit trees 494 494 367.84 140.92 393.7 425.84 448.56 436 430.92 263.90 494 317 51.5 51.5 2587.379 (56.092) UUHTC 72.5 176.15 157.97 136.76 132.59 159.68 137.24 137.24 137.24 83.82 115.29 72.5 81.53 72.5 80.069 (46.29) Rubber 410.5 410.5 410.5 399.59 370.21 410.5 410.5 248.49 360.13 410.50 400.43 400.43 410.5 41.09 1463.419 (65.389) Cashew 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 293.15 344.64 401 347.07 21.07 55.2508 (29.789) Crop/ Cultural practices Variety Planting material Selection of intercrop Spacing Irrigation manage- ment Soil amend- ment Nutrient manage- ment Pest manage- ment Disease manage- ment Home garden machinery Drainage techn- ology Storage techn- ology Proce- ssing Value addition Chi2 (C.V) UUHTC-Un and under exploited horticultural tree crops and drainage technologies, which was on par with that of planting material and nutrient management. The technology needs of other practices in the decreasing order of need were for irrigation management, pest management, disease management and selection of intercrops. Homegardens with rice cultivation was found in Alappuzha district and hence the technology needs assessment was done only for Alappuzha district. The highest needs for technology were for value addition and selection of intercrop and were on par with that of disease management, spacing and drainage technologies. The lowest need for technologies were for variety, planting material, irrigation management, soil amendments, nutrient management, disease management and processing and was on par with that of storage and pest management technologies. Generalizing the results, it was interesting to note that the technology needs of farmers for different crop categories were recorded maximum for value addition, processing and storage unlike the perceived traditional requirements. Hence it could be concluded that farmers had definite technology needs with respect to different crop categories, different practices and it also varied in terms of districts. CONCLUSION The overall study evidently proved that the maximum technology needs was reported for unexploited and under exploited horticultural tree crop components which was on par with 5563Technology Needs Assessment in the Homegarden Systems that of fruit tree crops (mango and jack) followed by beverages and cashew irrespective of respondents from all the districts. Also for various categories of crops, it was seen that farmers required more technologies for processing, value addition and storage irrespective of all crop categories and the different areas of study except in case of Alappuzha district where respondents clearly indicated the need for drainage and soil amendment technologies. GOK (2013) emphasis on creation of a food chain starting from the homegarden gate to retail outlets is inevitable for farmers to earn a greater share of the product sale revenue after adding value to their own produce Homegardens suited technologies/machineries and irrigation technologies were also to be developed as it was reflected in the results of the study. Technology requirement worked out based actual homegarden situation thus provides a holistic approach to enhance the functional diversity of homegardens enabling farmers to derive better returns from the different components in the homegardens fulfilling the objectives set forth in the technology assessment of homegarden systems. REFERENCES Barkema, A and Drabenstott, M. 1995. The Many Paths of Vertical Coordination: Structural Implications for the US Food Systems. Agri business, 11(5):483-492 GOK (Government of Kerala) 2013. Draft Agricultural Development Policy of Kerala State. 381p. Rao, K.R. 1998. Export Oriented Floriculture- The Future. Indian Hort. 34:5-9 Swaminathan, M.S. 1979. Improved Agronomic Practices for Dryland Crops in India. All India Co-ordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, 175p.