Extension of agriculture in rural areas

Keith Jarvis^*
*Correspondence: Keith Jarvis, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, Email:

Received: 17-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. IJAERDOA-22-73747; Editor assigned: 19-Aug-2022, Pre QC No. IJAERDOA-22-73747 (PQ); Reviewed: 02-Sep-2022, QC No. IJAERDOA-22-73747; Revised: 16-Sep-2022, Manuscript No. IJAERDOA-22-73747 (R); Published: 23-Sep-2022

Description

Traditionally, extension programmes in rural areas have concentrated on the promotion of production technology and agricultural inputs as the driving force for boosting agricultural production and productivity, with insufficient emphasis paid to market support services. Because the emphasis has been on food security and natural resource management, agricultural extension programmes have been production-oriented, with less emphasis on postharvest management, output processing, and marketing systems. The input supply and output marketing mechanisms are underdeveloped. There have been a limited number of private input providers who offer customised inputs and services to fulfil the different demands of producers engaged in market-oriented agriculture growth. Producer organisations’ human and organisational capacity to enable input and output marketing systems has also been constrained. A value chain approach to agricultural development considers how market possibilities might be created and connected with producers. Market-oriented agricultural growth need a wide range of services and a broad set of service providers at all levels. Examples of marketing and supply chain services are documented, but they are rarely widely used since the ability at the local level to scale these examples is restricted. More service providers with the capacity to match local producer activities and market prospects, as well as access support services, are required for market orientation.

As agriculture becomes increasingly market-oriented, so does demand for services. The public extension service is critical to the commercialization of the smallholder sector. Development agents require a variety of technical and facilitation abilities to give services to producers, who require not just production assistance but also a variety of information and knowledge support, such as input supply, post-harvest techniques, output processing, and market connections.

Agriculture and technological development needs

Given the higher productivity base than in the 1960s, it is clear that meeting the consumption needs of the projected population will be more difficult. There is now growing recognition that earlier tactics for developing and promoting technology have contributed to substantial and widespread environmental and natural resource deterioration. This means that in the future, the technologies created and promoted must not only result in higher production, but also ensure that the quality of the natural resource base is conserved and improved. In short, they result in long-term benefits in agricultural productivity. Productivity improvements during the ‘Green Revolution’ period were mostly limited to reasonably wellendowed areas. Given the complexity of agro-ecological settings and producers, Indian agriculture has a wide range of demands, possibilities, and prospects. Future growth must be faster, more widely distributed, and more targeted.

New technologies are required to push yield boundaries farther, more efficiently utilise inputs, and diversify to more sustainable and higher value cropping patterns. These are all knowledge-intensive technologies that need not only a robust research and extension system and trained farmers, but also a revitalised interface with an emphasis on reciprocal information sharing that benefits everybody. Simultaneously, the potential of underserved areas must be properly used in order to accomplish development and poverty reduction objectives.

Access to information and knowledge on the production of specific commodities

We discovered that the supply of extension services differed between the production of food crops and high-value commodities. Because of the earlier emphasis on food security objectives, the number of farmers who gained information and knowledge for field crops and animal production is substantially larger. However, the percentage of producers who received production advice is higher for horticultural crops and apiculture, indicating a shift in focus on high-value commodities. While 79% of field crop producers and an average 67% of livestock producers received production information and knowledge, approximately twice as many vegetable producers, four times as many fruit producers, and three times as many apiculture producers received info. According to the findings, manufacturers must have access to market information counsel. It appears that development agents advised producers on output and input supply before producers determined what to produce based on market needs. Rather than depending on markets to absorb what they create, producers should know what the market requires in order to make decisions about what to produce and what agricultural inputs to utilize.