# Knowledge Assessment of Stakeholders on Market-Led Extension in Telangana, India

T V Kumar, M Sreenivasulu, V Sudha Rani, G E Ch Vidyasagar, D Srinivasa Chary

► To cite this version:

T V Kumar, M Sreenivasulu, V Sudha Rani, G E Ch Vidyasagar, D Srinivasa Chary. Knowledge Assessment of Stakeholders on Market-Led Extension in Telangana, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 2025, 31, pp.399 - 408. 10.9734/jsrr/2025/v31i12782. hal-04911734

HAL Id: hal-04911734

https://hal.science/hal-04911734v1

Submitted on 25 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Knowledge Assessment of Stakeholders on Market-Led Extension in Telangana, India

T.V Kumar a++*, M. Sreenivasulu a++, V. Sudha Rani a++, G.E.CH Vidyasagar a++ and D. Srinivasa Chary a++

a Department of Agricultural Extension, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ramagirikhilla, Peddapalli (DIST.), Telangana, India.

## Authors' contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Article Information

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2025/v31i12782

**Open Peer Review History:**

This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers, peer review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here: https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/130009

Received: 14/11/2024

Accepted: 18/01/2025

Published: 24/01/2025

## Original Research Article

## ABSTRACT

Market-led-extension works with various aspects on quality, consumer's preference, latest knowledge of market, market analysis, market intelligence, processing, value addition, Use of ICTs and Appropriate Extension Approaches and other marketing information on regular basis. These can helps the farmers to realize high returns for their produce, minimize the production costs, reduce the post-harvest loses and improve the product value and marketability. Hence, the extension should focus on end-to-end basis. Keeping this in view a study conducted on analyzing the knowledge level of stakeholder about Market led Extension. This study confined to an *Ex-post-facto and Exploratory* research designs. Northern Telangana Zone was selected purposively for current study, Out of the twelve districts that make up the Northern Telangana zone, seven districts

<footnote>** Scientist;</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: E-mail: vinodkumarbunny6@gmail.com;</footnote>
were chosen at random. Two APMCs were randomly chosen from each of the seven districts; hence, a total of 14 APMCs were chosen for the current study. A random selection of two villages was made from each district, taking into account the district's APMC location. Based on where the APMCs were located in the specific district, the respondents were chosen at random. Stakeholder knowledge regarding Market Led Extension, the majority of farmers (54.28%) reported having low knowledge, the majority of APMC office bearers (48.57%) reported having medium knowledge, the majority of AOs (57.14%) reported having medium knowledge, and the majority of traders (40.00%) reported having medium knowledge. To bring their knowledge level into higher categories the department of Agriculture and Agricultural marketing should conduct the capacity building activities through training programmes, exposure visits taken up at regular intervals and can also conduct the collaborative development programmes with the Agricultural marketing department, KVKs, DAATTCs, SAUs in the villages. There is a need to motivate the Traders to perform market led extension activities at APMCs for this the Government of Telangana, Department of Agricultural Marketing and Department of Agriculture should conduct need based training's on market oriented agriculture and market led extension activities to the Traders.

Keywords: Market led extension activities; Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMCs); market oriented agriculture; post harvest losses and APMC office bearers.

# 1. INTRODUCTION

Undoubtedly, agricultural marketing is expanding and changing in India, but not everywhere or for all farmers. A Second Green Revolution is anticipated in these conditions to clean up the mess and steer the country in the correct direction. Grading, storage, and warehousing are crucial for enhancing the marketing system and promoting cooperative marketing, as well as the creation of regulated marketplaces. In light of this, market-led extension plays a critical role in advancing agricultural marketing initiatives (Vilas, 2016).

Providing education to farmers about basic dimensions of agricultural marketing is the prime need in today's context. The marketing problems and solutions need to be incorporated within the scope of field-level agricultural extension workers who are in direct contact with the farmers. Under the present scenario, marketing extension cannot be ignored any longer as it provides strong pillars on which sound structure of agriculture marketing could be established. In the past, farmers planted the crops that their neighbors planted and sold to buyers that their neighbor sold. Now, the trend is changing as many farmers find themselves in a position to make individual decisions about what, when, where and how to produce and market.

The road connecting production-related technology from research institutes to farmer's fields was paved in large part by extension agencies. The farmers are well compensated for their productivity. Inadequate infrastructure and

ineffective marketing channels are thought to be the root of both high and unstable consumer pricing as well as the low amount of consumer rupee that reaches farmers. The middlemen control the market but provide little value addition, and producers and consumers frequently receive bad deals. Consequently, extension agents must play a significant part in helping farmers develop the skills necessary to overcome new obstacles and increase the prices at which they may sell their produce. This Extension change is known as Market - led extension, and so far it is not a much-discussed issue in the extension scenario. Hence the extension focus should extend from mere production to market-led extension on an end-to-end basis. (Bagish et al, 2019).

Market-led extension regularly deals with a variety of topics, including quality, customer preferences, the most recent market knowledge, market analysis, market intelligence, processing, value addition, Use of ICTs and Appropriate Extension Approaches, and other marketing data. In addition to lowering production costs and post-harvest losses, these can assist farmers maximize the value and marketability of their produce. Thus, the extension ought to concentrate on an end-to-end approach. The extension system must now be trained with market-related information and abilities. To accomplish efficient marketing, infrastructure including information and extension services to farmers, transport and communication facilities, public utility supply, trade and advertisement, public storage, market and abattoir facilities are very much required (Duraisamy, 2007).
**1.1 Objective**

To investigate stakeholder understanding about
market-led extension.

**2. MATERIALS AND METHODS**

The current investigation is limited to exploratory and ex-post-facto research designs. For the current study, the Northern Telangana Zone was purposefully chosen. Of the 12 districts that make up the Zone, 7 districts were chosen at random. Two APMCs were randomly chosen from each of the seven districts; hence, a total of 14 APMCs were chosen for the current study. A random selection of two villages was made from each district, taking into account the district's APMC location. Based on where the APMCs were located in the specific district, the respondents were chosen at random. The multistage random sampling approach was employed in the process of selecting the respondents. 20 farmers, 5 APMC office bearers, 5 agricultural officers, and 5 traders are selected from each district. Total 140 farmers, 35 APMC office bearers, 35 Agricultural officers, 35 Traders were selected as respondents for the current study.

In this study, knowledge is defined as the
respondents' level of information and
comprehension on market-led extension. The
following methodology was used to create a
knowledge test that was used to gauge
respondents' understanding of market-led
extension.

**2.1 Developing and Harmonizing a Knowledge Assessment on Market led Extension**

**2.1.1 Collection of items**

Initially, 246 items were collected focusing on
various aspects of Market led extension i.e Post
harvest technology, FAQ (Fair Average Quality)
standards, Market channels, market intelligence
information, new marketing reforms, grading and
processing of produce, contract farming and
other market-related activities performed by
stakeholders. The specialists in the field of
Agriculture Extension, Agricultural Economics
and Agribusiness management scientists
working in MANAGE, NAARM and SAUs of
different states were consulted in order to gather
the 246 questions listed above. 206 questions
were left after screening, fine-tuning, and editing

in accordance with the advice of the relevant
scientists. Item analysis was applied to these 206
questions in order to filter additional items
according to respondents' opinions in the non-
sample area.

**2.1.2 Item analysis**

Three indices namely item difficulty index, item
discrimination index, and point biserial correlation
were used to conduct the item analysis. The item
discrimination index tells us how well an item
separates well-educated respondents from
poorly informed respondents, or how well it
discriminates in agreement. On the other hand,
the item difficulty index shows how challenging a
certain thing was. According to the rest of the
test, the point biserial correlation gave
information about how effectively the item
measures or discriminates. The questions were
pretested in accordance with Gonard's
recommendations (1948). After revision, the
questions were given to 240 respondents. (60
farmers, 60 AOs, 60 APMCs office bearers, 60
traders selected for the purpose of pretesting).
Pretesting was done in the non-sampling area of
the following districts Mahabubnagar,
Sangareddy and Medak districts of Telangana.

**2.1.3 Item difficulty index (P)**

The 240 non sample respondents were given the 206 items, which included multiple choice, fill in the blank, Yes/No, True/False, and one word answers. The scores granted were one for accurate response and zero for erroneous response. Following the computation of each respondent's total score on 206 items, the 240 respondents were ranked from highest to lowest. The 240 responses were split into six equal groups as a result. Ten farmers responded to each of these groups (designated G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, and G6), and ten APMC office bearers, AOs and traders responded to each group in the case of AOs, APMCs, and traders. The intermediate two groups, G3 and G4, were removed for item analysis purpose, retaining only four extreme groupings with high and low scores (Bloom et al. 1956). The percentage of respondents who correctly answered a given item was used to calculate the index of difficulty. Items with 'p' values between 0.2 and 0.8 were taken into account when the knowledge test was finally selected.

**2.1.4 Item discrimination index (E 1/3)**

The item discrimination index is shown by "E 1/3"
which is computed by the formula.
$$E 1/3 = (S1 + S2) - (S5 + S6) / N/3$$

where the frequencies of right responses in the categories G1, G2, and G5, G6 are, correspondingly, S1, S2, and S5, S6. "N" is the total number of responders from the sample chosen for the item analysis, which consists of 60 traders, 60 AOs, 60 APMCs, and 60 office bearers. The range of the discrimination index is 0 to 1. For the ultimate test, the items with a discriminating index between 0.20 and 0.80 were chosen.

### 2.1.5 Point biserial correlation (r<sub>pbis</sub>)

To determine the internal consistency of the items that is, the relationship between the total score and a dichotomized response to any particular item point biserial correlation was the primary goal of the calculation. In a sense, the correlation between each individual question on the preliminary knowledge test, determined using Garret's (1966) recommended formula, was used to measure the validity power of the item.

$$r_{pbis} = MP-MQ / SD \times \sqrt{pq}$$

$r_{pbis}$ = Point biserial correlation.

MP = The average of all respondent's scores who provided a correct response to the question.

MP = Sum total of x y / Total number of correct answers

MQ = The average of all respondent's scores who provided an incorrect response to the question.

MQ = Sum total of x - Sum total of x y / Total number of wrong answers

SD = Standard deviation of the entire sample.

P = Proportion of the respondents giving correct answer to the item.

P = Total number of correct answers / Total number of respondents

q = Proportion of the respondents giving incorrect answer to the item (or)

q = 1-P

X = Total score of the respondent for all items.

Y = Response of the individual for the question i.e. (Correct = 1; not correct = 0)

XY = Total score of the respondent multiplied by the response of the individual to the question. i.e. (Correct = 1; not correct = 0)

Items having significant point biserial correlation either at 1 per cent (or) 5 per cent level was selected for the final test of the knowledge.

**Test representativeness:** Great care was made to ensure that the final test items selected encompassed all of the respondent's knowledge on market-led extension.

#### Total number of items chosen

1. Ultimately, 137 questions with difficulty level indices ranging from 30 to 80 were chosen from a total of 206 things.

2. Questions having 0.2 to 0.8 discriminating indices.

3. Questions at the 1% or 5% level that exhibit considerable point biserial correlation.

The range of the selected items is between 0.20 and 0.80 for proportionality. These proportions add up to $(0.80 + 0.20)/2 = 0.50$ on average.

Consequently, a total of 137 true/false, multiple choice, fill in the blank, yes/no, and one-word answers made up the final set of knowledge test topics that were chosen in order to assess the stakeholder understanding about market-led extension. To gauge reliability of instrument, after conducting test-retest reliability, the correlation coefficient ($r=0.83$) was found to be extremely significant, suggesting that the instrument used to gauge farmers' knowledge could be relied upon. Point biserial correlation (rpbis) was used to verify the test items' validity. The validity of the knowledge test items intended to gauge farmers' knowledge of market-led extension was demonstrated by the items with extremely significant correlation coefficients at the 1 percent (or 5 percent) level.

Because it demonstrated a higher degree of validity and reliability, the knowledge test developed for this study assesses stakeholder understanding about market-led extension.

### 2.1.6 Pattern of scoring

The chosen knowledge test items were offered in various formats, including fill in the blank, multiple choice, true/false, one-word answers, and yes/no. Each test item had a score of "one" for the right answer and "zero" for the wrong answer. A respondent's knowledge score is calculated by adding up the scores of all the test question items that they properly answered out of
a total of test items. There was a possible knowledge score between 0 and 137.

## 2.2 Scoring and Categorization

Based on the knowledge scores obtained, respondents were grouped in to following 3 categories by using class interval technique. The class intervals were calculated based on maximum and minimum obtained scores. For each stakeholder items were prepared and finalized separately, for farmers 34, APMCs office bearers' 37, AOs 33 and Traders 33 items altogether total 137 items were finalized for knowledge test. Total score on knowledge test for a respondent was obtained by adding the scores obtained for all items present in knowledge test. The maximum possible and minimum possible scores for knowledge tests on market led extension for farmers, APMCs office bearers, AOs and traders were 0 to 34, 0 to 37, 0 to 33 and 0 to 33 respectively. For farmers the maximum and minimum obtained scores were 12 to 27. Subject to APMCs office bearers, AOs and traders the maximum and minimum obtained scores were 28 to 16, 12 to 27 and 13 to 25 respectively.

# 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

## 3.1 Knowledge Level of Farmers about Market Led Extension

From the Table 1 and Fig. 1, It is found that more than half (54.28%) of the farmers had low level of knowledge followed by (31.43%) of the farmers had medium level of knowledge and 14.29 per cent of the farmers belongs to high level knowledge about market led extension.

The results presented above indicate that majority of the farmers had low to medium level of knowledge about market led extension. The probable reason for this might be most of the farmers in the study area had low formal education, less training received on market

oriented agriculture and they were not aware about market led extension activities. To bring their knowledge level into higher categories the department of Agriculture and Agricultural marketing should conduct the capacity building activities through training programmes, exposure visits taken up at regular intervals and can also conduct collaborative development programmes with the Agricultural Marketing department, KVKs, DAATTCs, SAUs in the villages. This is in conformity with the results of Suddep (2005), Gummagolmath (2012), Dhumale (2017), Rao (2019) and Kumari et al. (2022).

## 3.2 Knowledge Level APMC Office Bearers about Market Led Extension

The data presented in Table 2 and Fig. 2 reveals that majority (48.57%) of the APMC office bearers reported with medium level of knowledge followed by 28.57 and 22.86 per cent of APMC office bearers had low and high level of knowledge about market led extension.

The results presented above indicate that majority of the APMC office bearers had medium to low level of knowledge about market led extension. The probable reason for this might be most of the APMC office bearers comes from non-agricultural background study area, so market-oriented agriculture, high-yielding market-oriented varieties and market-led extension activities were new to them. They were not aware about new marketing reforms in Agricultural marketing. Due to the low availability of staff at APMC they were unable to attend training programmes at national training institutes. Hence it is suggested that the Government need to recruit the new APMC office bearers from Agricultural background study area and training programmes should be conducted for APMC office bearers on market-oriented agriculture and new market reforms in Agriculture at regular intervals. This is in conformity with the results of Gummagolmath et al. (2012), Kavad (2015), Kumar (2017) and Rao et al. (2020).

<table><caption>Table 1. Distribution of farmers according to their knowledge level about Market led extension (N=140)</caption><thead><tr><td>S. No</td><td>Category</td><td>Class Interval</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Low</td><td>12 - 17</td><td>76</td><td>54.28</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Medium</td><td>17 - 22</td><td>44</td><td>31.43</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>High</td><td>22 - 27</td><td>20</td><td>14.29</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td>140</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Distribution of farmers according to their knowledge level about Market led extension</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Distribution of APMC office bearers according to their knowledge level</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Table 2. Distribution of APMC office bearers according to their knowledge level (N=35)</caption><thead><tr><td>S.No</td><td>Category</td><td>Class Interval</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Low</td><td>16 - 20</td><td>10</td><td>28.57</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Medium</td><td>20 - 24</td><td>17</td><td>48.57</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>High</td><td>24 - 28</td><td>8</td><td>22.86</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Total</td><td>35</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.3 Knowledge Level of AOs about Market Led Extension

The data regarding the knowledge level of AOs were presented in Table 3. It could be observed from Table 3 and Fig. 3 that the majority (57.14%) of the AOs reported with a medium level of knowledge. About one-fourth (25.71%) of the AOs reported with a low level of knowledge and only 17.17 percent of the AOs had a high level of knowledge.

From the above results, it can be concluded that the majority of the AOs had a medium to low level of knowledge about market led extension. The probable reason for this might be most of the AOs interested to give suggestions to the farmers from sowing to harvesting, they were not involved in market related extension activities and they were not aware about new marketing reforms, market oriented agricultural activities. So there is a need to motivate the AOs to concentrate on market-oriented Agriculture, conduct need-based training's on market-led extension to the AOs and improve their knowledge in market led extension. Some of the AOs had high (17.17%) knowledge about market led extension because they had received training's on market led extension and they were actively involving market led extension activities. This is in conformity with the results of

Gummagolmath et al. (2012), Kavad (2015), Kumar (2017) and Rao et al. (2020).

### 3.4 Knowledge Level Traders about Market Led Extension

The classification of Traders in to different categories based on their knowledge level and the corresponding frequency distribution is presented in the Table 4 and Fig. 4. The results indicate that majority (40.00%) of the traders had medium level of knowledge, more than one third (37.14%) of the Traders had low level of knowledge and only 22.86 per cent of the traders had high level of knowledge.

From the Table 4 results, it can be concluded that the majority of the Traders had medium to low level of knowledge about market led extension. The probable reason for this might be most of the Traders were only involving in buying and selling activity, they were not performing other market led extension activities at APMC and they were not aware about new marketing reform in agricultural marketing. So there is a need to motivate the Traders to perform market led extension activities at APMCs for this the Government of Telangana, the Department of Agricultural Marketing and Department of Agriculture should conduct need based training's on market oriented agriculture and market led

<table><caption>Table 3. Distribution of AOs according to their knowledge level (N=35)</caption><thead><tr><td>S.No</td><td>Category</td><td>Class Interval</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Low</td><td>12 - 17</td><td>9</td><td>25.71</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Medium</td><td>17 - 22</td><td>20</td><td>57.14</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>High</td><td>22 - 27</td><td>6</td><td>17.17</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Total</td><td>35</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 4. Distribution of Traders according to their knowledge level (N=35)</caption><thead><tr><td>S.No</td><td>Category</td><td>Class Interval</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Low</td><td>13 - 17</td><td>13</td><td>37.14</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Medium</td><td>17 - 21</td><td>14</td><td>40.00</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>High</td><td>21 - 25</td><td>8</td><td>22.86</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Total</td><td>35</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Distribution of AOs according to their knowledge level</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Distribution of Traders according to their knowledge level</figcaption></figure>

extension activities to the Traders. Some knowledge about market led extension because (22.86%) of the traders had high level of they were accessing the market related
information from different sources, maintaining good contacts with the AOs, AEO and APMC office bearers and actively involving market led extension activities. This is in conformity with the results of Gummagolmath et al. (2012), Kavad (2015), Kumar (2017) and Mishra et al. (2020).

## 4. CONCLUSION

In Telangana, Majority of the agricultural produce is being sold at the village itself by farmers immediately after harvesting due to urgent financial requirements and lack of transport facilities. Besides, a large number of small holders of Agricultural land hence, the quantity of produce is too small for bringing it to urban market place for the purpose of selling at better prices. Therefore, the key answer to the above questions will empower farmers in both production and market oriented knowledge which is the sole responsibility of Extension functionaries through Market Led Extension. In this present study it is revealed that majority of stakeholder having low to medium knowledge in Market led Extension aspects. To bring their knowledge levelin Market led Extension into higher categories the department of Agriculture and Agricultural marketing should conduct the capacity building activities thorough training programmes, exposure visits taken up at regular intervals and can also conduct the collaborative development programmes with the Agricultural marketing department, KVKs, DAATTCs, SAUs in the villages.

## DISCLAIMER

This paper is an extended version of a Thesis document of the same author.

## DISCLAIMER (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)

Author(s) hereby declare that NO generative AI technologies such as Large Language Models (ChatGPT, COPILOT, etc.) and text-to-image generators have been used during the writing or editing of this manuscript.

## COMPETING INTERESTS

Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

## REFERENCES

Bagish, K. Gopal Sankahala, Pankaj Kumar Sinha. 2019. Critical analysis on exploration of pre-production to marketing

system for market-led extension approach. *Indian Journal of Hill Farming*. Volume 32, Issue 1, Page 84-91, ISSN: 0970-6429.

Bloom, B. S., Bhoelhardt, M., Furot, S., Hill, W and Krathwhol, D. R. 1956. Taxonomy of education objective: The cognitive domain. Longman's Green and Company. New York.

Das R., Das L., Pal P. K. & Nain M. S. (2018). Socio-economic and psycho-personal vulnerability vis-a-vis status of social capital: A study of women self-help group members in Cooch Behar District of West Bengal, India. *Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development*, 13 (2), 321-325.

Duraisamy, D. G. 2007. Market Led Extension-Emerging Perspectives, in Book :*Market-Led Extension Dimensions and Tools*, Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur – 313 002. pp. 42-48.

Gummagolmath, K. C. (2012). Training Need Assessment of officers of State Agricultural Marketing Board and Directorate of Agricultural Marketing. National Institute of Agricultural Marketing (NIAM), Jaipur, Rajasthan.

Gummagolmath, K. C., Sharma, P. and Shailendra 2012. Training Need Assessment of Officers Working in Agricultural Marketing in India. *International Journal of Extension Education*. 8: 63-70, ISSN: 2319-7188.

Kalia, A., Shukla, G., Mishra, D., Mishra, B.P. and Patel, R.R.(2021). Comparative Trend Analysis of Mustard inBundelkhand Region, Uttar Pradesh and India, *Indian Journal of Extension Education*,57(1), 15-19.

Kumar, A., Vikash, P., and Singh, R. 2017 Managerial Ability of Lime Growers about Recommended Cultivation of Lime in Rajasthan, *International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research (IJASR)*. 7 (2): ISSN(P): 2250-0057.

Kumari, N., Malik, J. S., & Ghalawat, S. (2019). Training and marketing channel as determinant of empowerment of rural Self Help Group women members. *Indian Journal of Extension Education*, 55(1), 37-42.

Kumari, V., Chander Subhash, Malik Karmal, & Kaur Bas. (2022). Assessment of knowledge and adoption of drip irrigation in cotton crop among farmers of Haryana. *Indian Journal of Extension Education*, 58(4), 149-154.
Mishra, A., Yadav, O.P., Yadav, V., Mishra, S. and Kumar, N.(2020). Benefits of the Use of ICT Services Perceived by Farmers for Acquiring Agricultural Information in Central UP, *Indian Journal of Extension Education*, 56(1), 86-89.

Mishra, M., Ravi S.C., Anil, K.V., Alok, K.G., Shantanu, K.D. & Rohit, J. (2023) Assessing composite livelihood security and its determinants among rural households. *Indian Journal of Extension Education*, 59(2), 41-45.

Nain M.S. and Bhagat G.R (2005). Farmers' training on 'trench vegetable production technology' vis avis knowledge and adoption level in trans Himalayan Region. *Indian Research Journal of Extension Education*, 5(2), 56-58.

Rao, C.V. (2019). Excellence in Agri-Marketing through National Agricultural Market

(NAM), *Archives of Business Research*, 7(11), 91-103.

Rao, I.S., Padmaveni, C., Vasantha, R. and Madhu babu, K. 2020. Research study on awareness of extension functionaries on agricultural marketing report submitted to NIAM, Chaudhary Charan Singh National Institute of Agricultural Marketing. 1-72.

RejulaK.. Singh R., & Nain M.S. (2017). Rice farming for food security and ecological sustainability: An analysis of farmers' awareness in Kerala. *Indian Journal of Extension Education*, 53(4), 101-106.

Vilas, M., Kadrolkar, 2016. Agricultural marketing In India Role Of Agricultural Produce marketing Committee (APMC), *Department of Studies and Research in Economics*, Tumkur University, B. H. Road, TUMKUR, Karnataka State, India.

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). This publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© Copyright (2025); Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:

The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:

https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/130009