Sugar beet farmers’ Knowledge, attitudes and skills with regard to sustainable practices of on-farm soil management in Khorasan-Razavi province

Subject Areas :

Ali Asghar Shahroudi ¹ (Graduated M. Sc. Student of Agricultural Extension and Education Department, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran.)
mohammad . Chizari ² (Professor of Agricultural Extension and Education Department, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modarres University.)
ghlamreza Pezeshki-Raad ³ (Associate Professor of Agricultural Extension and Education Department, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modarres University.)

Received: 2008-05-28 Accepted : 2009-04-13 Published : 2010-01-21

Keywords: discriminant analysis, farmers, Behaviour, Sugar beet, Sustainable soil management,

Abstract :

The aim of this study was to evaluate the sugar beet farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and skills on optimal on-farm soil management practices and to identify and determine the most important distinguishing factors of their behavior domains on soil management. The methodological approach in the research was a descriptive and causal-comparative study of the survey type. The target population in the study was the sugar beet farmers of Khorasan-Razavi province (n=33000). Using a multi-stage cluster sampling technique, 380 farmers were selected as a statistical sample. Finally, 98.5% questionnaires were collected and analyzed (n=375). The content and face validity of the instrument was specified after several times of review and correction by the faculty members of agricultural extension and education, agronomy and soil science departments at Tarbiat Modarres university, several experts of Jihad e Agriculture ministry and the agricultural sector of the sugar factories in Khorasan-Razavi province. The reliability of analysis was conducted through 30 questionnaires and Cronbach’s Alpha values for the section of behavioral domains of the instrument were estimated between 0.71-0.87 using statistical SPSS software. Considering Venn diagram in relation to the triple domains of studied sugar beet farmers’ behavior, results showed that about 11.2% (42 sugar beet growers) were identified as qualified farmers. The results of the stepwise discriminant analysis with Wilks’ Lambda procedure and partial F-test criteria revealed that educational level, extension contacts, extend of irrigated cultivation, farmers’ age and social status were the most important distinguished variables of farmers’ behavioral categories. Generally, mentioned variables could correctly classify 66.9% of all subjects based on the discriminant functions.

References:

1- اسدیان، م. ص. 1384. مطالعه ارزیابی تناسب اراضی محصولات مهم زراعی در دشت‌های دمق، چورمق، و سرداک استان همدان. خلاصه مقالات نهمین کنگره علوم خاک ایران، جلد 1، مرکز تحقیقات حفاظت خاک و آبخیزداری، 9-6 شهریور، تهران، ص.
299-298.

2- اصغرزاده، ا.، ملکوتی، م. ج.، بهرامی، ح. ع.، ابراهیمی، س. و بای‌بوردی، ا. 1383. ماده آلی و نقش آن در اصلاح خاک‏های کشور. در: بنایی، م.ح.، مومنی، ع.، بای‌بوردی، م. و م. ج. ملکوتی. (ویرایشگران)، خاک‎های ایران: تحولات نوین در شناسایی، مدیریت و بهره‌برداری. تهران، انتشارات سنا، ص. 258-213.

3-  بی‏نام. 1380. همایش استراتژی توسعه پایدار در بخش‌های اجرایی کشور. تهران، کمیته ملی توسعه پایدار. وزارت جهاد کشاورزی.

4- بی‏نام. 1384. شناخت وضع موجود و منابع: مبانی لایحه قانون جامع خاک کشور. جلد 1. وزارت جهاد کشاورزی، مؤسسه پژوهش‌های برنامه‌ریزی و اقتصاد کشاورزی.

5-  بی‏نام. 1385. آمارنامه کشاورزی سال زراعی 1384-1383. اداره کل آمار و  فناوری اطلاعات، وزارت جهاد کشاورزی.

6-  دلاوری، غ. ر. 1380. چالش‌های ترویج کشاورزی در ایران با نگاهی به مشکلات ترویج آب و خاک. مجله جهاد، جلد 21، شماره 243 و 242، ص. 83-82.

7- نوروزی، ا. 1384. عوامل مؤثر بر دانش، نگرش و مهارت گندم‏کاران پیرامون مدیریت آب زراعی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، دانشکده کشاورزی، گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، تهران.

1. Anonymous. 1994. World in transition: the threat to soils. Annual Report, German Advisory Council on Global Change, Bonn, Economica Verlag GmbH.


2. Anonymous. 2002. Soil quality card for Georgia: a locally adapted tool designed by farmers for farmers. United States, Department of Agriculture.


3. Anonymous. 2004. Agricultural database. Agricultural Production, [On-line], Available on WWW: url: http:// faostat.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=Production. Crops. Primary andDomain= Production and servlet= 1andhasbulk=0andversion=extandlanguage=EN


4. Bewket, W. 2006. Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by farmers. Land Use Policy, In Press.


5. Calatrava-Leyva, J., Agustin Franco, J., and Gonzalez-Roa, M. C. 2005. Adoption of soil conservation practices in olive groves: The case of Spanish mountainous areas. 6th International Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists. The Future of Rural Europe in the Global Agri-Food System, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24-27 August.


6. Cramb, R. A., Garcia, J. N. M., Gerrits, R. V., and Saguiguit, G. C. 2001. Soil conservation technologies for smallholder farming systems in the Philippine uplands: a socioeconomic evaluation. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.


7. Friedman, D., Hubbs, M., Tugel, A., Seybold, C., and Sucik, M. 2001. Guidelines for soil quality assessment in conservation planning. United Stated, Department of Agriculture.


8. Hao, X., Chang, C., Conner, R. L., and Bergen, P. 2001. Effect of minimum tillage and crop sequence on crop yield and quality under irrigation in a southern Alberta clay loam soil. Soil and Tillage Research 59: 45-55.


9. Illukpitiya, P., and Gopalakrishnan, C. 2004. Decision-making in soil conservation: application of a behavioral model to potato farmers in Sri Lanka. Land Use Policy 21: 321–331.


10. Kessler, C. A. 2006. Decisive key-factors influencing farm households’ soil and water conservation investments. Applied Geography 26: 40–60.


11. Knowler, D., and Bradshaw, B. 2006. Farmer’s adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 20: 86-95.


12. Kolawole, O. D., and Laogun, E. A. 2005. Between man and his environment: indigenous knowledge approaches to soil fertility conservation amongst farmers in Ekiti State. Nigeria Journal of Human Ecology, Pp. 17 (2): 109-115.


13. Krejcie, R. V., Morgan, D. W. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30: 607-610.


14. Lal, R. 2003. Cropping systems and soil quality. In: Shrestha, A. (ed.), Cropping systems: trend and advances. NY: Food Products Press, Pp. 33-52.


15. Mkanda, F. X. 2002. Contribution by farmer’s survival strategies to soil erosion in the Linthipe river catchments: implications for biodiversity conservation in Lake Malawi/Nyasa. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 1327–1359.


16. Mowo, J. G., Janssen, B. H., Oenema, O., German, L. A., Mrema, J. P., and Shemdoe, R. S. 2006. Soil fertility evaluation and management by small holder farmer communities in northern Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 116: 47–59.


17. Penny, S. A., and Miller, A. 2001. Evaluation of the change in knowledge, attitude, skills, aspiration and practice (KASAP) with regard to soil acidity and its management by farmers in western Australia. Merredin: Agriculture, Western Australia.


18. Poesen, J. W., Verstraeten, G., Soenens, R., and Seynaeve, L. 2001. Soil losses due to harvesting of chicory roots and sugar beet: an underrated geomorphic process? Catena 43: 35–47.


19. Seiter, S., and Campbell, S. 1998. Oregon soil quality cards: farmer-developed conservation tools. Department of Agriculture, United States.


20. Shahroudi, A. A., Ahmadi-Firouzjaie, A., and Chizari, M. 2006. Factors influencing yield and quality of saffron production: a comparative study on the members and non-members of rural production cooperatives in Iran. 2nd International Symposium on Saffron Biology and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, 28-30 October, Pp. 53-60.


21. Urushadze Tengizz, F. 2002. Soil in space and time: realities and challenge for 21^st century. Key book of 17^th WCSS, Thailand.