See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324521634

A Review on Youth Involved in Farming

Article · April 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,383

2 authors, including:

Shireesha Kanduri
Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University
41 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ASPIRATIONS OF PG STUDENTS View project

YOUTH IN FARMING-ANA ANALYSIS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shireesha Kanduri on 14 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

8948
Advances Advances8948-8953,
in Life Sciences 5(20), Print : ISSN 2278-3849, in Life Sciences
20165(20), 2016

REVIEW PAPER
A Review on Youth Involved in Farming
K. SHIREESHA AND P.V. SATHYAGOPAL
Department of Agricultural Extension, SV Agricultural College, Tirupati
email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT urged agricultural professionals to make young farmers as

their fellow travelers in development and refinement of farm
In the present paper, the review pertaining to some profile
technologies.
characteristics, attitude of youth towards farming,
relationship between profile and attitude of youth, In our country youth constitute a numerically
combination of farm enterprises followed by youth in dominant potential, resourceful and also adventurous
segment of the population. More than 50.00 per cent of
farming, perception of youth towards different farm
India’s current population is below the age of 25 years and
enterprises, problems faced and suggestions given by
over 65.00 per cent below the age of 35 years. Majority of
youth in farming were presented in a lucid manner. All the
them live in rural areas. The population in the age group of
above mentioned points were discussed in detail under
15-34 years increased from 351 million in 2001 to 430 million
different subheadings. The review of literature helps to in 2011. Current predictions suggest a steady increase in
know the different situations prevailed and varied attitude the youth population to 464 million by 2021. By 2020, India
dimensions of youth in different areas. set to become the world’s youngest country with 64.00 per
cent of its population in the working age group (Indian
Keywords Profile characteristics, Attitude towards census, 2011)[10].
farming, Perception, Combination of farm It is imperative for the nation to produce food not
enterprises, youth in farming only to feed its one billion+ human population but also for
an equal number of livestock. At this juncture young minds
The farming has played a major role in human history with creativity and achievement motivation seemingly can
and the progress of farming has been a crucial factor in handle impossible tasks such as climate change adaptation
worldwide socio-economic change. History of World & mitigation and enduring malnutrition. Generally youth
farming provides a grand narrative of ten thousand years are willing to adopt new ideas and technologies and
of human ingenuity and a penetrating analysis of the rise therefore they can easily transform the present status of
of farming and its hand maid - civilization itself. In a broad farming. The youth could be the ideal catalyst to change
sense, farming includes cultivation of the soil, growing and the poor image of persons involved in farming, especially
harvesting of crops, breeding and raising of livestock, in the rural communities given their greater possibility to
dairying, and forestry and so on. In modern India, the adapt new ideas, concept and technology which are all
economic contribution of farming to India’s GDP is steadily important to changing the way farming is practiced and
declining with the country’s broad-based economic growth. perceived. Moreover, with the rise in their aspirations, their
Still, farming is demographically the broadest economic exposure to new age media like internet, smart phones,
sector and plays a significant role in the overall socio- television, the rural youth are now looking for a better life
economic fabric of India. and better job. The only way to stop them from leaving the
As per the 4thAdvance Estimates of CSO, food grain villages is by ensuring better economic prospects for them
production is estimated at 253.16 million tonnes for 2015- in farming and improving the quality of life in the rural belt.
16. Production of pulses estimated at 17.33 million tonnes. Given that nearly 35 percent of the country’s
With an annual output of 146.3 million tonnes, India is the population falls under the 15-35 years of age band and
largest producer of milk, accounting for 18.50 per cent of roughly 75 percent of them live in rural areas,
the total world production. It also has the largest bovine disenchantment with farming on such a large scale is
population. India, the second-largest producer of sugar, worrisome. If a majority of population moves to cities, it
accounts for 14 per cent of the global output. It is the sixth- would put a great strain on the already overburdened urban
largest exporter of sugar, accounting for 2.76 per cent of centers. Besides, it would be a huge loss for the farming-
the global exports. (Indian agriculture industry: An based rural economy as the youth possess the greatest
overview, 2016)[11].On the other side, in order to achieve the potential to transform farming into a science- and
targeted growth rate of farming as a whole, still there is a knowledge-based economy.
dire need to bring necessary evolutionary changes in the Attracting and retaining youth in farming is critical
way of farming it is practiced at present and also the farming for Indian farming. Most of the new innovations (both
has to be carefully placed in the hands of productive human technical and institutional) require a skilled agricultural work
resource of young generation. Hon’ble Prime Minister Prime force. For instance, promotion of high value agriculture,
minister of India on 25th  July,  2015,  on  the  occasion  of precision farming, organic cultivation, Hi-Tech horticulture,
Foundation Day of ICAR in Patna called upon the micro-propagation, Integrated Pest Disease & Nutrients
stakeholders of farming to design second green revolution Management, Post Harvest Management, development of
with new vision, dimensions and objectives to address the backward and forward linkages etc, require well trained
challenges in farming in this modern era. In his address, he young farmers with enthusiasm and passion for farming
 SHIREESHA and SATHYAGOPAL, A Review on Youth Involved in Farming 8949

and ability to take risks. The rural youth could be the ideal Naamwintome and Bagson (2013)[17] conveyed that,
target for skill training in these new areas of agricultural majority (88.10%) of the youth in agriculture were married
growth and to do this effectively there is a need to mobilize and the remaining (11.90%) were unmarried.
young farmers. Organised groups of young farmers will be Family Type
useful for introducing new production technologies and
organizing effective input and output markets. Viswanatha et al. (2014b) [31] stated that, 62.85 per cent
The responsibility  of the  youth is  to  carry  forward  the of rural youth belong to nuclear family, followed by 37.15
tradition of farming not only because it is connected with per cent belong to joint family.
the traditions and culture of our country, but also it has the Umunnakwe and Adedamola (2015) [28] explored that,
potential of keeping the economy healthy even at times of 57.90 per cent of rural youth were in joint family and 42.10
recession by all means. Though there are risks like drought per cent of rural youth were in nuclear family.
and cyclones that are completely external factors to limit Farming Experience
the possibility to succeed, we need to consider farming as
an important industry to rely upon even in the modern era Savita (2011)[25] noticed that, more than 70.00 per cent
of industrialization and urbanization. The advantages of of the respondents had medium experience in farming.
modernization include the sophisticated methods which are Among rural male youths, 80.00 per cent had medium farming
also essential in reducing the drudgery and enhancing the experience and among rural female youths, 61.67 per cent
production. of the respondents had medium experience in farming.
Unless we know the attitude of the youth towards Doney et al. (2012)[8] also reported that, nearly half
farming and their socio-psychological, organizational (45.60%) of them had 6-10 years of farming experience,
makeup, their existing farming pattern, problems perceived followed by equal per cent (23.30%) of them had 1-5 years
in farming and their suggestions in farming, it is very difficult and 11-15 years of farming experience. Less than one per
to drive the youth towards farming. Hence the present study cent of them had more than15 years of farming experience.
reveals the above mentioned points with supporting review Farm Size
of literature.
Viswanatha et al. (2014b) [31] revealed that, nearly half
REVIEW OF LITERATURE (45.72%) of the rural youth were having medium land
holding, followed by small land holding (34.28%) and large
Selected profile characteristics of youth in farming
land holding (20.00%).
Age Kimaro et al. (2015)[13] found that, majority (92.00%)
[16]
Lyocks et al. (2013) reported that, more than two- of the respondents owned land and eight per cent of
fifth (44.60%) of the youth were in the age group of 23-27 respondents did not own land. In addition the results
years, followed by (24.00%) of them were in the age group showed that, majority (65.10%) of respondents owned land
of 28-32 years, one-fifth (20.70%) of them were in the age between 0-3 acres, (28.90%) between 4-6 acres, 4.8 per cent
group of 18-22 years, about one-tenth (9.10%) of them were between 7-9 acres and only 1.2 per cent owned more than
33-37 years and very less (1.70%) of them were 38-42 years. 10 acres.
Anamica and Ravichandran (2014) [1] inferred that, Material Possession
more than two-fifth (44.37%) of the rural youth were found Saha et al. (2010)[23] noticed that, though the study
to belong to the second sub group i.e. age category of 21- area was entirely rural based, majority of the farmers (69.58%)
25 years, followed by 40.00 per cent in the third sub group were residing in concrete house, followed by mixed house
(age category of 26-30 years). Only 16.00 per cent of the (30.42%). Regarding farm power, more than half (53.33%) of
respondents belonged to the first sub group i.e. age the farmers did not even prefer to rear a pair of draught
category of 16-20 years. animal because of extreme scarcity of feeds and fodder
Education during lean period, also due to small land holding of the
Viswanatha et al. (2014a)[30] noticed that, 31.66 per farmers, followed by 1 to 2 draught animal (44.17%), 3 to 4
draught animal (0.83%) and 5 to 6 draught animal (1.67%).
cent of rural youth had completed pre university, followed
by high school education (25.00%), middle school education Olaniyi (2013)[20] explored that, more than two-fifth
(18.33%), degree and higher studies (11.66%), primary (43.30%) of the respondents were categorized into average
schooling (10.00%) and only 3.33 per cent were illiterates. socio economic status based on their score while about
one-third (30.10%) and 26.90 per cent were into low and
Umunnakwe and Adedamola (2015)[28] reported that,
high socio economic status categories respectively.
42.50 per cent of the respondents were educated up to high
school, followed by graduation and above (23.50%), middle Annual Income
school (17.80%), primary school (11.30%) and functionally Viswanatha et al. (2014b) [31] expressed that, slightly
literate (4.90%). more than half (51.42%) of the rural youth possessed
Marital Status medium level of income, 28.57 per cent of them had low
level of annual income and 20.01 per cent of them had high
Lyocks et al. (2013)[16] indicated that, majority (73.60%)
level of annual income.
of the youth were married and remaining 26.40 per cent
were single. Kimaro et al. (2015)[13] pointed out that, about one-
third (32.22%) of all respondents who got income from
8950 Advances in Life Sciences 5(20), 2016

agriculture earned between Tanzania shillings 0.5M–1M, Innovativeness

followed by (18.89%) earned between 1.5M-2M, (17.78%) Umunnakwe et al. (2014) [27] found that, two-fifth
earned between 2M-2.5M, (16.67%) earned between 1M-
(42.11%) of the youth had medium innovativeness, followed
1.5M and (14.44%) earned between 2.5M-3M in a by 34.81 per cent had high innovativeness, whereas 23.08
year.(1Tanzania shilling=0.030 Rupee, M=million). per cent of them had low innovativeness.
Exposure to Training Viswanatha et al. (2014b) [31] informed that, more than
Savita (2011)[25] found that, majority (60.83%) of the one-third (37.15%) of rural youth had medium level of
respondents needed training in the subject area of selection innovativeness, followed by 34.28 per cent of rural youth
of seed material. Among rural youth 38.33 per cent of them had high level of innovativeness and 28.57 per cent of rural
most needed training in chemical weed control, 68.33 per youth had low level of innovativeness.
cent were needed training in ‘identification of pests and Scientific Orientation
diseases’.
Deshmukh et al. (2013)[7] found that, majority (60.00%)
Arowolo et al. (2013)[3] observed that, more than two-
of the respondents had medium level of scientific
fifth (44.00%) of the respondents lack exposure to
orientation, followed by low (26.00%) and high (14.00%)
enlightenment programmes on cattle rearing. However, levels.
36.70% of the respondents admitted having been exposed
to awareness or enlightenment programmes organized by Rani (2014)[22] indicated that, majority (61.67%) of the
Oyo State Agricultural Development Programme respondents had medium level of scientific orientation,
(OYSADEP) and supported by the clinical treatment of their followed by high (25.83%) and low (12.50%) level of
animals by the veterinary field station in the area. scientific orientation respectively.

Extension Contact Management orientation

Umunnakwe et al. (2014) [27] witnessed that, nearly Kalyan (2011)[12] noticed that, majority (59.16%) of
two-fifth (38.87%) of the youth had low extension contact, groundnut farmers had medium management orientation,
followed by high (31.98%) and medium extension contact followed by low (21.66%) and high (19.16%) management
(29.15%). orientation.
Viswanatha et al. (2014a) [30] revealed that, less than Ramalakshmi (2012) [21] described that, majority
half 45.00 per cent of rural youth had medium level of (71.67%) of sugarcane farmers had medium management
extension contact, followed by 32.50 per cent of rural youth orientation, followed by high (15.83%) and low (12.50%)
had low level of extension contact and 22.50 per cent of management orientation.
rural youth had high level of extension contact. Achievement Motivation
Mass Media Exposure Hrudayranjan (2013)[9] informed that, more than half
Savita (2011)[25] revealed that, majority (94.17%) of (57.50%) of groundnut farmers had medium level of
the families of rural youth possessed television. About 75.22 achievement motivation, followed by low (30.83%) and high
per cent viewed commercial programmes daily and 20.83 (11.17%) levels achievement motivation.
per cent subscribed news paper, among them 56.00 per cent Anamica and Ravichandran (2014) [1] concluded that,
read about sports. Majority (96.70%) of the rural male youth nearly 75.00 per cent of the rural youth were found to
possessed television, among possessed, 55.00 per cent possess moderate to high levels of achievement motivation.
viewed commercial programmes. Among rural female youth, The remaining one fourth (25.00%) had a low level of
91.67 per cent possessed television in that, 96.00 per cent achievement motivation.
viewed commercial programmes daily. Economic Orientation
Umunnakwe et al. (2014) [27] witnessed that, slightly
Naidu (2012) [18] reported that, nearly two-third
more than two-fifth (41.70%) of the youth had high mass (62.22%) of the respondents had medium level of economic
media exposure, followed by medium (30.77%) and low orientation, followed by high (23.89%) and low (13.89%)
(27.53%) mass media exposure. levels economic orientation.
Decision Making Ability Sriharinarayana (2013)[26] reported that nearly half
[15]
Lad et al. (2012) concluded that, half (50.83%) of (49.17%) of the rice farmers had medium level of economic
the respondents were found in medium decision making orientation, followed by high (34.17%) and low (16.66%)
category, followed by 32.50 per cent in low decision making levels economic orientation.
category, whereas only 16.67 per cent in high decision Risk Orientation
making category.
Anamica and Ravichandran (2014) [1] stated that, about
Anamica and Ravichandran (2014) [1] reported that,
39.38 per cent of rural youth had moderate level of risk
38.13 per cent of the respondents consulted with their family
orientation, followed by 34.37 per cent respondents with
members regarding migration. The remaining 33.13 per cent high level of risk orientation. Further comparison revealed
of them were found to take independent decisions followed that, the fully migrated rural youth possessed a fair moderate
by 28.74 per cent of them who consulted with friends and
risk orientation (42.50%) than the partially migrated ones
neighbours in the decision to migrate.
(35.00%). The partially migrated were also found to possess
 SHIREESHA and SATHYAGOPAL, A Review on Youth Involved in Farming 8951

low level of risk orientation to some extent when compared of innovativeness on involvement in agricultural income
to the fully migrated ones. generating activities. As mass media exposure of rural youth
Viswanatha et al. (2014b) [31] found that, 42.86 per cent increased there was a significant positive influence on their
of rural youth had medium level of risk orientation, followed involvement in agricultural income generating activities.
by 31.43 per cent of rural youth had high level of risk The extension contact was positively related to involvement
orientation and 25.71 per cent of rural youth had low level of rural youth in agricultural income generating activities.
of risk orientation. Viswanatha et al. (2014a) [30] witnessed that,
education, land holding, annual income, mass media
Attitude of Youth towards Farming
utilization, extension participation and innovativeness of
Bahamana et al. (2010)[5] mentioned that, majority rural youth was having positive and significant relationship
(69.40%) of the youth had high attitude towards contract at one per cent level. Family type and risk orientation had
farming, followed by 29.80 per cent with moderate and 0.80 no significant relationship with their aspirations in
per cent with low attitude towards contract farming. agriculture.
Ayanda et al. (2012)[4] noted that, the students ranked Umunnakwe and Adedamola (2015) [28] found that,
high potential of agriculture for self employment as the marital status and family type was found to be positively
most important reason for accepting agriculture as a future related to participation in livelihood activities among rural
means of livelihood with a ranking score of 4.3. Self youth. Their educational level had no significant relationship
sustainability of agriculture was the next uppermost reason with their involvement in livelihood activities.
for the acceptance with a ranking score of 4.2. However, the
use of crude implements and obsolete technology by the Analysis of Different Combinations of Farm
generality of the farmers hindered the growth of the sector Enterprises being Followed by the Youth and their
and worsened the economic situations of the farmers. The Contribution to Net Income
students also stated that, their parents lured them to read Olaniyi (2012)[19] found that, majority (41.30%) of the
agriculture (ranking score of 3.2) as the course offered the urban dwellers participated in vegetable production,
last opportunity to pursue a university degree. Similarly, followed by maize (40.00%), cassava production (23.30%),
agriculture was deemed as having no bright future (with a yam production (18.80%). Very less per cent (7.10% and
ranking score of 1.6) in Nigeria. Respondents also expressed 2.90%) of them participated in production of potatoes and
low interest in agricultural disciplines, with a ranking score cowpea. 16.70 per cent of them had given no response.
of 2.3. They also found that, 46.70 per cent of the urban dwellers
Angaitkar et al. (2013) [2] observed that, majority participated in poultry production, followed by fishery
(61.65%) of the rural youth had favourable attitude, followed (20.80%), goat/sheep rearing (16.70%). Equal per cent each
by 22.50 per cent had unfavourable and 15.83 per cent of (7.90%) of them participated in piggery and snairy. 6.30 per
them had highly favourable attitude towards agriculture as cent of them followed rabbitary and very less per cent (1.7%)
a profession. of them were grass cutters. About 11.7 per cent of them
Anamica and Ravichandran (2014) [1] indicated that, gave no response.
42.50 per cent of the fully migrated youth had less Kimaro et al. (2015)[13] observed that, 32.50 per cent
favourable attitude, followed by moderately favourable of the youth engaged in maize cultivation, followed by
attitude (35.00%) and highly favourable attitude (22.50%) (26.50%) engaged in beans cultivation, (24.70%) engaged
whereas, 33.12 per cent of the partially migrated youth had in vegetable cultivation, (12.00%) engaged in rice cultivation
less favourable attitude, followed by moderately favourable and (4.20%) engaged in groundnuts cultivation.
attitude (39.33%) and highly favourable attitude (27.50%). Umunnakwe and Adedamola (2015) [28] stated that,
They also revealed that, more than three-fourth (77.50%) of 75.71 per cent of rural youth were involved in cereal
the non-migrant rural youth were found to possess a production, 56.28 per cent of them were involved in pulse
moderately favourable to highly favourable attitude towards production, followed by vegetable production (46.15%),
agriculture. Only less than one-fourth (22.50%) of them were milk production (31.98%), oil seed production (29.15%), fruit
found to hold a less favourable attitude towards agriculture. production (24.29%), cash crop production (24.20%), goat
Kitturmath et al. (2014)[14] observed that, majority rearing (14.58%), fish farming (12.15%) and raising plants
(70.83%) of the respondents had favourable attitude, for fruit production (12.15%).
followed by less favourable attitude (15.00%) and the Perception of Youth towards Different Farm Enterprises
remaining 14.17 per cent of them had more favourable
attitude towards rural development activities. Arowolo et al. (2013)[3] indicated that, 35.00 per cent
of the youth felt that, cattle rearing is unattractive, followed
Relationship between Profile Characteristics and by traditionally – operated (32.00%), long-time business
Attitude of Youth towards Farming (20.70%), too labour intensive (6.00%), Low – income
Umunnakwe et al. (2014) [27] reported that, there was a Output (4.00%) and 2.70 per cent of them had given no
significant positive effect of marital status on rural youth response.
involvement in agricultural income generating activities. Sarju et al. (2015)[24] revealed that cent per cent of
There was a significant negative influence of respondents’ farming youth perceived that agricultural income not fulfills
education on rural youth involvement in agricultural income their basic needs. Due to lack of any other income option,
generating activities. There was a significant positive effect majority (92.00%) of them were practicing farming as
8952 Advances in Life Sciences 5(20), 2016

occupation. Majority (85.00%) of them accepted that ‘dislike farmers associations through internet linkages (12.40%) and
to farming as occupation for their children’ followed by Establish farm settlements (5.00%).
‘poor technology transfer regarding agricultural innovation CONCLUSIONS
was the main cause of non adoption’ (73.71%). About 71.43
per cent of them agreed that ‘to leave farming’. More than It could be concluded from the above explained review
one-third (35.71%) of them migrated during lean period of that, irrespective of the region or nation the profile of youth
cop season for search of job. in farming varies to some extent but the problems faced by
the youth in farming are more common in majority of the
Problems as Perceived by the Youth in Farming and places. Different suggestions mentioned by youth are to
their Suggestions to overcome the problems be keenly observed and to be put into action by all the
Problems as Perceived by the Youth in Farming stakeholders of farming community. The youth in farming
must be attentive, courageous to take up innovative farming
Arowolo et al. (2013)[3] stated that, 45.30 per cent of
practices which further indirectly leads to the economic
the youths could not give any reason for their non –
development of the nation.
involvement in cattle rearing. However, the reasons given
by the remaining 54.70 per cent of the youths for their non LITERATURE CITED
participation included (i) inadequacy or non availability of Anamica M, Ravichandran V. 2014. Attitude of rural youth towards
forage or grasses for the cattle (19.30%) (ii) initial capital farming. Madras Agric J.. 101(1):79-86.
affordability is inadequate (15.30%) (iii) veterinary needs Angaitkar AG, Deshmukh AN, Tale SG 2013. Attitude of rural youths
and care (8.00%) (iv) land acquisition problem (7.50%) (v) towards agriculture as a profession. Bioinfolet. 10(3):1006-1007.
problems of pests and diseases and (vi) sales (2.00%). Arowolo OO, Lawal AM, Ogundijo JI 2013. Grass-root youth
Lyocks et al. (2013)[16] identified factors that have involvement in cattle rearing activities in Oyo state, South
hitherto hindered youth participation in agriculture. Most Western Nigeria. J of Agric Ext and Rural Development. 5(5):100-
106.
prominent among these constraints were inadequate
incentives (39.70%). Inadequate training and extension Ayanda IF, Olooto F, Motunrayo A, Abolaji GT, Yusuf OJ, Subair SK.
2012. Perception of Kwara state university agricultural students
services (28.90%) ranked second on the constraint list,
on farming as means of future livelihood. Int J of Agrisci. 2 (11):
followed by inadequate, poor and inefficient infrastructure 1053-1061.
(21.50%) and insufficient land (4.10%). 5.80 per cent of them
Bahamana AS, Jeffery MS, Hayrol A, Jegak U 2010. Acceptance,
quoted other minor problems. attitude and knowledge towards agriculture economic activity
Viswanatha et al. (2014a)[30] revealed that, scarcity of between rural and urban youth: The case of contract farming. J
labour (74.16%), inadequate and untimely supply of of Applied Sci. 10 (19): 2310-2315.
fertilizers and plant protection chemicals (69.16%), lack of Bhanu VL 2006. Study on aspirations of rural youth and their attitude
required finance (67.50%), inadequate and untimely supply towards rural developmental activities in Dharwad district of
of seeds (56.66%) were majority of problems. Half (50.00%) Karnataka state. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis. University of Agriculture
of the rural youth expressed the problem of getting low Sciences, Dharwad.
price for the crop produce, less than half of them had the Deshmukh ND, Wadkar JR, Khodke MV 2013. Impact of farmer
problem of marketing facilities (48.33%), farther distance of field school on knowledge level of cotton growers regarding
improved cultivation practices. The Mysore J of Agric Sci. 47
market (42.50%), lack of transport facilities (42.50%), lack of
(2): 360-367.
irrigation facilities (40.83%), lack of storage facilities
(38.33%) and high cost of production (32.50%). Doney, A.O., Gwary, M.M., Nuhu, H.S and Zhintswen, A.A. 2012.
Assessment of youth involvement in Yam production in Wukari
1.6.2 Suggestions given by the Youth in Farming Local Government Area of Taraba state, Nigeria. Agriculture
Bhanu (2006) [6] revealed that, majority of the and Biology J of North America. 3(8): 311-317.
respondents suggest ‘daily wages have to be given to every Hrudayranjan C. 2013. An exploratory study on scope and importance
individual who participate in the activities’, followed by of farm mechanization in groundnut in Chittoor district of Andhra
‘rural developmental activities have to be taken up during Pradesh. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis. Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural
off season/summer season’ and leaders who are in the front University, Hyderabad.
have to be faithful and true to their sole’ for better Indian Agriculture Industry: An overview. 2016. India Brand Equity
participation of rural youth in rural developmental activities. Foundation
Indian Census 2011. Population enumeration data. Government of
Vaneetha (2006)[29] reported that 33.33 per cent of the
India, Ministry of Home Affairs. India.
farmers opined that farmers are to be trained in the newly
Kalyan VN. Impact analysis of groundnut production technologies
introduced farm equipment and 70.00 per cent of farmers
in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. 2011. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis
needed awareness about the newly introduced farm . Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.
equipment. More than one-third of the farmers (36.00%)
Kimaro PJ, Towo NN, Moshi BH. 2015. Determinants of rural
wanted to know the cost of the equipment, and a little more youth’s participation in agricultural activities: The case of Kahe
than one-fourth of the farmers (20.00 %) suggested that the East Ward in Moshi, Tanzania. International J of Economics,
equipments should be easy to operate. Commerce and Management. 3(2):1-47.
Lyocks et al. (2013)[16] identified that, majority (51.20%) Kitturmath, M.G., Suradkar, D.D., Bharamagoudar, M. V and
of the respondents suggested the establishment of youths Thombre, B. M. 2014. Study of demographic profile and attitude
training and skills acquisition centers followed by, give of rural youth towards rural development activities. Trends in
agricultural loans to youths (31.40%), Promote young Bioscience. 7(11).
 SHIREESHA and SATHYAGOPAL, A Review on Youth Involved in Farming 8953

Lad, A.S., Wattamwar, V.T and Bothikar, G.R. 2012. Correlates of & Kashmir. Indian Res J of Extn Education. 10(2):15-19.
participation of farm women in decision making. Agric Sci Sarju, N., Singh, A.K and Singh, S.R.K. 2015. Perception of farming
Digest. 32(1):52-54. youth towards farming. Indian Research J of Extn Education.
Lyocks JS, Lyocks SWJ, Kagbu JH 2013. Mobilizing youth for 15 (2):105-109.
participation in Nigerian Agricultural Transformation Agenda: Savita, B. 2011. Participation and decision making of rural youth in
A grassroots’ approach. J of Agric Ext. 17 (2): 78-87. agriculture. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis. University of Agricultural
Naamwintome BA, Bagson E 2013. Youth in agriculture: Prospects Sciences, Dharwad.
and challenges in the Sissala area of Ghana. Net J of Agric Sci. Sriharinarayana, N. 2013. Constraint analysis of rice farmers of
1(2):60-68. Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis. Acharya
Naidu BC 2012. Study on farming performance and entrepreneurial N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.
behavior of sugarcane farmers in north coastal zone of Andhra Umunnakwe,V.C., Pyasi, V.K and Pande, A. K. 2014. Factors
Pradesh. Ph.D. Thesis. Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural influencing involvement in agricultural livelihood activities
University, Hyderabad. among rural youth in Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh.
Olaniyi OA 2012. Attitudinal disposition of urban dwellers towards International J of Agric Policy and Res. 2 (8): 288-295.
participation in urban agriculture in Oyo state, Nigeria: Umunnakwe, V.C and Adedamola, O. F.O. 2015. Socio-personal
Implications for sustainable food production. Asian J of Agric correlates of participation in livelihood activities among rural
Res. 6 (1):1-11. youth in Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh. International J of
Olaniyi OA 2013. Construction of a socio economic status scale for Agric Res Innovation and Technology. 5 (1):28-35.
rural youth in Southwest Nigeria. International J of Humanities Vaneetha, K.P. 2006. Utillization behaviour of farm equipment in
and Social Sciences. 3 (9): 233-237. commercial crops. Topical research, Tamil Nadu Agricultural
Ramalakshmi S 2012. Impact analysis of sugarcane production University, Coimbatore.
technologies in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. M.Sc.(Ag.) Viswanatha, H., Manjunatha, B.N and Lakshminarayana, M.T. 2014a.
Thesis. Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad. Aspirations and problems of rural youth practicing agriculture.
Rani SVN 2014. Managerial role of farm women in Chittoor district The Mysore Journal of Agric Sci. 48 (4): 583-588.
of Andhra Pradesh. M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis. Acharya N.G.Ranga Viswanatha H, Manjunatha BN, Lakshminarayana MT, Anand TN
Agricultural University, Hyderabad. 2014b. Participation of rural youth in sericulture. The Mysore J
Saha, D., Akand, A.H and Abdul, H. 2010. Livestock farmers’ of Agric Sci. 48 (2): 251-256.
knowledge about rearing practices in Ganderbal district of Jammu

Received on 06-10-2016 Accepted on 10-10-2016

View publication stats